Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/18/2004 02:15 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 428 - CIVIL PENALTY: UNDERAGE ALCOHOL PURCHASES Number 0579 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 428, "An Act relating to civil liability for acts related to obtaining alcohol for persons under 21 years of age or for persons under 21 years of age being on licensed premises." Number 0629 REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, indicated that the concept behind HB 428 offers a good example of the community working together to aid law enforcement in enforcing "our alcohol laws." House Bill 428 allows businesses to file a civil action against minors who try to buy alcohol and against adults who buy alcohol for minors. The penalty provided for in HB 428 is $1,000. He noted that what is being proposed in HB 428 is already occurring in Anchorage under a local ordinance; Brown Jug, Inc. ("Brown Jug"), and Chilkoot Charlie's have been making use of this Anchorage ordinance, and this has sparked interest in other parts of the state. He relayed that Brown Jug is willing to waive $700 of the $1,000 penalty if the person agrees to attend alcohol education programs. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER offered his understanding that almost all of the people that have been given the option of paying $1,000 or paying $300 and attending the programs opt for attending the programs and paying the lesser amount. He characterized this as a win-win situation; "it's a win for the community, it's a win for the person who was caught buying for the minor and the minor who tried to buy." Alcohol is the drug of choice amongst Alaska's youth, he remarked, adding that he highly endorses the program encompassed in HB 428 and is proud to bring the legislation forward because it will help deter both minors and adults. CHAIR McGUIRE said she liked the alcohol education option being offered by Brown Jug, surmising that those who've just turned 21 may not realize the seriousness of buying alcohol for minors. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that according to his understanding, there are situations involving teenage girls who unknowingly ask sexual predators to buy them alcohol, and this is why the organization Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) has gotten involved in the training aspect currently taking place in Anchorage. Number 0950 BRENDA SADLER, President, Fairbanks Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said that alcohol consumption by minors continues to be a challenge to the health, safety, and wellbeing of the Fairbanks community. On behalf of the Fairbanks chapter of MADD, she asked [the committee] to support the changes encompassed in HB 428 as a proactive way to halt the purchase of alcoholic beverages for minors. "Please remember ... [that] minors, too, may be behind the wheel when a loved one or [a] friend of yours or mine becomes the victim of a drunk driver," she said in conclusion. Number 1012 CINDY CASHEN, Executive Director, Juneau Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), noted that she would be speaking on behalf of the Juneau and Anchorage chapters of MADD. She said: We support House Bill 428, as we feel it will assist in the prevention of underage drinking. Representative Meyer's bill will provide a tool to Alaska liquor licensees, and empower responsible businesses to participate in community policing. Last year there was a youth risk behavior survey - YRBS - that came out, and 42 schools from 19 districts [participated] in it, and there 2,175 completed questionnaires, grades 9 through 12. And according to the YRBS, ... 38.7 percent of teenagers who completed the survey claimed that they had had at least one drink in the 30 days prior. Over 26 percent claimed that they had consumed five or more drinks within a couple of hours in the 30 days prior to the survey. In comparison, when you compare it to Alaska Adults - of 29.9 percent - that percentage is not that far away from the adults, so the youth are catching up to the adults as far as binge drinking. This [YRBS] showed that Alaska high school students had their first drink of alcohol before the age of 13 - ... 23.2 percent. That is a decrease from 36.7 percent in 1995, so education is having some effect, however, the binge drinking has not changed. This bill would change that because it would [deter] kids who would otherwise try to get someone to buy alcohol for them and it would [deter] those who might consider purchasing alcohol for our teens. Number 1133 LOGAN SPENCER, Youth in Action (YIA), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said that YIA is opposed to teen lifestyles that feature alcohol outside of its legal uses, and believes that any legislation that can help prevent underage purchasing or drinking is good legislation. He urged the committee to pass HB 428 to keep minors safer and empower businesses to police minor alcohol-consumption. In response to questions he said that although underage drinking is becoming less "cool," it is still looked upon as "normal" behavior, particularly for high-school- age kids. He remarked that education programs are effective, but lots of kids like to drink simply because doing so is "against the rules." He opined that HB 428 will be effective because one thing that teenagers don't want to lose is their financial freedom, whereas they sometimes simply look at their minor consuming convictions as "badges of honor." Number 1308 O.C. MADDEN III, Brown Jug, Inc., said that he'd approached Anchorage Assembly member, Anna Fairclough, to get the Anchorage ordinance passed. After its enactment, he said that his organization was able to get together with Akeela, Inc. ("Akeela"), and STAR to create "this diversion program." He went on to say: By using the civil penalty, we're able to take action against the minors and adults involved, and then use that as leverage to get them involved in some treatment programs. One of the things that's really exciting about this is that we've got almost 100 percent response rate from the kids that we've approached with this diversion program. And ... the way it works is, they pay $300 - which goes to ... offset administrative costs and to pay a bonus to the employee - then we will waive $700 [of] the civil penalty, and the minors and the adults involved are required to go through some classes with Akeela - a 16-hour class with them, a (indisc.) - go through a victim impact panel with MADD, and then a class with [STAR]. And we've found this very effective. Number 1428 Over the last couple of years we've made close to 120 arrests of adults purchasing alcohol for minors and minors soliciting adults to buy. I'd say we've been able to identify three primary groups of people that buy alcohol for minors. The first group is the friend or older relative ... of the minor, the second group is public inebriates, and the third group is sex offenders. We have caught a number of kids who approach public inebriates to buy alcohol for them; they'll go find the guy standing on the corner with the "will work for food" sign. And in many cases, these kids have no idea who it is or the criminal history of the person that they're dealing with. It's a very dangerous situation for the kid. And for those reasons (indisc. - paper rustling) education component was very, very important, and we're seeing a great deal of success (indisc.) virtually all the kids are signing up and about 40 percent of the adults, so far, that we've approached have signed up. MR. MADDEN, in response to a question, noted that his organization does have difficulty contacting public inebriates and so is not having any success collecting the penalty from them, but is having success with the adults it is able to get in contact with. In response to further questions, he relayed that one suggestion he's made is to mandate that licensees seize IDs when they know they are fake ID's or when they know that the person attempting to buy alcohol is underage. He pointed out that as long as an ID is not seized for personal use, the seizure of an ID does not expose a licensee, or an employee of a licensee, to liability. He elaborated, "It's legal for us to hold evidence that a crime has been committed in order to turn it over to a law enforcement agency." He relayed that his organization has seized close to 1,000 IDs in the last six years, and these IDs have been turned over to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board"); there have no problems with anyone trying to sue Brown Jug for seizing the IDs. Number 1596 DALE FOX, Executive Director, Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association (CHARR), relayed that "the CHARR group" unanimously supports HB 428, which CHARR believes will deter illegal drinking by underage individuals, and which is exactly what responsible liquor license holders want. In response to a question, he said that CHARR is in favor of people following the law, which currently states that the drinking age is 21. CHAIR McGUIRE posited that this age limitation is intended to not only prevent people from purchasing alcohol before they are 21 but also to prevent them from being exposed to alcohol while they're under 21. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he has no problem with the $1,000 penalty, but noted that only one company is actually assisting people with getting past their alcohol problems. He asked whether all members of CHARR have been surveyed to find out whether any of them will be willing put monies received from these civil actions towards alcohol education programs. MR. FOX indicated that there has been no such survey. He went on to say: But what we have talked about is some guiding principles; the guiding principle of being responsible for your actions is one of the principles that the CHARR board has discussed. And the trend in society for everybody else to be responsible for what you do is one that we don't accept. And this assessment of penalties against the perpetrators - either the ... people that are buying for young people or young people that are trying to take fake IDs and go into a place - puts the responsibility, that is shared by the license holder because there are serious penalties if we sell alcohol to people, puts the penalties where they belong and personal responsibility where it belongs. So this is a vehicle to make that happen. But in terms of what will the 1,800 license holders across the state do with this, I don't know. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Fox whether it is important to him that liquor establishments receive the money, or could the money just be remitted to local municipalities or to the state. Number 1712 MR. FOX said that because the asset that is at risk if a minor buys alcohol is the business license, it seems reasonable that business owners should be rewarded for strengthening their procedures pertaining to catching minors and the adults that buy for them. He mentioned that the CHARR board has not discussed in any detail whether it would matter if HB 428 is amended to have the money go to local municipalities; the CHARR board does not yet have a position on such a change. MR. MADDEN relayed that one of the arrests that was made last year involved a young man buying alcohol for a carload of minors, and although written confessions were obtained from everyone at the time, they ultimately decided to fight the charge. As a result, Brown Jug ended up going to trial, the trial lasted two days, tying up the resources of the state for two days, and the young man ended up paying only $100 fine. That case prompted Brown Jug to approach Ms. Fairclough with the concept that later became the Anchorage ordinance. And although the state has the ability to fine someone up to $5,000 for the crime of buying alcohol for minors, he remarked, he has never seen it done, and opined that outside of the civil penalty, nothing was happening with regard to penalizing people who bought alcohol for minors. MR. MADDEN, in response to a question, offered his belief that a parent cannot be held liable for giving alcohol to his/her child, nor would the parent be liable if his/her child then gave that alcohol to other minors. He said that HB 428 primarily addresses three situations: a minor that solicits an adult to buy alcohol for the minor, an adult that orders or receives alcohol from a licensee for the purpose of giving it to a minor, or "someone who misrepresents the age of someone in order to provide alcohol to them." REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that currently under Alaska law, 50 percent of punitive damages recovered is supposed to be remitted to the state. He offered his belief that HB 428 ought to be altered to say that if a licensee recovers the $1,000 penalty, then the licensee should be obligated to remit 50 percent of that money to the state. "I'm sitting here ... wondering why we would impose this fine and give it all to a liquor establishment, and I can see in the bill that ... it would be your effort to ... prosecute the civil action, but would you have any problem remitting half of the money to the state?" he asked. MR. MADDEN said that such a provision would defeat the purpose of the legislation. He offered his belief that the state currently has the ability collect any fine it feels is necessary. "Our basic goal here is to create an incentive for licensees to actually take these steps, and the more that you restrict that incentive, the less likely some people will be to participate; I don't know that that's a positive step," he remarked. Number 2001 REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that the state can only collect a fine if it goes through all the hoops of a criminal prosecution. The process proposed by the bill involves a very easy civil case, and the state doesn't have the right, currently, to get a simple $1,000 civil fine. He said that because CHARR has not yet spoken to its membership about what licensees will do with the money, he feels that the legislature would be issuing a blank check in a very odd way. "I can't think of another law ... where we would transfer fine money to a liquor establishment," he concluded. MR. MADDEN relayed that AS 04.16.049 does so, in that a minor who illegally enters a licensed premises is liable for a civil penalty of $1,000 to the licensee. He said he'd originally drafted that language for an Anchorage ordinance back in 1998, and Representative Meyer used that language in legislation that became law in 2001. It's an extremely effective tactic for dealing with underage drinking, he remarked, mainly because it is a form of zero-cost law enforcement in that it allows a licensee to pay substantial bonuses to employees who are in turn motivated to learn all they can about how to stop underage drinking in the establishments where they work. Under AS 04.16.049, the only one who is penalized is the person who deliberately breaks the law. "You couldn't ask for a better mechanism to be set in place," he opined. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Fox what CHARR's membership does with the fines its licensees pursue via AS 04.16.049. MR. FOX said he did not know, and pointed out that CHARR members represent only about 360 of Alaska's 1,800 licensees. Number 2096 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that he agrees that requiring 50 percent of the penalty to go to the state would defeat the purpose of the legislation. He asked whether the civil actions under the Anchorage ordinance are being pursued separately, without the knowledge of law enforcement or the criminal justice system. MR. MADDEN said that with regard to fake ID cases, Brown Jug's employees are not authorized to detain the kids with the fake ID's; instead, the employees are trained how to collect information that will allow the company to take action at a later date. In cases where a person is attempting to buy alcohol for minors, security staff that have been highly trained are detaining those individuals until their identity is established and in some cases law enforcement is called in. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised, then, that civil actions pertaining to fake IDs are pursued without any criminal proceedings taking place. MR. MADDEN confirmed this. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that this seems unusual in that the damaged party is the state of Alaska, not the licensee, but it is the licensee that gets to collect the money via civil action. He remarked that he agrees with the bill, however. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that HB 428 is strangely drafted because "there are misplaced modifiers and stuff." He suggested that HB 428 ought to be redrafted to fit the proper legal form of statutes. For example, statutes do not normally use the term, "condition precedent", which is currently located on [page 1, line 13, and page 2, lines 3-4]. Also, the term "by first class mail" ought to be placed in a different location, he remarked, and pointed out that attorney fees are not generally spoken of as a liability, but the language on page 2, lines 8- 10, does so. He also indicated that the term, "emancipated minor" should be defined using standard statutory language rather than how it is currently defined in the bill. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 428. CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that the bill simply contains the wording of the Anchorage ordinance. She indicated a preference for having the bill redrafted using statutory drafting guidelines. Number 2300 SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed that the language in subsection (f) regarding the definition of "emancipated minor" was not a part of the Anchorage ordinance and instead came from the drafter. She agreed to have the drafter review the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that "this" is not that different from something that occurs under federal law: where a government interest has been violated, in some circumstances private people are allowed to bring a suit on behalf of the government and are allowed to keep some of the fine money, but they have to remit a certain portion back to the government. That seems to be what's going on here, he opined, noting that somebody is being rewarded for bringing the action; however, he remarked, he would be a lot more comfortable if the fine is split between the licensee and the state. He said he is considering offering a conceptual amendment to that effect. He asked the sponsor to comment. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that he has concerns about such a change, and opined that the companies that are most vigorously pursuing these civil actions are only keeping $300 of the penalty and waiving the remaining $700. He said he is afraid that such a change would defeat the goal of providing an incentive to licensees. TAPE 04-40, SIDE B Number 2380 MR. MADDEN, in response to a question, offered his belief that only a few establishments are making use of the Anchorage ordinance. MS. CUNNINGHAM relayed that Mr. Madden travels throughout the state providing training to licensees and their employees regarding how to detect fake IDs and how to detect when someone is purchasing alcohol for minors. She explained that [other areas of the state] want to utilize a program similar to the one in Anchorage. She opined that these businesses are being rather generous by keeping only $300 of the $1,000 fine to cover administrative costs. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that the bill currently provides the flexibility to reward the doorman or clerk to take the license. Therefore, he expressed the need to leave all the tools in place. REPRESENTATIVE GARA announced that he is going to vote to pass this legislation out of committee. However, he pointed out that there are a lot of people who perform community work like this for free. He indicated some discomfort with the notion that an industry that makes money in an area that involves some of these ills should be paid. When one enters the business of selling alcohol, which can be quite profitable, one knows there are good and bad impacts on society. He said he was glad that these educational efforts are being undertaken, but again he highlighted that many volunteer such efforts. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to subsection (d), and asked if there is a reason why claims shouldn't be assigned. He explained that he could see that a larger organization such as Brown Jug could do this [program] while a smaller organization wouldn't have the expertise or wherewithal to do it. Therefore, Representative Gruenberg suggested that it might be more efficient to assign the claims, perhaps to a law firm. MR. MADDEN relayed that the language in HB 428 mirrors the shoplifting statute, which allows a retailer to take civil action in a criminal matter against a shoplifter. However, he said he didn't know of a reason why [assigning a claim] would be a problem. Number 2182 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, to delete subsection (d), from page 2, line 7. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that there is a technical problem on page 2, line 10, which only allows attorney fees under Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, but not costs under Rule 79 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, he suggested that there not be a subsection (e) and [that language pertaining to the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure] be placed on line 8 and line 11. Number 2140 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 2, which would insert the following language: "plus costs and [attorney] fees as permitted by the Alaska Civil Rules" and would delete subsection (e) [on page 2, line 10]. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, noting that he relies on Mr. Madden's expertise, inquired as to Mr. Madden's thoughts on the previous amendments, specifically Amendment 1. MR. MADDEN indicated that the amendments are fine. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that Brown Jug offers an alcohol awareness program and if an individual attends it, the fine is reduced. She asked if the language in HB 428 requires that. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented that it's only a policy of Brown Jug. This legislation is written such that an establishment could keep the entire amount of the fine if it so desired. Furthermore, the fine could be given to the employees as an incentive to catch the minors, or could be kept to pay for administrative costs. Representative Meyer opined that most businesses will follow the lead of Brown Jug. Furthermore, he said he believes that MADD, STAR, and Akeela, who provide the education programs, will try to encourage waiving some of the fine in order to place these individuals in the educational programs. He offered his belief that CHARR wants the aforementioned as well. CHAIR McGUIRE turned attention to subsection(a). Number 2002 MR. MADDEN explained that when someone is caught, the individual receives a demand letter specifying that the fine is $1,000. Included in that letter is information regarding the diversion program [option that would reduce the fine], and specifies that the individual has to take advantage of the diversion program option before Brown Jug files suit. The legislation doesn't prohibit offering the diversion program, which he referred to as a free small claims offer. He added that the offenders are signing up for the diversion program because they don't want to go to court. CHAIR McGUIRE asked if Mr. Madden would be comfortable with adding a provision to the legislation specifying that an alcohol awareness program must be offered to offset this criminal penalty. MR. MADDEN answered that he would have an issue with that because if the offenders know that they have to enroll in an alcohol awareness program, there is no incentive. He reiterated that for many offenders, the only reason they enroll in the class is because it's a lot less onerous than the entire process. The $1,000 provides significant leverage to get these offenders to enroll in the diversion program, which is currently a simple matter of the offender enrolling in the program at which point it's turned over to Akeela. CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that she meant adding language specifying that the licensee must offer an alcohol awareness program to offset the fine. The offenders could still accept or deny attending the program, and therefore she didn't see how Mr. Madden's program would change, since the $1,000 fine would remain the "hammer." Chair McGuire expressed concern that there will be more licensees that simply choose to keep the $1,000 rather than offer the alcohol awareness classes, which she characterized as the best part of the legislation. The committee took an at-ease from 5:20 p.m. to 5:21 p.m. Number 1829 MR. MADDEN offered his understanding that the demand letter would have to include an offer for an alcohol treatment program, the cost of which would be borne entirely by the offender. CHAIR McGUIRE agreed that that is what she is suggesting. In response to Mr. Madden, Chair McGuire clarified that she would refer to the program as an alcohol awareness program. REPRESENTATIVE GARA interjected to say that the language should refer to education or treatment. MR. MADDEN asked if a flyer from an alcohol awareness program would meet the requirements. CHAIR McGUIRE answered that such wouldn't be the intent. MR. MADDEN commented that he wouldn't want to do anything that would dissuade a licensee from performing enforcement on this level. Mr. Madden opined that [promoting] being aggressive in preventing alcohol from landing in underage hands is in the best interest of the state and everyone involved, even if the licensee keeps the fine. Mr. Madden highlighted that under the law, it isn't illegal in Alaska to sell alcohol to an adult with a minor in his or her vehicle. Therefore, he reiterated that he wouldn't want to do anything that would take away the incentive to be extra aggressive and vigilant in these situations. Number 1749 CHAIR McGUIRE said that she didn't disagree. She posed a situation, however, in which a 21 year old doesn't realize the seriousness of [purchasing alcohol for a minor]. Under the current legislation, if the 21 year old purchased alcohol for a minor at the Brown Jug, the 21 year old would receive the benefit of a treatment course that could change his or her life. However, if the situation happened at a store that didn't offer a treatment course, the individual would merely pay $1,000 and it may not change his or her life. Chair McGuire said that although she didn't want to do anything that would discourage [enforcement], she felt that perhaps education would help alleviate the ultimate problem. MS. CASHEN stated that MADD supports getting people into treatment. However, it's extremely difficult to get the Juneau licensees to take advantage of the $1,000 civil fine for minors attempting to enter, which she predicted will be the same situation with this. The $1,000 civil fine is an incentive. She opined that for many liquor licensees, "this is what will do it." This legislation isn't treatment legislation, rather it encourages the employees to [be aggressive with enforcement] and deter those who want to purchase alcohol. Furthermore, Ms. Cashen pointed out that many communities don't have alcohol schools. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that subsection (a) deals with the adult who purchases alcohol [for a minor] and subsection (b) deals with the parent of the minor who solicits another person to purchase alcohol. However, the legislation doesn't seem to address the minor. MS. CUNNINGHAM informed the committee that minors don't have the capacity to be sued or have judgments brought against them in a court. Furthermore, Legislative Legal and Research Services staff specified that the Anchorage ordinance was based on the shoplifting statutes, which the drafter looked to [when drafting HB 428]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG highlighted that there are two groups of people involved. There are people who are 18-21 years of age who are adults. There is no reason that those who are 18-21 years old could not face the penalty. However, for those under 18 years of age, Representative Gruenberg said he wasn't aware of anything in law that specifies individuals of that age can't have a civil penalty assessed against them. Therefore, he expressed the need for legal counsel to check into that. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that the statute includes solicitation. She explained that [subsection (a)] specifies that if one attains the age of 18, that 18-year-old can be liable for a civil action of $1,000 if he/she violates any part of AS 04.16.060, which includes a variety of things. The group that doesn't end up paying are those [offenders] who are [under the age of 18]. Number 1419 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proposed Conceptual Amendment 3, which he specified would on page 1, line 6, to delete "who has attained 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor,". However, he said he wasn't sure how that would be drafted. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER reiterated earlier testimony that civil action can't be taken against a minor under the age of 18. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed a situation in which a [minor] driving a car hits another car. He offered his belief that a judgment against that [minor] could be obtained. Although one may or may not be able to collect, if a judgment can be obtained, then a penalty can be assessed against the minor. MS. CUNNINGHAM noted that the drafter had directed her to Rule 17(c) of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected to say that Civil Rule 17(c) has to do with the appointment of a guardian ad litem, which he said has nothing to do with this. In response to Ms. Cunningham, Representative Gruenberg specified that a guardian ad litem doesn't have to be appointed when a minor is sued. He highlighted that Civil Rule 17(c) uses "may" language, and explained that normally if [a minor] is sued, it's done through a next friend. He reiterated that he wasn't aware of any reason in law why a civil penalty can't be assessed against a minor. REPRESENTATIVE GARA commended Brown Jug and Chilkoot Charlie's for what they are doing in this area. However, he said he would be more interested in the legislation if he could hear from CHARR regarding what its other members would do with [the fines collected]. He explained that it would be comforting to know that other members of CHARR would follow the lead of Chilkoot Charlie's and the Brown Jug. MR. MADDEN offered that he believes that as written the legislation would encourage people to take action when they otherwise might not. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed with Ms. Cashen that even if the licensees are doing this merely out of greed, it's a good thing if it stops the alcohol from getting to minors He then reminded the committee of prior legislation dealing with liability for [minors] who vandalized schools. He recalled asking the attorneys in Legislative Legal and Research Services why the [offending minors] couldn't be held responsible for civil penalties. The response was that minors under age 18 couldn't be held responsible unless one goes through criminal court where a judgment could be obtained and the minor held financial liable. Representative Meyer said he isn't sure whether that's what Representative Gruenberg is discussing. Number 1155 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HB 428 would be held over [with Conceptual Amendment 3 pending].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|