Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
01/31/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB186 | |
| HB160 | |
| HB347 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 347-MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE 9:53:59 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act relating to mandatory motor vehicle insurance, license suspensions, and notices relating to motor vehicles and driver's licenses." 9:54:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 347, as sponsor. He said it would close a loophole in the law that has caused a number of drivers to be charged for driving without auto insurance when, in fact, they had insurance. He explained that the driver charged, even after showing proof of insurance, must submit paperwork to the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). In at least one case, the DMV did not receive the paperwork and sent the request for it to a noncurrent address. Under current law, a driver can lose his/her license for driving without insurance and can be criminally charged for driving when his/her license is subsequently suspended. The proposed bill would allow a person who really had insurance at the time his/her license was suspended for not having it to use that fact as a defense to a driving without insurance charge. Furthermore, the bill would give the DMV the authority to send the notices that keep getting lost in the mail to the most current address, rather than the one on the driver's license. 9:56:41 AM CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment [1, labeled 24-LS1372\G.2, Luckhaupt, 1/27/06], which read as follows: Page 1, line 1, following "suspensions,": Insert "penalties for operating a motor vehicle while license is canceled, suspended, revoked, or limited, mandatory impoundments of vehicles used in certain offenses," Page 1, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 28.15.291(b) is amended to read: (b) Upon conviction under (a) of this section, the court (1) shall impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment (A) if the person has not been previously convicted, of not less than 10 days with 10 days suspended, including a mandatory condition of probation that the defendant complete not less than 80 hours of community work service; (B) if the person has been previously convicted, of not less than 10 days; (C) if the person's driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license was revoked under circumstances described in AS 28.15.181(c)(1), or if the person was driving in violation of a limited license issued under AS 28.15.201(d) following that revocation, of not less than 20 days with 10 days suspended, and a fine of not less than $500, including a mandatory condition of probation that the defendant complete not less than 80 hours of community work service; (D) if the person's driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license was revoked under circumstances described in AS 28.15.181(c)(2), (3), or (4) or if the person was driving in violation of a limited license issued under AS 28.15.201(d) following that revocation, of not less than 30 days and a fine of not less than $1,000; (2) may impose additional conditions of probation; (3) may not (A) suspend execution of sentence or grant probation except on condition that the person serve a minimum term of imprisonment and perform required community work service as provided in (1) of this subsection; (B) suspend imposition of sentence; (4) shall revoke the person's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license, and the person may not be issued a new license or a limited license nor may the privilege to drive or obtain a license be restored for an additional period of not less than 90 days after the date that the person would have been entitled to restoration of driving privileges; and (5) may order that the motor vehicle that was used in commission of the offense be forfeited under AS 28.35.036 and shall order that the motor vehicle used in the commission of the offense be forfeited under AS 28.35.036 if the person has been previously convicted under this section." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, following line 9: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 5. AS 28.35.036(b) is amended to read: (b) Before forfeiture of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft, the court shall schedule a hearing on the matter and shall notify the state and the convicted person of the time and place set for the hearing. Except for a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft that is required to be forfeited under AS 28.15.291, AS 28.35.030, or 28.35.032, the court may order the forfeiture of the motor vehicle if the court, sitting without a jury, determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the forfeiture of the motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft will serve one or more of the following purposes: (1) deterrence of the convicted person from the commission of future offenses under [AS 28.15.291(b),] AS 28.35.030 [,] or 28.35.032; (2) protection of the safety and welfare of the public; (3) deterrence of other persons who are potential offenders under [AS 28.15.291(b),] AS 28.35.030 [,] or 28.35.032; or (4) expression of public condemnation of the serious or aggravated nature of the convicted person's conduct. * Sec. 6. AS 28.40 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 28.40.080. Impoundment of motor vehicle when arrested for certain offenses. On the arrest of a person for a violation of AS 28.15.291, AS 28.33.030, 28.33.031, AS 28.35.030, or 28.35.032, the motor vehicle used in the commission of the offense shall be impounded. If the motor vehicle is not forfeited, the motor vehicle shall be held for six months, unless the person is acquitted of the offense. The cost of towing and storage of the vehicle is a lien on the vehicle. If another person claims an ownership or security interest in the motor vehicle and establishes that the interest predated the offense and was acquired by the other person in good faith, the vehicle may be released to that other person if the person pays the accrued cost of towing and storage of the vehicle." CHAIR SEATON explained that [Amendment 1] addresses the license suspension portion of the bill by increasing the penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license and requiring mandatory impoundment of a vehicle if the driver operating it has a suspended or revoked license. Upon second offense, he added, [Amendment 1] would require forfeiture of the vehicle. He stated his intention is to "just get this on the table." 9:58:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to [Amendment 1]. 9:58:14 AM CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony. 9:58:23 AM DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, thanked Representative Gara for taking the time to hear the concerns of the division. He said there are instances when the division knows the person has a new address but is required to send the information [to the address on the person's driver's license]. He stated that [HB 347] would help the division get the pertinent information directly to the person. 10:00:00 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock if he is satisfied with the bill as introduced. 10:00:09 AM MR. BANNOCK said he is not familiar with [Amendment 1]. He said he spoke yesterday with the sponsor about some technical issues in [the original bill], and he said he doesn't know if those issues have been addressed. CHAIR SEATON said they have not been addressed. He asked Mr. Bannock if he is comfortable with the intent and structure of the bill. MR. BANNOCK answered in the affirmative. 10:00:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like Mr. Bannock to remain available to answer the committee's questions, and he asked that Mr. Bannock and Representative Gara give any technical amendments to the committee. 10:01:13 AM TRICIA MOEN, testifying on behalf of herself, told the committee that she was pulled over by an Alaska State Trooper last summer for speeding. She gave the officer her license and proof of insurance and was informed that her license had formerly been suspended because she didn't have a special kind of insurance required of "high-risk" drivers. The trooper handed her a summons to appear in court on criminal charges. Her companions were instructed to drive, because her license, technically, was suspended. Ms. Mullen explained that she had been in an accident nine months prior to this event, at which time she gave the officer her [proof of] insurance and was given a "yellow piece of paper to fill out." She said she sent the paperwork in to the [DMV] by facsimile, didn't get a response, and "figured everything was good and ... was over with." She added, "I guess it wasn't. They suspended my license." Ms. Mullen reported that the issue was resolved without her having to appear in court, and her license has been restored to her. However, she said, "It was a pain, to say the least." 10:03:21 AM CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to testify, closed public testimony. 10:03:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said Mr. Bannock had voiced concerns about the issue of the most current address, which is the reason for the language [on page 2, beginning on line 2 through line 9], which read as follows: The department shall provide this notice to the address that appears to be the most current from among the following: (1) the address the department has for the person; (2) the address shown on the citation or police report of the accident; and (3) the address provided to the Department of Revenue in an application for a permanent fund dividend. REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that the address given at the scene of the accident is probably the most current. He said he would leave it up to the committee whether to leave in the language regarding the permanent fund dividend source. 10:05:35 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock to forward his recommendation in writing. 10:06:44 AM MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative Gatto, said he finds the use of the phrase "appear to be" troubling, as it relates to determining the most current address. He said, arguably, the police report would be the most accurate, current, and best available address source, because it would have been done at the scene of the accident. He stated his belief that the ability to use that document is key. 10:08:08 AM MR. BANNOCK, in response to Chair Seaton, specified that he would like the word "citation" to be removed. He explained that when DMV gets a traffic ticket, for example, it does not receive any of the address data pertaining to the citation, whereas it definitely receives address information on Alaska motor vehicle collision reports. 10:08:45 AM CHAIR SEATON pinpointed that Mr. Bannock is proposing something like, "the address shown on the Alaska motor vehicle collision report" and, if that address is unavailable, to use the address "that the department has for the person." MR. BANNOCK responded, "That's very, very, very close sir, yes, sir, thank you." In response to Chair Seaton, he said he would send any technical suggestions for such an amendment to the committee. 10:09:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 1 of the bill, which read as follows: *Section 1. AS 28.05.071 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) A person convicted of a violation of (a) of this section is guilty of an infraction. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 28.05.071 read as follows: Sec. 28.05.071. Change of name or address. A person who has applied for or been issued a certificate, registration, title, license, permit, or other form under this title, and who changes the person's name or moves from the address shown on the records or forms of the Department of Administration or the Department of Public Safety, shall notify the appropriate department in writing of the change in name or address within 30 days. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that since there is currently no penalty set forth in AS 28.05.071, "you go back to the general provisions in Title 28, which are found in AS 28.40.050." He noted that AS 28.40.050(a) read: (a) It is a misdemeanor for a person to violate a provision of this title unless the violation is by this title or other law declared to be a felony or an infraction. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said [Section 1] lowers the penalty from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Regarding what the punishment for an infraction would be, he said that doesn't seem to be written. He directed attention to AS 28.40.050(c), which read: (c) Unless otherwise specified by law a person convicted of a violation of a regulation adopted under this title, or a municipal ordinance regulating vehicles or traffic when the municipal ordinance does not correspond to a provision of this title, is guilty of an infraction and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $300. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Do we need to say something in Title 28 as to what the punishment for this particular new infraction's going to be, or do you go back to Title 12 for that?" 10:11:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said unless Mr. Bannock has a better suggestion he concurs with Representative Gruenberg, and he suggested that the language "with a fine not to exceed $300" should be added to [Section 1, page 1, line 6]. 10:12:25 AM CHAIR SEATON suggested that language be offered at the next bill hearing. CHAIR SEATON, regarding [Amendment 1], told committee members they should be aware that Sections 2-5 of the amendment address the forfeiture of a vehicle "on second offense," and Section 6 deals with impoundment. He also pointed out that the citations in Section 6 relate to statutes on driving under the influence. He said if the committee wishes to have the impoundment apply to both the suspension of a license and driving under the influence, then "we can leave those references in." 10:13:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said a lot of people in his district have problems with getting cars impounded "from very small infractions." He indicated this is hard when a person is poor. [HB 347 was heard and held. Amendment 1, later labeled Amendment 7 at the 2/14/06 House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting, was left pending.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|