Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/22/2005 02:44 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB257 | |
| HB92 | |
| SB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 87 - SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE 3:21:55 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 87, "An Act relating to motor vehicle safety belt violations." [Before the committee was HCS SB 87(STA).] SENATOR CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 87, said the bill changes Alaska's seatbelt law such that a violation would be a primary offense. The current "secondary" law is required for federal funding, he noted, adding that SB 87 simply allows a police officer to stop and ticket a motorist for not wearing a seatbelt. He said testimony from law enforcement indicates that SB 87 will not make a change to police practices. If police want to stop a car, there are any number of reasons that are much more visible than a seatbelt violation, he said - for example, a cracked windshield, snow-obscured license plate, and bad lane changes. He said the fear that the bill will result in more "preemptive" stops is not logical. National Highway Safety Administration data indicates that in other states with this law, the number of stops has not risen, he noted, but seatbelt usage has - by up to 12 percent. About 84 percent of Alaskans currently use seatbelts, and if usage increases to 90 percent, the federal government will give the state $18 million for highway safety [projects], he said. 3:27:13 PM SENATOR BUNDE said that more importantly, the law will save lives, and offered his belief that had this bill passed last year, there would be six or seven Alaskans alive who instead died from lack of seatbelt use. He said he has heard the argument that "I always wear my belt - I just don't want to be told I have to," adding that he has a hard time with that kind of logic. He said he is guilty of having a libertarian streak, except when people feel that it is their own business if they suffer from not wearing their seatbelt. There is a cost to society, including [a rise in] insurance rates and Medicaid rates, he declared, adding that although he supports individual rights, if those rights cost the society, the society has the right to "offer this minor, minor change." There are already primary seatbelt laws for passengers and children under 16 in Alaska now, he added. SENATOR BUNDE said, "We're going from a primary law in some instances to a primary law in all instances." He said he had intended to gather the names of people who suffered due to not wearing a seatbelt, but it was too emotionally difficult. However, he did have a man contact him who said he could use his 19-year-old son as an example of one who would still be alive had he used a seatbelt. Senator Bunde said his bill is really targeted at that age group; data shows that young adults are the most likely to not use a seatbelt. "This is a small trade of individual freedom for a large societal gain," he concluded. 3:33:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if points would be assessed and if one's insurance costs would go up if he/she were ticketed. SENATOR BUNDE said there was a suggestion to cancel insurance for anyone involved in an accident who was not wearing a seatbelt, but such would have resulted in a far more draconian impact on people's rights. He characterized HCS SB 87(STA) as fine-tuned, and concluded by indicating that he is amenable to incorporating a proposed amendment from Representative Gara [which later became known as Amendment 1], labeled 24- LS0457\Y.1, Luckhaupt, 4/21/05, which read: Page 2, following line 7: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec.3. AS 28.05.095 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (f) In a prosecution under (a) of this section, the prosecution must show that the peace officer stopping of detaining the vehicle personally observed the violation of (a) of the section before stopping or detaining the vehicle." 3:35:51 PM CINDY CASHEN, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, after noting that she was recently the executive director of the Juneau Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), acknowledged that there have been claims that MADD has taken grant money to lobby for the bill. This is not true, she said, and explained that MADD has a media campaign called "Click-it or Ticket" under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which funnels money through the Alaska Highway Safety Office. She surmised that it is perhaps through this campaign that the misperception arises. Another second accusation she has heard, she relayed, is that if SB 87 were to become law, MADD would pressure law enforcement to pull people over. "That's ridiculous," she declared. 3:38:19 PM KEVIN E. QUINLAN, Chief, Safety Advocacy Division, Office of Safety Recommendations and Accomplishments, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said the NTSB is the nation's crash investigators, and its view is that SB 87 is the single most important measure that the state could adopt. He said it is very effective, and noted that military installations require seatbelt use. He concluded that the bill will have its greatest impact on the state's youngest drivers. 3:41:33 PM JOAN DIAMOND, Department of Health and Human Services, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), said there is no downside to SB 87. She relayed that she collects data on injuries for her department, and her research shows that the benefit of a seatbelt is that it distributes the force of a collision to the strongest parts of the body - hips, shoulders, and chest. A person's head or chest is less likely to strike the steering wheel or windshield or be thrown out of the vehicle. She said there is a 79 percent use rate, and the goal is to increase it to 91 percent. "We are counting on you to pass the primary law this year," she stated. 3:43:18 PM DON SMITH, Administrator, Highway Safety Office, Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that he is also the governor's representative for highway safety, and asked the committee to imagine an outbreak of a disease in Alaska that killed or maimed 4,500 people. He opined that if this many Alaskans were to die or be hurt from any one disease in a single year, Alaskans would demand a vaccine. He noted that the irony is that "we already have the best vaccine available to reduce the death toll on our highways, and those are seatbelts." He said 101 people died last year in crashes, but 54 would have survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts. 3:44:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there is a statutory definition of highway. MR. SMITH indicated that it includes every roadway that is publicly maintained for vehicular travel. 3:45:32 PM TODD SHARP, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said SB 87 is about saving lives, reducing injuries, and keeping people from being ejected from their vehicles, all of which the Alaska State Troopers support 100 percent, adding that he has seen the proposed amendment and is absolutely comfortable with it. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the bill, via Section 3, repeals [AS 28.05.095(e)], which currently reads: (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer may not stop or detain a motor vehicle to determine compliance with (a) of this section, or issue a citation for a violation of (a) of this section, unless the peace officer has probable cause to stop or detain the motor vehicle other than for a violation of (a) of this section. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the standard of probable cause is going to be reduced. He asked, "When you stop another vehicle right now, under the probable cause law that we have right now, what do you have to visually see?" He said he might offer an amendment to delete Section 3 and leave the standard of probable cause. LIEUTENANT SHARP said an officer would have to see and recognize the violation to make a stop. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether an officer would be able to see the violation. "It seems to me ..., if we pass this law as stated, un-amended, then you really literally could stop any car you wanted to stop." LIEUTENANT SHARP said he doesn't see it that way; an officer has to see and recognize the violation and be able to testify that the violation was witnessed. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he supports [Representative Gara's] proposed amendment. He asked if a person could be cited for a seatbelt violation if he or she was pulled over for another reason. LIEUTENANT SHARP said he could issue a citation; however, he would want to be able to witness that that person was not wearing the seatbelt while the vehicle was being operated. A person could remove a seatbelt after being stopped, he noted. 3:49:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated that he would like to delete Section 3. He opined that the law could be used to stop anybody at any time for any purpose when an officer may be looking for other things. "I'm certainly not here to protect people who are doing wrong things, but it may be just, for example, [that] somebody has a attitude about me and wants to just stop me." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he understands Representative Coghill's concern, but relayed that the sponsor has satisfied him that everything is going to be alright under the bill. The proposed amendment is something that is already implied in the bill, he said, and suggested stating somewhere else in the bill that nothing repeals the legal requirement of probable cause. 3:52:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that is the heart of his question. If someone is stopped, there must be probable cause. "As a primary law, I still think you need to have some reason, and it seems to me that [current law, AS 28.05.095(e),] does that." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a violation will become a moving violation subject "to points." LIEUTENANT SHARP said there are no points for this offense, and offered his belief that it wouldn't be considered a moving violation. 3:54:36 PM LIEUTENANT SHARP said he did not know how it would affect insurance costs. CHAIR McGUIRE said her car insurance company asked her whether she wears her seatbelt. LIEUTENANT SHARP said a passenger could receive a citation. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON pointed out that such is subject to a fine of only $15. 3:56:38 PM SENATOR BUNDE said [AS 28.05.095(e)] makes it a secondary offense, and keeping that provision in statute negates the intent of the bill. He said pilots don't get in an airplane without a seatbelt, and there are many more car crashes than airplane crashes. Seatbelts also keep a driver controlled under extreme maneuvers, he added, which helps prevent accidents. Do it for the kids, he concluded. 3:59:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Amendment 1 would require an officer to see that someone is not wearing a seatbelt before making a stop. It will protect against a citizen telling on someone else who is driving without a seatbelt. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 1, to replace the word "show" with the word "prove". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was amended. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 1, as amended. There being none, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wants to make sure there is a violation before an officer stops a vehicle, and asked if Amendment 1, as amended, did that. SENATOR BUNDE offered his understanding that there must be probable cause in order to bring a prosecution. 4:04:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes to Representative Coghill's question. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he agrees, but it would not hurt to add language to the effect that "nothing in this bill reduces the requirement that an officer have probably cause before they stop a car." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested wording it such that a seatbelt violation is not probable cause for search and seizure; he then he withdrew that suggestion. 4:05:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to say, "Nothing in the bill minimizes the need for establishing probable cause for stopping or detaining a vehicle for a violation." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that that language could be inserted into AS 28.05.095, and indicated that he supports Conceptual Amendment 2. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 2. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. 4:06:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report HCS SB 87(STA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 87(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|