Legislature(2001 - 2002)

02/22/2001 01:14 PM House TRA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 4-OMNIBUS DRUNK DRIVING AMENDMENTS                                                                                         
[Contains discussion of HB 172 and HB 39]                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated  that the next order  of business was                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  4,  "An  Act  relating  to  offenses  involving                                                               
operating a  motor vehicle, aircraft,  or watercraft  while under                                                               
the influence  of an alcoholic beverage  or controlled substance;                                                               
relating to implied consent to  take a chemical test; relating to                                                               
registration of motor vehicles;  relating to presumptions arising                                                               
from the  amount of alcohol  in a  person's breath or  blood; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
Number 1074                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   NORMAN  ROKEBERG,   Alaska  State   Legislature,                                                               
sponsor of HB  4, declared that HB 4 would  be the most important                                                               
legislation introduced this  session.  He summarized HB  4 as the                                                               
"omnibus habitual  offender alcohol bill."   The purpose  of this                                                               
legislation  is to  "separate the  habitual  offenders and  those                                                               
people who are  abusing alcohol and get on the  roads and lead to                                                               
the high level of tragic accidents and deaths in this state."                                                                   
Number 1137                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MASEK  made  a   motion  to  adopt  the  proposed                                                               
committee substitute  (CS) for HB  4, version  22-LS0046\P, Ford,                                                               
2/16/01, as  a work draft.   There being no objection,  Version P                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  explained  that  there was  a  rash  of                                                               
unfortunate accidents, starting last  year, which elevated public                                                               
attention.   The general public  recognized that  the legislature                                                               
had not done enough to  separate vehicles from habitual offenders                                                               
and  those abusing  alcohol [while]  driving.   The Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature did increase penalties  for Driving While Intoxicated                                                               
(DWI) in 1995,  by making the third conviction of  a DWI a felony                                                               
and  increasing penalties.   However,  offenders have  not gotten                                                               
the  message.   For this  reason, the  Municipality of  Anchorage                                                               
created a  task force to  look into DWI  issues in order  to make                                                               
recommendations to the local assembly and legislature.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  informed the  committee that  the packet                                                               
they received  contains a  copy of  the Final  Report of  the DUI                                                               
(Driving  Under  the  Influence   of  an  alcoholic  beverage  or                                                               
controlled  substance)  Prevention   Task  Force,  including  its                                                               
recommendations.    He stated  that  [Version  P] incorporates  a                                                               
large  number  of these  recommendations.    He introduced  Janet                                                               
Seitz, staff  to Representative Rokeberg,  who served on  the DUI                                                               
Task Force  along with Denise Henderson,  staff to Representative                                                               
Pete Kott.   This gave  a unique opportunity for  the legislature                                                               
to   be   involved   in  the   public   process   of   developing                                                               
recommendations.   He mentioned that  he would rely on  Ms. Seitz                                                               
for technical interpretations, if needed.                                                                                       
Number 1249                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  stated  that  the  committee's  packets                                                               
contain information that  "we" have been looking at  for the past                                                               
nine  months.   The  packet contains  news articles.that  address                                                               
some of the senseless tragedies from DWI.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that  a large part of Version                                                               
P deals  with changing the term  from "DWI" to "DUI".   There has                                                               
been  some debate  on this  issue.   However, the  DUI Prevention                                                               
Task Force  recommended this change.   This is  appropriate since                                                               
Version P includes adopting the  .08 [blood alcohol concentration                                                               
(BAC)] standard.  He said:                                                                                                      
     Changing  the   name  of  the  offense   because  we're                                                                    
     changing the  standard of the offense,  sends, I think,                                                                    
     a  clear message  to the  public.   I think  it's worth                                                                    
     cutting  down a  few trees  to get  the message  across                                                                    
     that we are  confronting this issue.  We  are taking it                                                                    
     very  seriously.   We want  the public  to be  aware of                                                                    
     ... the fact that we do  not want people that are under                                                                    
     the influence of alcohol  [or] controlled substances to                                                                    
     be driving vehicles on our streets and highways.                                                                           
Number 1316                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  explained that  Version P  increases the                                                               
presumptive   sentence  for   a  first   felony  conviction   for                                                               
manslaughter  [as a  result  of  DUI] from  five  years to  seven                                                               
years.    This  is  a   recommendation  from  the  Department  of                                                               
Corrections.   The  maximum sentence  would not  be more  than 20                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  stated that Version P  mandates that the                                                               
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)  refuse to register a vehicle if                                                               
the applicant does  not have a valid driver's license.   The bill                                                               
provides  procedures  to follow  up  on  this.   This  bill  also                                                               
requires that one's  name on a driver's  license and registration                                                               
be consistent  with the full  name of the  applicant.  This  is a                                                               
small  detail,  but currently  it  is  impossible to  cross-match                                                               
one's  driver's license  with one's  registration because  of the                                                               
way the names are in the DMV  databases.  The only solution is to                                                               
obtain new databases.   This [provision in Version P]  would be a                                                               
"quick fix"  until the new  databases are in place,  hopefully in                                                               
the next few years.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG described another  aspect of Version P as                                                               
changing the  grounds which  a law  enforcement officer  can stop                                                               
and arrest someone.  House  Bill 4 repeals the phrase "reasonable                                                               
grounds" and replaces it with "probable cause grounds".                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG said  that  Version  P further  mandates                                                               
anyone who is  convicted of a DUI offense in  court to notify the                                                               
DMV at  the end of the  following business day.   Right now, this                                                               
can  take   up  to  60   days  due   to  a  lack   of  electronic                                                               
infrastructure in the state and court.   Version P would have the                                                               
court report  to the DMV that  there is supposed to  be a license                                                               
identification and/or suspension.                                                                                               
Number 1479                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG named  the major  provision and  perhaps                                                               
somewhat more controversial  part of the bill as  the adoption of                                                               
the .08  BAC (Blood  Alcohol Concentration)  standard.   The bill                                                               
establishes that  the minimum license revocation  period would be                                                               
not  less than  45 days  if the  person has  not been  previously                                                               
convicted, and  if the court  has suspended the execution  of the                                                               
sentence under the .08 diversion program.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  stated  that Version  P  mandates  that                                                               
anyone  receiving a  limited driver's  license  [following a  DUI                                                               
conviction or refusal  to take a breath test]  shall only operate                                                               
vehicles equipped with an ignition  interlock device.  This was a                                                               
recommendation of the Task Force.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  specified  that Version  P  requires  a                                                               
person who loses his or her  driver's license [for DUI or refusal                                                               
to  take   a  breath  test]   to  meet  the   alcohol  screening,                                                               
evaluation, program,  [and referral] requirements  as established                                                               
by  the Department  of Health  and  Social Services.   A  limited                                                               
driver's license  may be granted  in the  final 30 days  in which                                                               
the license is revoked, if certain provisions are met.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that  this bill changes some of                                                               
the provisions [for reinstatement  of licenses] and tightens them                                                               
up.   A  person [whose  driver's  license has  been revoked]  may                                                               
apply  for  a  driver's  license  at  the  end  of  a  period  of                                                               
revocation or  limitation.  However,  that person must  submit to                                                               
re-examination, pay  all required fees including  a reinstatement                                                               
fee,  and  show  proof  that  he  or  she  has  met  the  alcohol                                                               
screening,  evaluation, referral  and program  requirements.   In                                                               
short, provisions were tightened and fees were raised.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG   stated  that   the  bill   raises  the                                                               
reinstatement fees  for driver's  licenses [if revocation  is due                                                               
to  DUI].   The  first  time someone  is  convicted  of DUI,  the                                                               
reinstatement fee  for a revoked  driver's license will  be $200.                                                               
If a  person's license has  been revoked  two or more  times, the                                                               
reinstatement fee will be $500.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that  the bill  "tightens up"                                                               
the "enabler" statute, meaning somebody  who "enables a driver to                                                               
drive  a  car."   Currently  this  is considered  a  misdemeanor.                                                               
However, this bill  is increasing the fine if  someone is charged                                                               
with being an enabler more than once.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  explained  that  DUI  includes  driving                                                               
(indisc.) [an]  aircraft or watercraft while  under the influence                                                               
of an alcoholic beverage or [controlled substance].                                                                             
Number 1588                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG reiterated  that  a  major component  of                                                               
this bill  is that it lowers  the BAC to .08,  which is supported                                                               
by the  Task Force and  administration.   He said that  the House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing Committee  has  had a  hearing  on the  "road                                                               
appropriation situation"  that revolves around the  .08 adoption,                                                               
which   might   interest   the  House   Transportation   Standing                                                               
Committee.  The State of  Alaska, because of the federal mandate,                                                               
stands to  lose substantial monies in  the future if the  .08 BAC                                                               
is not adopted.  He believes  that this would take effect, in the                                                               
loss of $3.5  million in the first year, which  would affect "us"                                                               
in FY 03.  He said he believes  that [the state] is in a position                                                               
to lose  money from the transportation  allocations from Congress                                                               
in two years, if .08[BAC] is not adopted.                                                                                       
Number 1655                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG stated  that  if provisions  in the  law                                                               
that meet federal standards for  additional alcohol education and                                                               
transportation  programs   are  adopted,  there   are  additional                                                               
monies,  up  to  $800,000,  that  can be  obtained  for  some  of                                                               
[Alaska's] alcohol programs.  He  mentioned that this might be an                                                               
area of interest to the House Transportation Standing Committee.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG informed  the committee  that there  are                                                               
provisions if the state chooses to  delay the adoption of the .08                                                               
[BAC] standard.  He said it  was his understanding that up to the                                                               
year  2007, "we  could recapture  the capital  dollars that  were                                                               
gone earlier," creating a phase-in period.  He said:                                                                            
     Inasmuch  as we  were adopting  a whole  new scheme  of                                                                    
     dealing with the  use of alcohol and  driving, it would                                                                    
     seem to  be most appropriate  to pick up the  .08 [BAC]                                                                    
     issue and  integrate it  into a  new scheme  because of                                                                    
     graduated penalties and trying to  make sense out of it                                                                    
     at  this time,  rather than  delaying it.   But  that's                                                                    
     certainly  a policy  call that  the legislature  has to                                                                    
     make.   But I would  just point  out that where  in the                                                                    
     past I have  been known to oppose .08  [BAC], I [would]                                                                    
     just like to  take legislative notice that I  put it in                                                                    
     this bill.                                                                                                                 
Number 1748                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  stated that the first  offense under the                                                               
.08 BAC standard  would still remain a class A  misdemeanor.  The                                                               
fine would  be increased  to $500  from $200.   [Version  P] also                                                               
establishes a  diversionary program  for those  whose BAC  is .08                                                               
but not more  than .01.  Therefore, for the  20 percent of people                                                               
whose BAC  that "we're  rolling the threshold  for," this  has an                                                               
"offsetting opportunity" for someone who  is arrested.  But there                                                               
have  to be  no aggravating  factors in  the person's  situation.                                                               
The diversion program  is for those who "happen to  be caught for                                                               
driving with  that modest  amount of  decreased impairment."   He                                                               
     The court  shall suspend execution  of the  current 72-                                                                    
     hour  consecutive  sentence  upon  condition  that  the                                                                    
     person successfully  completes a one-year  probation of                                                                    
     no  traffic-  or  alcohol-related  offenses,  completes                                                                    
     treatment   requirements,   pays   for  the   cost   of                                                                    
     treatment,  performs three  days of  community service,                                                                    
     and pays  the increased  fines for the  court.   If not                                                                    
     satisfactorily  ...completed,  the imprisoned  sentence                                                                    
     is served.                                                                                                                 
Number 1800                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG   stated  that  if  the   BAC  level  on                                                               
someone's  first  offense  was  .10 or  higher,  the  fine  would                                                               
increase to $1,500 from $250.   The fine for a second misdemeanor                                                               
offense is  raised to $3,000  from $500, with a  minimum sentence                                                               
of not less than 30 days, or not  less than 20 days if the person                                                               
performs 10  days of community  service.   But, if someone  has a                                                               
second misdemeanor and his or her  BAC is .16 or over, the person                                                               
will receive  an additional six-month imprisonment  plus a 30-day                                                               
residential treatment  program.  So, if  someone is substantially                                                               
drunk and  has a BAC  of .16 [or  over], he  or she will  serve a                                                               
substantially longer term.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG remarked  that the  largest fiscal  note                                                               
for this bill  is the part dealing with  aggravators "because the                                                               
aggravators  that  are  in  the  bill  go  through  almost  every                                                               
incidence  of arrest  in  this area."   The  total  cost of  this                                                               
fiscal note  is $24 million.   He said  that the chances  of this                                                               
aggravator portion  of the bill "surviving"  is greatly decreased                                                               
due  to   this  fiscal  note   designed  by  the   Department  of                                                               
Corrections.   He said that he  wanted to bring this  fiscal note                                                               
to  the committee's  attention in  case they  saw something  that                                                               
would  relate   to  aggravators   or  the   aggravated  provision                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  explained that  this bill  requires that                                                               
the past  history treatment of  the defendant be provided  to the                                                               
court, prosecutor, defendant, and  agency involved in the current                                                               
treatment.   A problem in treatment  elements is that at  times a                                                               
court may impose certain treatments.   However, if the person has                                                               
any  history of  alcohol treatment  that  has not  worked in  the                                                               
past, for example, the law  should require the information.  This                                                               
should be done before adjudication  is made about what "treatment                                                               
regime" or direction is given to the accused.                                                                                   
Number 1911                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that  the Department of Health                                                               
and  Social Services  would  establish  standards for  clinically                                                               
appropriate treatment.  These standards  must include alcohol and                                                               
drug  treatment, anger  management  counseling, parent  training,                                                               
and domestic  violence prevention.   This treatment  would occur,                                                               
as  much as  possible, while  the person  was incarcerated.   The                                                               
offender would be  required to pay up to $2,000  to the state for                                                               
reimbursement   of   treatment.     The   court   would   include                                                               
reimbursement  of  treatment  costs  as part  of  the  offender's                                                               
sentence.   If the  person is indigent,  only the  permanent fund                                                               
dividend can  be used to reimburse  for treatment.  In  all other                                                               
cases,   the  permanent   fund   dividend  may   be  sought   for                                                               
reimbursement and cost  of treatment.  But this  does not include                                                               
cost incurred  as a result  of treatment, not required  under the                                                               
treatment standards.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG stated  that preliminary  information he                                                               
has  concerning  the wellness  program  in  Anchorage shows  that                                                               
there are  a number of  different treatment options  put forward,                                                               
most  of  which  are  at  outpatient  treatment  levels.    These                                                               
programs cost  between the  $2,000 to  $3,000 range.   Therefore,                                                               
"we"  are looking  at  trying  to recruit  (indisc.)  as much  as                                                               
possible from  the person  that requires  a service,  even though                                                               
there  are   other  treatment  programs   that  would   cost  the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that  the cost of imprisonment,                                                               
up to $2,000, is required to be  paid by the prisoner.  The court                                                               
shall include the costs of  imprisonment as part of the judgment.                                                               
The  permanent fund  dividend  requirement is  the  same as  [for                                                               
reimbursement of treatment].   An appropriate place  for a person                                                               
receiving  certain  imprisonment  does  not  mean  a  residential                                                               
treatment facility or hospital.                                                                                                 
Number 1993                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that there  is case law in Alaska,                                                               
called the  Nygren Credit Law,  that says if the  offender avails                                                               
himself  or herself  of treatment,  he or  she will  receive good                                                               
time  credit  for  the  sentence while  in  [treatment].    These                                                               
[treatment  and   imprisonment  provisions]  prohibit   this,  in                                                               
certain instances,  because many people are  "gaming the system."                                                               
For example, he  said, if someone gets "busted" for  DWI, and his                                                               
or her attorney  says "Go down and pay for  a treatment program,"                                                               
by  the time  the offender  gets to  the arraignment,  he or  she                                                               
might have  enough Ngyren credit  to "walk."   So, it  is "gaming                                                               
the system" if someone has money,  proper counsel, and is able to                                                               
do it.   He said,  "We want to  be able to  cut that off  and not                                                               
allow people to use the system for their own benefit."                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said  that the bill phases  in a ten-year                                                               
"look-back" period.   Currently,  there is a  five-year look-back                                                               
period.  He said  that at first "we" tried to  repeal both of the                                                               
look-back periods, but  the fiscal notes went  "right through the                                                               
roof."    This  means  that  if someone  was  to  incur  two  DWI                                                               
convictions within a five-year period,  and at the sixth year the                                                               
person had a third conviction,  the person would be starting over                                                               
[the  first   two  DWI  convictions   would  not   count]  again.                                                               
Therefore, the courts  would not look at this person  as having a                                                               
class C  felony.  But, if  one had three convictions  within five                                                               
years, that  person would be  guilty of a class  C felony.   So a                                                               
[five-year look-back period] is incongruous.  He said:                                                                          
       If you get your third "bust" at five years and one                                                                       
      day, you got a lesser sentence than the person that                                                                       
        got picked up the day before [the five-year look-                                                                       
     back], who is a felon because of that.                                                                                     
Number 2072                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG reiterated  that this  bill repeals  the                                                               
five-year look-back  period, and institutes a  ten-year look-back                                                               
period that has similar rules.   "We" are trying to phase this in                                                               
to  attempt to  minimize  the impacts  due to  the  law that  was                                                               
passed in  1995 [the third  DWI conviction becomes a  felony, and                                                               
increase of penalties].   This was a major  recommendation of the                                                               
Task Force.  It also allowed  people to be in the system, whereas                                                               
otherwise they might  delay court hearings or say,  "You stood me                                                               
up on  that."   "We" need to  get away from  that.   The ten-year                                                               
look-back period  makes the third  offense increase to a  class C                                                               
felony.  The fine for this is doubled to $10,000 from $5,000.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out  that the minimum sentence of                                                               
imprisonment increases  from 120 days  to 240 days if  the person                                                               
has  been  previously  convicted  twice.   If  the  offender  was                                                               
previously convicted three times,  the imprisonment goes from 240                                                               
days to  480 days.  If  the person has been  previously convicted                                                               
four or  more times, the imprisonment  goes from 360 days  to two                                                               
years.     This  is   one  of  the   larger  costs   because  the                                                               
incarceration  time served  by  multiple  offenders is  basically                                                               
Number 2170                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained  that in the case  of a felony,                                                               
the court is to permanently  revoke the driver's license, subject                                                               
to certain instances  that are laid out in the  bill.  Watercraft                                                               
is also  added to  the list of  what must be  forfeited if  it is                                                               
used  in the  offense.    He pointed  out  that  this bill  names                                                               
forfeiture  as a  mandate, not  a discretionary  element for  the                                                               
judge.  This has given the  Department of Public Safety "a little                                                               
bit of  heartburn" because  of some  of the  problems.   He noted                                                               
that  the municipalities  of Anchorage  and  Fairbanks have  full                                                               
forfeiture at  the second  offense level.   The fiscal  note from                                                               
the  Department  of Public  Safety  has  provisions of  cost  for                                                               
Anchorage and  Fairbanks.  He  said, "One of the  philosophies of                                                               
this legislation is  to remove that habitual  offender from their                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further explained  that the bill requires                                                               
the court  to order the  surrender of registration plates  by the                                                               
owner or co-owner by the close of  the next business day.  If not                                                               
surrendered, any  co-owner may not re-register  the vehicle until                                                               
such time that  is proved to the department, that  the person did                                                               
not  know the  plates  needed  to be  surrendered  and twice  the                                                               
registration fee has been paid.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG pointed  out that  another provision  in                                                               
this  bill, the  Implied  Consent Statute,  was  not intended  to                                                               
prevent  police  search  warrants.    A  search  warrant  can  be                                                               
obtained when it is necessary to  draw blood [from a person].  In                                                               
other  words,  the impairment  standard  will  decrease from  the                                                               
current .05  to .04 [BAC].   Currently, there  is a law  that one                                                               
can  be charged  with Driving  While Impaired  at .05  [BAC].   A                                                               
recommendation  of  the  Task  Force   is  that  there  is  clear                                                               
notification of  a person's  right to an  independent test.   So,                                                               
for the  BAC test, a person  can ask for an  independent test and                                                               
get it.  The bill also  adds a new section that authorizes police                                                               
to obtain a  blood sample when exigent  circumstances prevent the                                                               
police from administrating a breath test.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  said in coordination with  supreme court                                                               
and  appellate court  rulings in  the state  of Alaska,  the bill                                                               
also establishes a repeat offender  status system, effective July                                                               
1,  2002.   This  would  consist  of  a  database that  would  be                                                               
accessible  to the  public for  the purpose  of determining  if a                                                               
person is  prohibited by  law from registering  a vehicle.   This                                                               
would put the onus on new  dealers, not the secondary market.  It                                                               
would  also put  the responsibility  on  the people  at the  DMV,                                                               
where there  will be a  "denial of  registration."  In  short, if                                                               
someone has a revocation and  is a habitual offender, that person                                                               
will  be on  the register.   It  is similar  to the  sex offender                                                               
registry, but  this one should  be a  lot simpler and  cheaper to                                                               
operate.   He  went on  to say  that the  effective date  of this                                                               
legislation [HB 4] is July 1, 2001.                                                                                             
Number 2293                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  remarked that  there are  other elements                                                               
that he  would consider part  of the  whole package that  will be                                                               
before the legislature this year.   He believes the "crown jewel"                                                               
of that legislation is the wellness  court or a pilot program [HB
172] that  would replace  Judge Wabanaker  or be  in coordination                                                               
with  Judge Wanamaker's  district court  activities, in  which he                                                               
prescribes  naltrexone, a  drug that  inhibits people's  cravings                                                               
for alcohol.   This  has been  working effectively  in Anchorage,                                                               
where  a  new wellness  court  concept  will be  introduced  with                                                               
appropriate  support  and staffing,  and  a  large allocation  of                                                               
monies for treatment programs as well as wellness courts.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG declared  that his  intention with  this                                                               
particular bill, which  he is working on it with  the Speaker [of                                                               
the House],  is to provide  a diversionary program at  the third-                                                               
offense level,  without aggravators.   This program would  be for                                                               
someone  who was  arrested for  the third  time, facing  a felony                                                               
offense.  This  offender can go into a wellness  court program in                                                               
which he  or she spends  a year  to a year  and a half  under the                                                               
court's treatment  and regime.   He  said that  he has  been very                                                               
impressed  by  what he  has  witnessed  and researched  regarding                                                               
wellness  courts.    He  mentioned  that  he  spent  last  Friday                                                               
afternoon observing Judge  Wanamaker's courtroom.  He  also had a                                                               
work session  with members of  the court and various  branches of                                                               
state  government.   The  court  uses  various methods  including                                                               
house   arrest,  electronic   monitoring,  and   group  programs,                                                               
including the  NOW (ph)  Program.  This  program, which  is being                                                               
operated for free by  a man who will be getting  a grant for $200                                                               
a month,  consists of naltrexone users.   It's a kind  of "nickel                                                               
and dime way" that the courts can put together.  He said:                                                                       
     I  think it's  time for  the  state to  throw its  full                                                                    
     resources  behind  that  door   as  well  as  establish                                                                    
     additional pilot  programs in  ... the Bethel  area, or                                                                    
     another  rural  area,  to  help  with  the  significant                                                                    
     problems of  alcohol abuse  and so  forth in  the rural                                                                    
     areas of  the state.   I  think that  bill is  going to                                                                    
     have a hefty price tag, but  I think we can bring it in                                                                    
     at a reasonable figure.                                                                                                    
Number 2400                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  remarked that House Bill  39, which came                                                               
before the House Transportation  Standing Committee, was unfairly                                                               
criticized  in   the  press,  because  there   had  already  been                                                               
agreements about  which bills would  carry what legislation.   He                                                               
said  that   Representative  Kott's   bill  had   some  important                                                               
elements, including the ones relating  to mandatory insurance and                                                               
other provisions.   In  short, many of  the provisions  that were                                                               
taken out  of the original HB  39 are now in  HB 4.  He  said, "I                                                               
think  Representative  Kott   was  unfairly  characterized  about                                                               
limiting the  will of this  legislature and people in  the state,                                                               
in terms of punishing these defendants."                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG summarized  by  saying there  will be  a                                                               
minimum  of  three  or  four bills  [pertaining  to  alcohol  and                                                               
driving].   He  mentioned that  Representative Green  has a  bill                                                               
concerning  IDs  and  driver's   licenses,  which  deserves  some                                                               
TAPE 01-13 SIDE B                                                                                                               
Number 2462                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN stated  that  are a  couple  of issues  that                                                               
stand out  for him in  HB 4: DUI  versus DWI, and  probable cause                                                               
versus  reasonable grounds.   He  said it  seems that  anyone who                                                               
consumes an  alcoholic beverage and drives,  whether legally past                                                               
the  limit or  not,  is driving  under the  influence.   This  is                                                               
because any  amount of alcohol, [even]  one beer or one  glass of                                                               
wine,  depending  on the  person  and  tolerance level,  somewhat                                                               
influences a person's ability to drive.   He asked if this [HB 4]                                                               
gives any kind of legal change.  He explained:                                                                                  
     We  are giving  probable cause  to the  police to  stop                                                                    
     anybody  that  might  have  come  out  of  a  bar,  for                                                                    
     example,  because  if they  come  out  of a  bar,  it's                                                                    
     probably probable  cause, and if  they get in  the car,                                                                    
     they're  probably   going  to  be  driving   under  the                                                                    
     influence, whether  or not that's a  legal influence or                                                                    
     not.  I'm a little worried about that.                                                                                     
He asked  Representative Rokeberg to  explain what the  change in                                                               
the standard  of proof  in the bill  is regarding  probable cause                                                               
versus reasonable grounds.                                                                                                      
Number 2405                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  replied  that  "probable  cause  versus                                                               
reasonable  grounds" is  an interesting  legal question.   It  is                                                               
case  law  in  Alaska  that reasonable  grounds  equals  probable                                                               
cause.    The  reason  for  changing  the  statute  is  that  law                                                               
enforcement- in  particular, the Anchorage Police  Department who                                                               
are on the front line enforcing  this law- says the statute needs                                                               
to  be changed.   Constitutionally,  probable cause  is a  higher                                                               
standard than reasonable grounds, but  not in Alaska, because the                                                               
courts  have declared  them equal.   Therefore,  it is  better to                                                               
have the  probable cause standard  in the statute.   He suggested                                                               
that  Mr. Guaneli  from the  Department  of Law  or someone  else                                                               
could explain this in greater depth.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  stated that  in  response  to the  name                                                               
change  [DWI to  DUI], Mr.  Guaneli had  mentioned that  he could                                                               
remember at  least three  names under  Alaska Statute  that dealt                                                               
with  drinking and  driving.   These included  OMVI (Operating  a                                                               
Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated.)   So, changing the name has had                                                               
a bit of tradition  in this state.  In short, it  [DWI to DUI] is                                                               
a  nomenclature change.    He reiterated  that  this makes  sense                                                               
since the rationale  behind it is that "we" are  lowering the BAC                                                               
standard from  .10 to .08.   "We" want to educate  people and let                                                               
them know  that "there is a  new standard and we're  calling it a                                                               
new  crime  ...  because it  is  a  new  crime  in terms  of  our                                                               
Number 2290                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   KAPSNER   applauded   Representative   Rokeberg,                                                               
members  of the  Task Force,  and  citizens for  their effort  in                                                               
bringing this  up.  She  said this is  a very worthy  cause, but,                                                               
expressed  curiosity about  some of  the mechanics  of the  bill.                                                               
She asked  what exigent  circumstances would  be needed  to allow                                                               
police to obtain a blood test for evidence.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG said  "a  broken breathalyzer  machine,"                                                               
which was  cited in  Sosa v.  State, Alaska  Supreme Court,  as a                                                             
prime example.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER  asked for an explanation  of an interlock                                                               
device and where this will apply.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  replied that  this is  a device  that is                                                               
added to  the ignition  switch of one's  car, which  requires the                                                               
person to blow  into it to pass  a BAC test before  being able to                                                               
turn the key to turn the car on.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER asked  if  there are  automobiles in  the                                                               
state that use this device.                                                                                                     
Number 2234                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG   replied   that  the   Department   of                                                               
Corrections  indicates  the  state  does  not  have  this  device                                                               
because of a lack of a vendor.   The state had a vendor, who then                                                               
backed  out.   He said  that for  some reason  the Department  of                                                               
Corrections  is not  comfortable with  electronic monitoring  and                                                               
similar  devices.   Therefore, the  legislature has  been pushing                                                               
these  elements for  a number  of years.   "We"  have to  get the                                                               
message across to DOC [Department  of Corrections] that "we" want                                                               
these things  to happen.  He  said, "If we mandate  this stuff in                                                               
statute, we will  build it and they  will come.  There  will be a                                                               
vendor that  will be able  to do this."   Representative Rokeberg                                                               
said  he  thought  the  possibility   of  someone,  who  was  not                                                               
intoxicated, blowing into  the ignition key and  the key freezing                                                               
up.   However,  the  interlock  device program  is  in effect  in                                                               
places like Michigan  and other northern and  Midwest states that                                                               
are colder  than a  lot of parts  of Alaska.   He said  he thinks                                                               
"we"  can  do  that  [interlock device  program]  in  Alaska  and                                                               
accomplish a good thing to make  "these people that are using pay                                                               
for it."                                                                                                                        
Number 2191                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON commented  that [the  bill] is  wonderful,                                                               
but it's overwhelming  to "figure out every little  aspect."  She                                                               
referred to  the section regarding  offenders listing  their name                                                               
on a  registry.  She asked  if this was something  new, "how much                                                               
involved is that going to be," and  how long it would take to put                                                               
into place.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG said  he  would have  to  defer to  Mary                                                               
Marshburn,  DMV,   for  some  of  the   technical  implementation                                                               
questions that might be asked.                                                                                                  
Number 2136                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER referred to Section  46 in Version P.  She                                                               
stated that  this section requires  the state to  seek forfeiture                                                               
of a  motor vehicle  [used] in  committing a DUI.   She  asked if                                                               
this included snow machines.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "I think  so," but said he would                                                               
have to  defer to his "expert"  [Janet Seitz].  He  then said the                                                               
bill  is  applied  to propelled  vehicles  including  watercraft,                                                               
three-wheelers, ATVs [all-terrain vehicles], and snow machines.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER asked  if  there was  a  chance that  the                                                               
offender  could  get  his  or  her  vehicle  back  after  it  was                                                               
Number 2102                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  said  the  vehicle is  gone  after  the                                                               
second offense, but one could buy it back.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER asked  what would  happen if  the vehicle                                                               
[that the offender was driving] did not belong to him or her.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that  then the vehicle would not                                                               
be  forfeited.    However,  there  are  some  issues  around  co-                                                               
ownership for which he would defer to Ms. Seitz.                                                                                
Number 2078                                                                                                                     
JANET  SEITZ,  Staff  to Representative  Rokeberg,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, commented that provisions of  the bill state that if                                                               
there is a co-owner, he or she can re-register the vehicle.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  said, "We need to  have true punishment.                                                               
People are not getting the message."                                                                                            
Number 2073                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that  if [the legislature] adopted                                                               
the .08  [BAC standard] now,  "we" would receive $850,000.   Each                                                               
year  after this,  the funding  would decrease  until it  came to                                                               
zero, which  would probably be in  FY 07.  Funding  will begin to                                                               
be lost in FY 02- FY 03, at $2 million.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG specified  that  $3.5  million would  be                                                               
lost starting in FY 03, $4 million in FY 04, and so forth.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK  said yes, and  if it [.08 BAC  standard] is                                                               
never adopted, $8-$14 million will be lost annually.                                                                            
Number 2022                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG confirmed this statement.  He said:                                                                     
     That  doesn't factor  in what  I call  the "Congressman                                                                    
     Don  Young effect,"  either.   We have  a "Ted  Stevens                                                                    
     effect  on the  economy,"  but  ... [with]  Congressman                                                                    
     Young assuming  the chairmanship of the  [Committee on]                                                                    
     Transportation  and   Infrastructure  in   Congress,  I                                                                    
     suspect that our percentage of  funds could go up.  So,                                                                    
     we would  be at greater  loss [if .08 standard  was not                                                                    
Number 2005                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER  referred to page  19, [lines 6 and  7] in                                                               
Version P,  which says, "[The  cost of] treatment required  to be                                                               
paid to the  state under this subsection may  not exceed $2,000."                                                               
She  said  she  was  concerned   that  the  wording  might  cause                                                               
insurance  companies   to  not  pay  anything   over  $2,000  for                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG deferred to Ms. Seitz.                                                                                  
Number 2000                                                                                                                     
MS. SEITZ replied:                                                                                                              
     This is the amount that the  offender has to pay to the                                                                    
     state.    It's not  the  amount  the insurance  company                                                                    
      would have to pay for the treatment.  But it's what                                                                       
     the offender has to pay to the state for providing the                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  commented that presumably,  the offender                                                               
would be using  the insurance monies before he or  she would have                                                               
to  reimburse  the insurance  company.    But it  doesn't  always                                                               
happen  this way.   Sometimes  the Department  of Corrections  is                                                               
able to  get reimbursement from  private carriers if there  was a                                                               
spousal or dependent medical insurance policy in place.                                                                         
Number 1961                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that  some treatment can be $8,000-                                                               
$9,000.   So,  she  wanted  to make  sure  that  people who  have                                                               
insurance have their insurance premiums paid for.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  remarked that  if a wellness  court were                                                               
established in  an area such  as Bethel, more resources  would be                                                               
put into that  community.  This might cause the  average cost [of                                                               
treatment]  to decrease  and make  it "more  accessible to  other                                                               
Number 1943                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH expressed  his concern  regarding vehicle                                                               
forfeiture occurring  on the second offense,  especially with the                                                               
ten-year  look-back period.   He  asked for  information on  what                                                               
other  states  and  jurisdictions   do  in  regard  to  [vehicle]                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  said  that  a  number  of  states  have                                                               
vehicle forfeiture, but he would defer to Ms. Seitz.                                                                            
Number 1926                                                                                                                     
MS.  SEITZ  replied that  she  could  only  talk about  what  was                                                               
happening  in  the  municipalities of  Anchorage  and  Fairbanks.                                                               
These areas  have vehicle  forfeiture on  the second  offense, in                                                               
which cars  are taken away and  impounded.  Currently, if  one is                                                               
charged under state  law (not under municipal  law), the offender                                                               
does  not have  to  forfeit  his or  her  vehicle  on the  second                                                               
offense.   One does have to  forfeit the vehicle under  state law                                                               
on  the  third  offense.    So,  if  someone  is  living  in  the                                                               
Municipality of Anchorage  and receives a second DWI,  his or her                                                               
car is forfeited.  She mentioned  that Juneau is looking into the                                                               
forfeiture  program,  but  that  she  was  not  sure  if  it  was                                                               
implemented or not.                                                                                                             
Number 1890                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH  remarked that  he was  uncomfortable with                                                               
that [forfeiture  program on the  second offense],  because there                                                               
is a huge expense associated with it.  He said:                                                                                 
     I want to get people off  the streets too; I don't want                                                                    
     them to  drive.  But I  think that if you  put somebody                                                                    
     in jail ...  on the second offense and  [for] more time                                                                    
     on the  third [offense],  ... that  the third  ought to                                                                    
     include  the  forfeiture.    But   I'm  willing  to  be                                                                    
     convinced otherwise.                                                                                                       
Number 1866                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   KOOKESH,   in   response   to   a   request   by                                                               
Representative Rokeberg,  reiterated that he wondered  what other                                                               
jurisdictions did  on the forfeiture  provision, including  if it                                                               
was done on the second offense.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG said,   "We'll  look into  that and  get                                                               
back  to  you," by  the  time  it  goes  to the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked  who pays the cost of  a vehicle being                                                               
forfeited and impounded.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG deferred to  Mr. Smith, who would testify                                                               
on that point.  He then said:                                                                                                   
     Presumably,  the state  would  pay them  and then  they                                                                    
     would  get  reimbursed  by the  sale  of  the  vehicle.                                                                    
     Anchorage  breaks even.   I  don't  think the  troopers                                                                    
     think  it  will in  outlying  areas  of the  state,  so                                                                    
     that's a point of contention right now.                                                                                    
Number 1830                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked  if the ten-year look-back  period is a                                                               
"retroactive  thing" in  which the  time period  is being  raised                                                               
from five years to ten years.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG specified  that the  five-year and  ten-                                                               
year  look-back  periods   are  in  law  now.     The  number  of                                                               
convictions  and how  they  are counted  makes  up the  five-year                                                               
look-back period.                                                                                                               
Number 1798                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN wondered  if there  had been  any discussion                                                               
concerning the issue  of double jeopardy and  looking at previous                                                               
convictions.  For example, if  someone has "a previous conviction                                                               
and all of a  sudden we pass a new law, and then  all of a sudden                                                               
that last conviction  counts against this conviction,  is there a                                                               
double jeopardy?"                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that he  did not think so, but he                                                               
would have to defer to Mr.  Guaneli [Department of Law].  He said                                                               
that this  is a new  offense, "if  you've done it  before, you've                                                               
got a pattern, then it becomes an aggravator...."                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER  asked if prior records  from other states                                                               
would be looked at.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG confirmed this  statement.  He said there                                                               
are some provisions that need to be cleared up.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER  asked if "our" system  is compatible with                                                               
all other states.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  referred to  testimony before  the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing  Committee where there were  questions related                                                               
to this issue.  The  Department of Public Safety's "inter-tie and                                                               
their system"  should be able  to do that.   However, he  was not                                                               
sure if  this was included  in state  records elsewhere.   So, if                                                               
someone were  convicted in another state,  the treatment elements                                                               
wouldn't necessarily be included in the records.                                                                                
Number 1745                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER referred to Section  26 of Version P.  She                                                               
asked what adding "an alcoholic beverage" to line 24 does.                                                                      
MS.  SEITZ replied  that this  was to  address a  concern of  the                                                               
Department of  Law that [the  department] would lose  the ability                                                               
to include other intoxicating substances  [besides alcohol].  So,                                                               
"alcoholic beverage" was  put in the language,  and they "removed                                                               
the deletion of  intoxicated substances so it was  clear that all                                                               
alcoholic  beverages,  intoxicating   substances,  or  controlled                                                               
substances" were included.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked  if this could also  refer to people                                                               
who are inhaling.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  confirmed  this.    He  said  that  "we                                                               
expanded   it  rather   than  contracted   it,"  which   was  his                                                               
Number 1682                                                                                                                     
MARY  MARSHBURN,  Director,  Division of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                               
Department  of  Administration,  stated  that the  DMV  has  been                                                               
working with  Representative Rokeberg and his  office on alcohol-                                                               
related questions  and issues,  and technicalities  regarding how                                                               
the laws  work (that affect  DMV), for a  number of months.   The                                                               
DMV has  also had conversations  with members of the  Task Force,                                                               
due to  the high  profile of  DWI issues last  summer.   She said                                                               
that  the DMV  provided a  significant amount  of information  to                                                               
Representative  Rokeberg.   The  DMV has  helped  him craft  some                                                               
pieces of HB 4.   The DMV has not had enough  time for a detailed                                                               
or  critical analysis  of  Version P,  because  they received  it                                                               
after  the close  of business  on Friday  night.   She reiterated                                                               
some members' concern that this was a large and important bill.                                                                 
MS. MARSHBURN  said a number of  sections in the bill  impact the                                                               
DMV from an everyday work standpoint  and the fiscal impact.  The                                                               
DMV still has questions on a  number of sections.  She reiterated                                                               
that  they have  not had  a  chance to  look at  or discuss  with                                                               
Representative Rokeberg's office the new sections in Version P.                                                                 
Number 1580                                                                                                                     
MS. MARSHBURSN stated that some  of the sections that concern the                                                               
DMV include  Section 6, Version P,  where the DMV must  refuse to                                                               
register  a  vehicle if  the  applicant  does  not have  a  valid                                                               
driver's  license  or  if  that license  has  been  suspended  or                                                               
revoked.   Also of concern are  Sections 12 and 15  of Version P,                                                               
which are  interrelated by creating a  "two-level first offense,"                                                               
by  having  court  sentencing alternatives  and  changes  to  the                                                               
limited licensing provisions.  She said  the DMV needs to look at                                                               
these sections  "one step at a  time, because there appear  to be                                                               
areas  that need  a  little more  working out."    Section 26  in                                                               
Version P,  which changes the  BAC from .10  to .08, will  have a                                                               
fiscal impact for  the DMV.  Ms. Marshburn said  she thinks these                                                               
costs have been forwarded.                                                                                                      
MS. MARSHBURN stated that the DMV  needs to take a closer look at                                                               
Section 31 in  Version P, which revokes  vehicle registrations in                                                               
certain  situations.    Section  33 in  Version  P  requires  the                                                               
surrender  of  plates   for  a  second  offender.     It  is  her                                                               
understanding that  it mandates the  restoration of a  license in                                                               
certain circumstances.   She said  that one of the  conditions of                                                               
the restoration of  that license is for the DMV  to do a criminal                                                               
background check.   The DMV is not defined as  a criminal justice                                                               
agency, however;  they don't have access  to criminal backgrounds                                                               
except  through  the  Department  of Public  Safety  or  the  FBI                                                               
[Federal Bureau of Investigation].                                                                                              
MS.  MARSHBURN  referred   to  Representative  Wilson's  question                                                               
concerning the  DWI registry.   She said  the DMV has  to discuss                                                               
this, but it  would be similar to the sex  offender registry.  It                                                               
would  list  felony  DWI  offenders.     There  are  concerns  in                                                               
developing this  registry, which would  be open to  public access                                                               
in some  manner, according to the  provisions of the bill.   This                                                               
may  be  implemented by  using  a  simple  query.   For  example,                                                               
someone could input, "Does Representative  Scalzi have an ability                                                               
to register  a vehicle"?   In  turn, one  would receive  a simple                                                               
"yes" or  "no" record.   She  said the DMV  has not  covered this                                                               
ground yet.                                                                                                                     
MS. MARSHBURN  said other issues  of concern for the  DMV include                                                               
obtaining  correct and  complete records  from the  court.   They                                                               
don't want  to put someone  on the list who  is not a  felony DWI                                                               
offender.   They  are  also  concerned with  the  period of  time                                                               
during  which offenders  are kept  on this  list, the  process of                                                               
removing them  from the list,  and issues of security  or access.                                                               
She  summarized by  stating that  what this  looks like  will, in                                                               
turn, affect what it is going to cost.                                                                                          
Number 1385                                                                                                                     
MS.  MARSHBURN   referred  to  Representative   Ogan's  questions                                                               
concerning the  existing look-back  periods.  She  explained that                                                               
right now  the five-year look-back  period is for the  purpose of                                                               
computing  a  felony.    Currently,  if  someone  has  three  DWI                                                               
offenses within  a five-year period,  he or  she is a  felony DWI                                                               
offender.   The purpose  of the ten-year  look-back period  is to                                                               
compute  multiple offenses.    For example,  if  someone has  two                                                               
[DWI] offenses  within the  last five years  and a  third offense                                                               
within  eight  or  nine  years,   that  person  is  a  third-time                                                               
offender.    There is  a  different  classification of  crime,  a                                                               
different penalty [for the ten-year look-back].                                                                                 
MS. MARSHBURN  reiterated that the  DMV does not have  a definite                                                               
analysis or  testimony.   But, they wanted  to lay  out questions                                                               
and concerns  about the bill.   At some point, the  DMV will have                                                               
the fiscal  impacts of the bill.   She said that  "we" appreciate                                                               
that Representative Rokeberg and his  staff have involved the DMV                                                               
from the beginning in conversations dealing  with HB 4.  It makes                                                               
"our"  job easier  when we  can work  with people  on the  "front                                                               
end."  She  mentioned that she planned to meet  with Ms. Seitz to                                                               
further discuss these issues.  She  also pointed out that the DMV                                                               
does  not want  to hold  up the  movement of  this bill  from the                                                               
House Transportation Standing Committee.                                                                                        
Number 1278                                                                                                                     
DEAN GUANELI,  Chief Assistant  Attorney General,  Legal Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law,  stated                                                               
that  when  he testified  to  the  House Transportation  Standing                                                               
Committee a  few weeks ago  on the  general topic of  alcohol and                                                               
driving, he identified a number  of goals that the administration                                                               
has for addressing these issues.   One of these goals was to make                                                               
some improvement in the state's bootlegging  laws.  He said he is                                                               
happy to  see that  some of  the suggestions  that "we"  made and                                                               
consulted with the legislature about  have found their way into a                                                               
bill that's  working its  way through the  legislature.   He said                                                               
that one change that was  identified dealt with underage drinking                                                               
relating to an  Alaska Supreme Court decision  and opinion, which                                                               
did not adopt rules to fix  that problem [underage drinking].  He                                                               
mentioned that legislation on this issue might be introduced.                                                                   
MR.  GUANELI  referred  to Representative  Rokeberg's  notion  of                                                               
therapeutic courts.   He said  that these courts would  deal with                                                               
drunk driving  offenders in a  particular way by using  new drugs                                                               
to  help people  with their  craving for  alcohol.   He mentioned                                                               
that this  legislation is "in the  works" as well.   He said that                                                               
"we" also  identified a need for  an increase in the  alcohol tax                                                               
to pay for all of this.                                                                                                         
MR. GUANELI went  on to say that in addition,  there are a number                                                               
of goals  that the  administration had  that dealt  directly with                                                               
drinking  and driving.    One  of the  goals  was  to reduce  the                                                               
threshold level  from .10 to  .08 [BAC].   He said that  "we" are                                                               
happy to see  that this bill incorporates this issue.   He stated                                                               
that  "we" support  the gradual  expansion of  identifying people                                                               
who   have   committed   their   third   drunk-driving   offense,                                                               
prosecuting them,  convicting them, and labeling  them as felons.                                                               
There  are more  options available,  once  this is  done.   These                                                               
felons are under closer scrutiny,  by having a probation officer.                                                               
This is  a good  process, and "we"  are happy to  see how  it has                                                               
been adopted  in this bill.   He  said that technical  fixes were                                                               
proposed  for drunk  driving laws  relating  to search  warrants,                                                               
drawing blood, and collection of  evidence.  These have also been                                                               
adopted  in  this  bill.    "We" also  identified  the  need  for                                                               
clinically appropriate  treatment for  DWI offenders.   He thinks                                                               
that people in the criminal  justice system believe that there is                                                               
"only a limited amount of what  can be done by locking people up.                                                               
Treatment has to be part of the solution."                                                                                      
MR. GUANELI  commented that  there are aspects  of the  bill that                                                               
"we"  have  some  concerns  with,  but  the  [administration]  is                                                               
continuing to work  with the sponsor on this.   He mentioned that                                                               
some of these concerns would  be addressed in the House Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee and elsewhere.   He referred to a concern that                                                               
Representative Rokeberg mentioned, which  was the issue of adding                                                               
six  months to  someone's sentence  if  the offender  is above  a                                                               
certain BAC  level.  He said  the fiscal note for  that is beyond                                                               
what  anyone is  willing to  pay, but  that these  issues can  be                                                               
worked  out.   He believes  that by  working on  the bill  in the                                                               
House  Judiciary  Standing  Committee,  and  as  the  bill  moves                                                               
forward, "we" will get a bill that everyone can support.                                                                        
MR. GUANELI  remarked, "All  of this  is going  to have  a cost."                                                               
Reducing the BAC from .10 to .08  has a cost that will affect the                                                               
Department of  Corrections, in particular.   Expanding the number                                                               
of  people who  are labeled  and treated  as felons  has a  cost.                                                               
Providing  clinically appropriate  treatment to  offenders has  a                                                               
cost,  particularly  to  the  Department  of  Health  and  Social                                                               
Number 1021                                                                                                                     
MR. GUANELI  reiterated the message  that he gave three  weeks go                                                               
[at  the House  Transportation Standing  Committee meeting]  that                                                               
the  fiscal  notes  of  the  departments  have  to  be  carefully                                                               
considered.  He said these  initiatives, that are great and which                                                               
the  administration supports,  "need  to be  funded  or else  the                                                               
expectation that I  think the public has, that  something will be                                                               
done,  is really  going to  be  dashed.   I think  that would  be                                                               
Number 0986                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN asked  for  the difference  between DUI  and                                                               
Number 0977                                                                                                                     
MR.  GUANELI  replied  that the  legislature  can  call  offenses                                                               
whatever it wants.   He said he would be  concerned if there were                                                               
definitional  changes that  went along  with this.   This  change                                                               
simply deals  with changing the  title of the  crime.  It  has no                                                               
legal  significance.   He stated  that if  this helps  the public                                                               
understand what is involved, then it is fine.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  stated  that  his concerns  deal  with  the                                                               
probable cause section of the bill.   This section says that if a                                                               
person  is  driving  under  the  influence,  the  police  have  a                                                               
probable cause to stop  and check them.  He said  that he did not                                                               
know if this  means "you are past the legal  limit of what you're                                                               
allowed  to drink."    He asked  if  there was  a  change in  the                                                               
probable  cause  that  would  cause  a  police  officer  to  stop                                                               
somebody.  He said that technically,  anyone seen coming out of a                                                               
bar,  would  [provide] probable  cause  "that  they're under  the                                                               
influence of alcohol to some  extent, whether it's legal or not."                                                               
He expressed  concern that that  "every single person  coming out                                                               
of  a bar  is now  subject to  probable cause  for a  stop and  a                                                               
search  and seizure  and screening  for alcohol."   In  short, he                                                               
asked, "Does  it change the  probable cause standard of  proof at                                                               
all, with that change of description?"                                                                                          
Number 0856                                                                                                                     
MR. GUANELI  answered that when  dealing with statute  terms, one                                                               
has to consider  the "common meaning that you might  look up in a                                                               
dictionary or  that people on  the street  think of as  under the                                                               
influence or intoxicated," versus  the legal significance.  These                                                               
words  become "terms  of  art" after  a while.    He agreed  with                                                               
Representative Ogan's  comments that most people  would say, "You                                                               
take one drink,  and you're to some extent  under the influence."                                                               
However,  the law  and instructions  that judges  give juries  in                                                               
assessing these,  and what police  officers need to  consider, is                                                               
whether, due to ingestion of alcohol,  a person is driving with a                                                               
degree of  caution that  a reasonable and  sober person  would be                                                               
driving [with].                                                                                                                 
MR.  GUANELI  commented  that  if  a person  has  had  one  drink                                                               
[alcoholic beverage],  his or her  BAC would be between  .02 -.04                                                               
depending on weight.  Most  people can essentially drive the same                                                               
at that  level as they can  when they are sober.   This (indisc.)                                                               
used for commercial  vehicles because they are  more difficult to                                                               
drive.  He said:                                                                                                                
     What the police officer has to determine is, is there                                                                      
      some basis in the law for pulling this person over.                                                                       
     That means  that I  have grounds  to believe  that that                                                                    
     person is not driving in  the same way as a reasonable,                                                                    
     sober person  who is  driving.   In other  words, there                                                                    
     has  been some  weaving  down the  road, maybe  they're                                                                    
     going the  wrong way  on a one-way  street.   Those are                                                                    
     the  kinds   of  things  that  would   justify  pulling                                                                    
     somebody over for drunk driving.                                                                                           
     Often, however, what gives the  officer grounds to pull                                                                    
     somebody  over  is  not necessarily  that  somebody  is                                                                    
     driving  so badly  but  they have  a  taillight out,  a                                                                    
     headlight out,  or some other equipment  violation.  We                                                                    
     pull somebody over, roll down  the window, [and] all of                                                                    
     a  sudden you're  hit with  this odor  of alcohol,  and                                                                    
     then  you've   got  probable  cause  to   do  something                                                                    
     further.  But,  it's not simply a matter  of being able                                                                    
     to stop  everyone who walks out  of a bar.   That would                                                                    
     not be right.                                                                                                              
MR. GUANELI stated  that one of the most litigated  issues in the                                                               
courts is if the  officer had cause to pull the  person over.  In                                                               
other  words, from  the officer's  observations  of the  person's                                                               
driving, was  there cause to  pull the  person over.   The courts                                                               
have  set clear  guidelines on  what  this means,  and "it's  not                                                               
simply walking out of a bar."                                                                                                   
Number 0659                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN asked  what  percentage of  DUI's come  from                                                               
public drinking establishments.                                                                                                 
MR. GUANELI replied that he did not know.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  suggested  that the  Department  of  Public                                                               
Safety could  answer this question.   He  also asked what  is the                                                               
"highest percentage of arrests during particular hours."                                                                        
MR. GUANELI said  he wanted to defer to the  Department of Public                                                               
Safety for these answers.                                                                                                       
Number 0577                                                                                                                     
DEL  SMITH, Deputy  Commissioner,  Department  of Public  Safety,                                                               
mentioned that  Lieutenant Steve  Dunnagan, Department  of Public                                                               
Safety, is on  teleconference if needed.  He said  that he wanted                                                               
to address a few items.   He stated that having been an Anchorage                                                               
police officer  for 20  years prior to  state employment,  he has                                                               
had the  occasion to  make a  number of  DWI arrests  and impound                                                               
offenders' vehicles.   He left the department prior  to the start                                                               
of the forfeiture process.   However, the sponsor [Representative                                                               
Rokeberg] referred  to "our" concerns about  statewide forfeiture                                                               
impoundment.  He  said that he does have concerns.   He said that                                                               
Anchorage,   Fairbanks,   Juneau,    and   Ketchikan   have   the                                                               
"substantial  infrastructure and  ability  to  hook user  record,                                                               
pull  the vehicle  in places  to  store, those  kind of  things."                                                               
There are areas in  the state that are not able to  do this.  Mr.                                                               
Smith said:                                                                                                                     
     It  was substantially  easier in  Anchorage  for me  to                                                                    
     call the (indisc.)  and have it there  in three minutes                                                                    
     than take  it to secure  storage.  I've  taken people's                                                                    
     vehicles that  may or  may not be  returned to  them or                                                                    
     may  be required  to be  sold.   I  am concerned  about                                                                    
     where we  store them,  and how we  store them,  and how                                                                    
     secure they  are.   [I] don't want  them going  down in                                                                    
     value if  we're going to  try to  sell them or  have to                                                                    
     give them back to  an individual after some litigation.                                                                    
     Having said that, certainly if  the law says we have to                                                                    
     do it, we'll implement a process to do that.                                                                               
Number 0479                                                                                                                     
MR. SMITH stated  that "we" support doing everything  that can be                                                               
done  about DWI  and  the  "carnage it  reeks  on our  highways."                                                               
There are  no Alaska State Troopers  who like to "go  and pick up                                                               
pieces of bodies."  He referred  to the past summer, which showed                                                               
a  significant amount  of things  needed to  be done  [concerning                                                               
DWI].  He said:                                                                                                                 
     I recognize  that relative to first-time  offenders, at                                                                    
     least  from the  statistics I'm  aware of,  the state's                                                                    
     doing a pretty  good job in deterring them.   They drop                                                                    
     off dramatically.   But there  clearly are  people that                                                                    
     continue to  drive after that  first offense  that need                                                                    
     to have a serious wake-up call.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK called  an at-ease at 2:40  p.m. The meeting                                                               
was called back to order at 2:43 p.m.                                                                                           
TAPE 01-14 SIDE A                                                                                                               
Number 0052                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  reiterated  to   Mr.  Smith  his  questions                                                               
concerning  the  percentage  of   DUI's  that  come  from  public                                                               
drinking establishments and the hours  during which there are the                                                               
highest number arrests.                                                                                                         
Number 0062                                                                                                                     
MR. SMITH  replied that  his suspicion would  be that  people are                                                               
often picked up leaving parties  at private residences.  However,                                                               
he  suspects that  more people  go out  to establishments  in the                                                               
evenings,  and  then navigate  their  way  back home  instead  of                                                               
taking a cab.  He did not know  the exact number of people who do                                                               
this.  He  mentioned that establishments in Anchorage  used to be                                                               
able  to  serve alcohol  until  5  a.m.   A  municipal  ordinance                                                               
changed this to  2 a.m.  As a midnight  shift traffic officer, he                                                               
saw  a   "substantial  spike"  in  drinking   and  driving  after                                                               
midnight.     At   times,  there   were  [drinking   and  driving                                                               
activities]  as  late as  6  to  7 in  the  morning.   But,  this                                                               
probably occurred because of the 5 a.m. time frame.                                                                             
MR.  SMITH  remarked, "There  is  probably  some traffic  out  of                                                               
Anchorage, out  to other areas  that have  a 5 a.m.  closing time                                                               
now  that  Anchorage closes  at  2."   He  said  he  is aware  of                                                               
possible legislation  that would restrict  the closing time  to 2                                                               
a.m. around  the state, which  he thought  would be a  good idea.                                                               
In   short,   he   believes   in    the   "general   sense,   not                                                               
scientifically," that more DUI arrests  occur after midnight.  He                                                               
said that he did not know  if, under most circumstances, "we" can                                                               
capture where  somebody was drinking,  unless, for  example, "you                                                               
... are  sitting at Four  Corners in  the valley, and  the person                                                               
pulls  out,  runs  a  stop  sign, and  [you]  say,  'I  saw  this                                                               
individual leaving the Four Corners  Bar,' and that's in fact, in                                                               
the police  report."  Most  police officers say  anecdotally that                                                               
when they  stop someone  and ask  if the  person had  anything to                                                               
drink  that night,  a person  will  say that  he or  she had  two                                                               
beers, for example, at a friend's house.                                                                                        
Number 0223                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MASEK  asked  when  the  municipal  ordinance  in                                                               
Anchorage was changed from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m.                                                                                     
Number 0245                                                                                                                     
MR. SMITH  replied that he  believed it occurred sometime  in the                                                               
years 1983-1984.   The  ordinance happened a  few years  after he                                                               
left, which was in 1988.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented, "It's been  quite a few years and                                                               
the population  has increased  in Anchorage  quite substantially.                                                               
If it's been  [enacted] that long, I suppose, today  I don't know                                                               
what impact it really has on the issue."                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Smith  if he saw a significant drop                                                               
in DWI  arrests and actions,  and if  he was with  APD [Anchorage                                                               
Police Department] at the time of the change.                                                                                   
MR. SMITH  replied, "Yes,  I was."   He went on  to say  that the                                                               
average street cop had thought that  the 2 a.m. time change would                                                               
"bunch people up  more" [when they left the bars],  as opposed to                                                               
people  filtering out  from between  2-5  a.m. under  the 5  a.m.                                                               
closing time.  This concern "did  not show itself," he added.  He                                                               
thinks that people  started leaving [the bars]  earlier [before 2                                                               
a.m.]  because  they knew  the  closing  time  was changed.    He                                                               
reiterated that  it has been 13  years since he was  in Anchorage                                                               
and longer than that since he has driven a patrol car.                                                                          
Number 0357                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said:                                                                                                      
     I believe  the boroughs do  have the ability,  at their                                                                    
     governing power,  to impose an ordinance  that would be                                                                    
     [a] borough  wide vote,  if they  wanted a  change, and                                                                    
     restrict their  bars from 5  to 2.   They do  have that                                                                    
     ability to do that.  We  don't need to give a state law                                                                    
     to do that if I'm under ....                                                                                               
MR. SMITH  answered that  he did  not think  the correct  term is                                                               
"local option," but  he would have to defer to  lawyers.  He said                                                               
that he thought Representative Masek's comments were true.                                                                      
MR. SMITH referred to an  earlier question regarding who pays for                                                               
impoundment.   Currently, if a person  is stopped and his  or her                                                               
vehicle is impounded  because of DWI, the  impoundment and towing                                                               
fees  are borne  by  the  individual.   State  troopers or  local                                                               
police are not  responsible for the fees.  This  is assuming that                                                               
it is not  a forfeiture situation for Anchorage  or whatever area                                                               
is doing  it.  In order  to retrieve one's vehicle,  the offender                                                               
has to pay the towing fee.  One  has to pay a storage fee as well                                                               
if the vehicle is in storage for more than one day.                                                                             
Number 0445                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER  commented that  other states  are looking                                                               
at  "profiling."   She  asked  what  percentages of  people  from                                                               
different  ethnic  backgrounds  are  getting pulled  over.    She                                                               
wondered if the department had  any indication of how many Alaska                                                               
Natives are getting DWI's.                                                                                                      
MR. SMITH said he did not know.                                                                                                 
Number 0484                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER  asked if the Department  of Public Safety                                                               
was looking  at profiling.   For  example, by  regulation, police                                                               
officers could do  profiles by plugging in  the ethnic background                                                               
of the  driver.  She  asked if this [addressing  profiling] would                                                               
need to be done legislatively.                                                                                                  
MR. SMITH  remarked that  the Department  of Public  Safety could                                                               
enact this,  but right  now it  is not happening.   He  said that                                                               
from his view of national  policing, profiling occurs in response                                                               
to a  perceived problem.  To  his knowledge, there are  rules and                                                               
regulations that  the Alaska  State Troopers  operate by.   These                                                               
are  not based  on [profiling  procedures].   He  stated that  he                                                               
thought Representative  Kapsner was  referring to  profiling that                                                               
is  used on  an incidental  basis, for  example, "who  happens to                                                               
fall  into these  things,  as  opposed to  saying  'There goes  a                                                               
Native  or some  other  kind  of person?'"    The Seattle  Police                                                               
Department is experiencing this  [being accused of profiling] now                                                               
due  to allegations  that they  targeted particular  individuals.                                                               
Usually a  police report indicates  race only  if it is  based on                                                               
observation [of the incident], as  opposed to describing whom the                                                               
person is.                                                                                                                      
Number 0565                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MASEK  asked if  it  would  be possible  for  the                                                               
courts to  have this information  once offenders  are prosecuted,                                                               
and, if so whether it would be available for the public to view.                                                                
MR. SMITH  said he would assume  it was possible, but  he did not                                                               
know how  this would work.   He  suggested asking the  courts for                                                               
that information.                                                                                                               
MR.  SMITH mentioned  that Anchorage  also established  different                                                               
closing  times on  the weekends.   He  believes that  on Saturday                                                               
nights, closing time  is 1 a.m. instead of 2  a.m. or vice versa.                                                               
The issue of whether this was  a useful thing to do probably came                                                               
up in  the Anchorage  Police Department,  or the  Municipality of                                                               
Anchorage, or in discussions by the DUI Task Force.                                                                             
MR. SMITH referred to  Representative Ogan's questions concerning                                                               
whether [DWI  arrests] happen more  in public drinking  places or                                                               
private  locations.   He said  his perception  of the  public was                                                               
that if someone  has had too much to drink  at somebody's private                                                               
residence, it's far  more likely that someone will  say "Stay the                                                               
night  here, I'm  not  going to  let  you drive."    It would  be                                                               
difficult for  a stranger  to step  up to somebody  in a  bar and                                                               
say, "You're not going anywhere."                                                                                               
Number 0718                                                                                                                     
KAREN   ROGINA,  Alaska   Hospitality  Alliance,   testified  via                                                               
     I   am  representing   the  Alaska   Hotel  and   Motel                                                                    
     Association,  and the  Alaska  Restaurant and  Beverage                                                                    
     Association.  I  am here to testify in  support of this                                                                    
     bill.   I participated  on the DUI  Task Force  here in                                                                    
     Anchorage, along  with other  members of  our industry,                                                                    
     and we believe HB 4  accomplishes many of the goals set                                                                    
     forth by the  Task Force, and simply want  to voice our                                                                    
     support for the passage of this bill.  Thank you.                                                                          
Number 0751                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN   asked  if  the  associations   Ms.  Rogina                                                               
represents  would support  additional  alcohol taxes  to pay  for                                                               
this bill.                                                                                                                      
MS.  ROGINA replied  that the  purpose  of her  testimony was  to                                                               
speak on behalf of the merits  of this bill.  Regarding any issue                                                               
related to payment of it, "we  would like to not marry that issue                                                               
with this bill."                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "So you don't support it."                                                                            
MS. ROGINA remarked:                                                                                                            
     Since the State of Alaska  does not allow for dedicated                                                                    
     taxes -- I think that the  merits of this bill are what                                                                    
     we are supporting today.   I know that I'm kind dancing                                                                    
     around  things, but  we don't  support a  liquor excise                                                                    
Number 0825                                                                                                                     
JACK AMON,  Volunteer President,  Alaska Restaurant  and Beverage                                                               
Association; Owner,  Mark Brothers  Cafe; Member, DUI  Task Force                                                               
testified via teleconference:                                                                                                   
     I  believe  that  HB  4 moves  Alaska  in  the  correct                                                                    
     direction in  combating of drunk driving  in our state.                                                                    
     The two  strongest things that  I took from  my service                                                                    
     on the  DUI Task Force  was the (indisc.)  of treatment                                                                    
     for repeat offenders and stiffer sentences.                                                                                
     I am  always horrified when  I read in the  newspaper a                                                                    
     story of a  horrible accident caused by  a drunk driver                                                                    
     with  eight  misdemeanor   convictions  and  a  revoked                                                                    
     license.   This repeat offender is  the problem drinker                                                                    
     who needs  to be targeted.   During the Task  Force, we                                                                    
     were told that statistically  the first offender with a                                                                    
     blood  alcohol level  of  .14 or  greater  was over  80                                                                    
     percent likely to re-offend.                                                                                               
     The industry  does remain opposed to  the .08 standard.                                                                    
     Alaska  has no  record  of traffic  fatalities at  that                                                                    
     blood alcohol  level.   I would  urge the  committee to                                                                    
     seriously  consider  that.   ...However,  if  that  .08                                                                    
     standard is  going to be  adopted, I do approve  of the                                                                    
     graduated penalties  that are  in this bill.   Overall,                                                                    
     the industry  does support  this legislation  and would                                                                    
     recommend passage.  Thank you.                                                                                             
Number 0918                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the  association Mr. Amon represents                                                               
supports  increasing  taxes to  pay  the  fiscal notes  for  this                                                               
MR. AMON replied,  "There is no linkage allowed in  Alaska law to                                                               
link  dedicated taxes,  and at  this point,  the industry  is not                                                               
supportive of increases in the alcohol excise tax."                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE   OGAN   said   he   is    well   aware   of   the                                                               
constitutionality of  dedicated funds.  However,  the legislature                                                               
will  have to  "write the  check  to pay  the bill,"  and he  was                                                               
wondering  if these  associations were  interested in  helping to                                                               
fund this  legislation.  He  said, "If  you support the  bill but                                                               
you want  us to  pay for  it, you  don't want  anyone else  to, I                                                               
Number 0967                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that Version P [HB 4] would be held                                                                 
over until Thursday in order to hear more public testimony.                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects