Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/01/2004 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 0388 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final 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 Version 23-LS1292\H, Luckhaupt, 2/23/04, which was adopted as a work draft and amended on 2/27/04; left pending on 2/27/04 was a motion to adopt a third amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 - labeled 23-LS1292\D.1, Luckhaupt, 2/21/04 - which had been amended twice on 2/27/04.] CHAIR McGUIRE noted that new amendments were being distributed to members. Number 0340 The committee took an at-ease from 4:22 p.m. to 4:23 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1], as amended, which, prior to being amended, 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 0332 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that one of the amendments that was made to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1] at the bill's prior hearing involved a title change to include ", ignition interlock devices,". CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that that title change would be conceptual in order to allow the drafters to place the aforementioned language in the most suitable place. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that another amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1] that was adopted on 2/27/04 involved the inclusion of language in AS 28.15.201(d)(3) and (4) that would allow a limited license to be granted for "compelling health or safety reasons". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG went on to note that [these two amendments] that had been made to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1] on 2/27/04 had not been incorporated into the amendment labeled 23-LS1292\H.4, Luckhaupt, 3/1/04, which members now have and which read: Page 1, lines 1 - 2: Delete all material and insert: ""An Act relating to driving while under the influence, to alcohol-related offenses, and to the issuance of limited drivers' licenses; and providing for an effective date."" Page 2, following line 23: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. 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 (A) has not been previously convicted and the court or department requires the person to use an ignition interlock device as described in AS 12.55.102 during the period of the limited license if a provider for the device is located within 100 miles of the residence or domicile of the person; or, (B) has been previously convicted and 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)." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 5, line 29, following "Act": Insert ", except that references to prior convictions include those occurring before the effective date of this Act." CHAIR McGUIRE suggested to Representative Gruenberg that he withdraw [those two amendments] to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1] and offer [them as new amendments] to the amendment labeled 23- LS1292\H.4, Luckhaupt, 3/1/04, which was later referred to as a Amendment 2 [H.4]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his recollection that [those amendments] to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1] had already been adopted and he merely wanted [them] to be included in Amendment 2 [H.4]. He noted that the change regarding "compelling health or safety reasons" would still go to AS 28.15.201(d)(3) and (4) Number 0220 CHAIR McGUIRE moved that the committee rescind its action in adopting the [amendments] to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1] for the purpose of addressing new amendments to Amendment 2 [H.4]. There being no objection, the committee rescinded its action. [Although no further discussion took place regarding adding, ", ignition interlock devices," to the title, and no formal motion was made to amend Amendment 2 [H.4] in this fashion, such a change was incorporated into CSHB 342(JUD).] Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] an amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] such that in AS 28.15.201(d)(3) and (4), after the language pertaining to "livelihood", the words, "or that there are other compelling health or safety reasons that require the issuance of a limited license" would be added. Number 0095 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected for the purpose of discussion. He indicated that he was concerned with how far they would be opening up the door for repeat offenders, and asked whether health problem would be defined. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that at the bill's prior hearing, during discussion of Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1], the issues surrounding his current amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] had already been debated. He reminded members that at that prior meeting, the proposed change now before the committee was adopted to Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1]; he was merely offering the language again in the form of an amendment as a courtesy because the committee now has before it Amendment 2 [H.4]. CHAIR McGUIRE concurred and recapped some of the debate from the bill's prior hearing. REPRESENTATIVE OGG suggested that perhaps Representative Samuels's specific concerns with this language change were not debated at the bill's prior hearing. TAPE 04-32, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that at the time of the original debate on the language change now being considered, the committee had not yet began its discussion regarding first time offenders versus repeat offenders. He said he would not have a problem if the committee would like to limit the application of the language in the amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] to just first time offenders. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that he did not want to allow judges too much discretion to give repeat offenders limited licenses. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, clarified that the committee was now considering whether to adopt an amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] regarding granting limited licenses for compelling health or safety reasons. She asked that any amendments to amendments be conceptual for the purpose of giving the drafter the latitude of inserting them in the appropriate locations. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would consider limiting the application of the amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] to just first time offenders to be a friendly amendment. CHAIR McGUIRE ascertained that such a change to the [conceptual] amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] was acceptable to members; thus the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] would apply only to first time offenders. Number 0181 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection to the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4]. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, confirmed that Amendment 1 to Version H of HB 342 involved the deletion of, "or by the commissioner of administration" from page 2, line 20. [Amendment 1 was adopted on 2/27/04.] She clarified that the committee was now considering Amendment 2 [H.4] in lieu of Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1]. Number 0199 CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that the [conceptual] amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4] was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE OGG turned attention to proposed AS 28.15.201(d)(2)(B) - located in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended - which pertains to repeat offenders. He said he thinks there ought to be a limitation on the number of previous convictions one may have during a certain period of time and still qualify for a limited license under this provision. The committee took an at-ease from 4:35 p.m. to 4:36 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that there are three criteria in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, to consider: "Number one, whether this is a first conviction; number two, whether there is an ignition interlock on the vehicle; and number three, whether the limited license is going to be allowed only for the last 60 days of the suspension." Under current law, there is no provision for ignition interlocks, a limited license may only be granted in instances of a first conviction, and a limited license may only be granted during the final 60 days of a revocation period. He noted that Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, removes the 60-day stipulation and requires a first time offender to use an ignition interlock. He offered his belief that Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, should be altered to allow someone without any prior convictions to get a limited license during the final 60 days without having an ignition interlock. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that under Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, if a person does not have any prior convictions and lives more than 100 miles from a provider of ignition interlock devices, he/she does not have to have an ignition interlock in order to be granted a limited license at anytime during the revocation period. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted, however, that under Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, if a person without previous convictions lives within 100 miles of a ignition interlock provider, he/she will have to have an ignition interlock in order to be granted a limited license. CHAIR McGUIRE offered her understanding that this aspect of Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, was a policy change supported by the committee at the bill's last hearing; the policy change being that "even [on] your first offense, if you lived within 100 miles of a provider of an interlock, we would prefer you to use the interlock." Number 0600 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he might have missed that point during their discussion of Conceptual Amendment 2 [D.1]. He went on to say: I would like to see us retain the current law on a policy basis and for another reason also: because I think there's a denial of equal protection. ... And I suppose a court could say, "There's no denial of equal protection because it's a rational basis: if you can do it, ... the legislature wants you to do it." But ... my gut feeling is that it would not be that simple by the time a court got through with it. [Chair McGuire turned the gavel over to Representative Samuels.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a hypothetical example of someone who lives on Kodiak Island with Homer having the nearest ignition interlock device provider. Although Kodiak Island is technically within 100 miles of Homer, it would be virtually impossible to comply with this provision of Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, he remarked. Therefore, to have to draw a geographical distinction based on just a compass radius could be problematic. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that they would probably have to change the language to "100 road miles" just to avoid that circumstance. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed that that phrase ought to be worked on. He remarked, however, that the underlying issue is that they are changing the law regarding ignition interlock devices such that it will be dependant on what an offender's blood alcohol concentration [BAC] level is. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that his intent regarding his discussion of the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, is to focus on the issue of those offenders who don't have a BAC level over .16. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked, however, that according his understanding, the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, won't apply to those that don't have a BAC level over .16. Number 0766 CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, offered his belief, on behalf of Representative Gatto, that Representative Gruenberg is attempting to address the issue of those individuals that are not required to use an ignition interlock, for example, first time offenders with a BAC level lower than .16. Currently, he opined, those individuals would not be affected by Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, and would thus be precluded from seeking a limited license. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether equal protection clauses apply to privileges in the same way they do to rights. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that they would apply to even a privilege if the distinction is on a geographic basis that is improperly drawn; he noted, however, that "it's not as strict a standard if it's not a right." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pondered whether the issue is one of equal protection or one of equal access. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled in that a [U.S.] Supreme Court case, Shapiro V. Thompson (ph), it was ruled that basing whether or not one could obtain welfare payments on how long one lived in a particular area was a violation of equal protection. REPRESENTATIVE OGG remarked that the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, pertaining to multiple offenders appears to be more lenient because there is no geographical distance limitation. He opined that the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, was put together wrong. MR. RICE said that according to his understanding of Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, the intention is to allow those offenders that are not egregious offenders to pursue a limited license, and that was why the 100-mile distinction was inserted into the provision pertaining to first time offenders and not into the provision pertaining to multiple offenders. Not having the 100- mile distinction in the provision pertaining to multiple offenders is intended to prevent a loophole that would allow multiple offenders in rural areas to obtain a limited license simply because they hadn't access to an ignition interlock provider. Number 1000 REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted that in the provision in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, pertaining to first time offenders, the language in proposed AS 28.15.201(d)(2)(A), does not specifically address those first time offenders that live more than 100 miles from an ignition interlock provider. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that those first time offenders are addressed by implication. REPRESENTATIVE OGG opined that addressing them by implication is not sufficient. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that it is simply a matter of drafting style. REPRESENTATIVE OGG offered his belief that regardless of drafting style, the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, does not clearly state the intent. [Representative Samuels returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that according to his understanding of the drafting manual, the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, sufficiently outlines by implication the intent towards first time offenders living further than 100 miles from an ignition interlock provider. CHAIR McGUIRE opined that the language in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, is clear and comports with the drafting manual. She offered her interpretation of Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended: "If this is your first offense, you can apply to get a [limited] driver's license, but you have to use an interlock device if ... a provider is within 100 miles." She again requested that any amendments to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, be conceptual, and suggested that the committee focus first on the issue of first time offenders. She noted that Representative Gruenberg has expressed concern with how first time offenders will be treated under Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, and that current law says that first time offenders may get a [limited] license, without having to have an interlock device, if they meet certain requirements. In contrast, under Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, a first time offender must have an interlock device if a provider is located within 100 miles. She suggested, as a way of keeping the process moving, that members in opposition to that provision offer a conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, to change the language back to how first time offenders are treated currently. Number 1227 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt a second amendment, which would be conceptual, to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, "To allow a first [time] offender to be given a limited license - as we've stated, for livelihood or compelling health and safety reasons - without an ignition interlock only during the last 60 days the license is revoked; in other words, to keep that as an option as it is in current law." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, offered his understanding that the second amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, when considered in terms of how it will fit into Version H - specifically page 5, line 9 - would only apply to first time offenders who have a BAC limit below .16. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks Representative Gruenberg's interpretation is incorrect. He elaborated: These are two different circumstances. The main part of the bill that Representative Gatto brought to us applies after your conviction, after you're sentenced, after your license is returned to you. After your license is returned to you, if you [have a BAC level that is] high, you have to use an interlock device. [Amendment 2 H.4, as amended,] applies before the period [that] your license revocation expires - this applies if you want your license back early - and so this, therefore, applies to everybody regardless of [their BAC level]. This limited license provision ... says the court is saying to you, "I'm going to give you your license back in advance of when you would otherwise get it back" for work-related reasons or whatever. The [provision in the bill that is based on someone's BAC level] only applies after you get your license back under the normal schedule. [Amendment 2 H.4, as amended] is the early-license provision, so this applies to everybody. And a court, in its discretion, could deny you the early limited license because [your BAC level] is .30, ... but the [BAC] levels don't apply to this early license. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the provisions encompassed in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, do contain sidebars: for example, before the court can grant a limited license, it has to determine that the person won't pose excessive danger to the public; that the license revocation has to be for a misdemeanor conviction; and that the license revocation cannot be for a violation of AS 28.35.032 - refusal to submit to chemical test. Number 1422 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to the second amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended. There being none, the second amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, was adopted. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that the committee next focus on the provisions of [Amendment 2 H.4], as amended, that address offenders with previous convictions. She offered her understanding that as long as an offender with previous convictions meets all the criteria laid out in proposed AS 28.15.201.(d), then he/she may be granted a limited license but only if he/she gets an ignition interlock device. [Following was a brief discussion of the amendments made to Amendment 2 H.4 thus far and the changes that Amendment 2 H.4, as amended, will have to current law.] CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that they remove all reference to the 100-mile stipulation, surmising that doing so would give the courts the discretion of whether or not to require first time offenders to get an ignition interlock in order to get a limited license, but would require that those with prior convictions do have to get an ignition interlock device. REPRESENTATIVE OGG remarked that those with prior convictions appear to be able to gain the same benefits as first time offenders. He opined that there ought to be "a larger step" for those with previous convictions. Number 1871 REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that the provisions in AS 28.15.201(d)(2), located in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, could be altered to work as follows: If we want to delete the 100-mile [stipulation], we say, "If you have not been previously convicted," for the person whose first conviction this is, "in the final 60 days the court has the discretion to give a [limited license] ... without an interlock device." That was Representative Gruenberg's [second] amendment to the amendment. The court also has the discretion to give it to you earlier if -- and the court may order that you have an interlock device, and we're saying the court "may" order that you have an interlock device because you might live in a place where one's not available and we're going to leave it to [the] court to say whether or not you need one. But then, ... for the people with the prior convictions, you have to have an interlock device, and if one's not available, it's just tough, we just don't trust you well enough to let you drive around without an interlock device. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that such would be satisfactory to him. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted again that the courts would then still have the discretion to grant a limited license to a first time offender before the last 60 days of the revocation period without requiring an ignition interlock device. In contrast, a person with previous convictions might be granted a limited license before the last 60 days of a revocation period, but only if he/she gets an ignition interlock device. REPRESENTATIVE OGG suggested also allowing someone with previous convictions to get a limited license without an ignition interlock device but only during the final 60 days of the revocation period. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that doing so would defeat the purpose [of Amendment 2 H.4, as amended] and indicated that he would be opposed to such a change to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, because ignition interlock devices will afford the public an extra measure of safety from those who have been previously convicted. REPRESENTATIVE OGG opined that those with previous convictions should have some period of time wherein they cannot drive. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked Chair McGuire for her interpretation of Representative Gara's suggested changes to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended. Number 2061 CHAIR McGUIRE said she agrees with Representative Gara's suggested changes: It would incorporate Representative Gruenberg's second amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended; it would provide a second tier for first time offenders such that the court would have the discretion to grant a limited license and may or may not require the use of an ignition interlock device; and it would allow the court, if it determines that all other requirements of AS 28.15.201(d) are met, to grant a limited license to those with previous convictions as long as an ignition interlock device is used. Number 2113 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to the phrase, "as described in AS 12.55.102", which is used twice in Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended. He made a motion to amend Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, such that, "as described in AS 12.55.102" is deleted. He then withdrew that motion. Number 2260 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt a third amendment, which would be conceptual, to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, such that Representative Gara's suggestion be incorporated: In addition to including Representative Gruenberg's second amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, it would provide a second tier for first time offenders such that the court would have the discretion to grant a limited license before the last 60 days of a revocation period and may or may not require the use of an ignition interlock device, and it would allow the court, if it determines that all other requirements of AS 28.15.201(d) are met, to grant a limited license to those with previous convictions as long as an ignition interlock device is used. She indicated that this third amendment to Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, would be applicable to proposed AS 28.15.201(d)(2). Number 2278 REPRESENTATIVE OGG objected. [This third amendment to Amendment 2 H.4, as amended, was treated as adopted, and the issue of whether to adopt Amendment 2 H.4, as amended, became the subject of the following roll call vote.] Number 2290 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara, Gruenberg, Anderson, and McGuire voted in favor of Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended. Representatives Samuels, Ogg, and Holm voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 [H.4], as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-3. Number 2350 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 5 line 14-15, after "the person's breath," Delete: "the court shall double the fine imposed under (b)(1) or (n)(1) of this section" Insert: "the court shall increase the fine imposed under (b)(1) or (n)(1) of this section by the lesser of one-third or $500" Page 5 line 21-22, after ""the person's breath," Delete: "the court shall triple the fine imposed under (b)(1) or (n)(1) of this section" Insert: "the court shall increase the fine imposed under (b)(1) or (n)(1) of this section by the lesser of one-half or $1,000" Number 2354 CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that Amendment 3 addresses the provisions in HB 342 related to doubling and tripling fines. He outlined the changes which have recently occurred to the current schedule of fines. TAPE 04-32, SIDE B Number 2393 REPRESENTATIVE GARA went on to detail some of the fines currently in place. Given that the amount someone may be fined varies depending upon aggravators, he said he is having difficulty determining just how much a fine might ultimately wind up being, since the language in HB 342 merely talks about doubling and tripling fines and would therefore be requiring the court to double or triple an indeterminate amount. He said he thinks it improper to double and in some cases triple the fines that are currently in place given that they were only just recently raised to their present levels, which, he opined, are very high. He offered his belief that the courts are already providing for higher fines in cases where there are high BAC levels, and characterized Amendment 3 as a compromise that will provide for a modest increase in fines for such cases. He concluded by recapping the language in Amendment 3, and by relaying that doubling or in some cases tripling a $50,000 fine, for example, seems too extreme to him. MR. RICE surmised that the question of whether to adopt Amendment 3 comes down to a policy call. He opined, however, that the courts would assign a $50,000 fine and triple it only in cases where they realistically thought it could be collected. "It seems fair to assume that the judges would be aware of the fact that the fines that they were assigning could be tripled, and would possibly reduce them as such, but they could not reduce them below the minimums," he added. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said: I'm curious as to why we're doing this, and I think Representative Gara makes a good point. Are we trying to penalize? Are we trying to keep people from doing these egregious acts? Are we trying to maybe just get money for the state? If the reason is to change the fine based upon the ability to pay, I think it's bad public policy because the act has no relationship, in my opinion, [with] whether or not you have an ability to pay .... If you perform an egregious act against society, [the penalty] should have nothing to do with whether you're rich, poor, or indifferent. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that he does not have any problem with raising the fines as a punitive measure, as a way of telling people that if they are going to act in a certain fashion then certain penalties will attach, but he does not want to give the court the discretion to say how much a fine will be based on its perception of whether someone has any assets that can be confiscated. MR. RICE said he was merely trying to allay members' concerns that doubling or tripling fines might pose too large a burden on working families, adding that he believes that the courts will take that sort of thing into account. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he feels that having a BAC level of .08 and having a BAC level of .30 are completely different crimes, and opined that the fines ought to be significantly higher for those individuals who have a higher BAC level because they pose a greater danger. REPRESENTATIVE OGG suggested that the language on page 5, lines 14-15 and 21-22, after "breath," ought to be changed to read, "the minimum fine imposed under (b)(1) or (n)(1) of this section shall be doubled", and, "the minimum fine imposed under (b)(1) or (n)(1) of this section shall be tripled", respectively. He opined that doing so would eliminate any ambiguity regarding the amount of the fines that are to be doubled or tripled, and would still allow the courts the discretion to impose higher fines. Number 2062 REPRESENTATIVE OGG made a motion to adopt the forgoing as a conceptual amendment. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that that motion is out of order because the committee still has before it the question of whether to adopt Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE GARA mentioned that his concern is not about the burden on working families so much as it is about coming up with a fine that reflects the crime, which is [DUI]. A potential $150,000 fine for a [DUI] is just way out of line, he opined, adding that his main concern is whether doubling and tripling fines is [reasonable]. Number 2034 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara, Gruenberg, Anderson, Holm, and McGuire voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Ogg and Samuels voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 5-2. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it will take everyone a certain amount of time to conform to the changes encompassed in HB 342, and suggested that the bill ought to have a different effective date. Number 1939 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, which read: Page 5, line 30: Delete "July 1, 2004" Insert "January 1, 2005" Number 1931 CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. MR. RICE said that Amendment 4 mirrors an amendment provided by the sponsor. Number 1910 CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection and asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 4. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 1908 REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report the proposed CS for HB 342, Version 23-LS1292\H, Luckhaupt, 2/23/04, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 342(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|