Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2004 09:04 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 342(FIN) am
"An Act relating to driving while under the influence, to the
definition of 'previously convicted,' to alcohol-related
offenses, to ignition interlock devices, and to the issuance
of limited driver's licenses; and providing for an effective
date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken explained that CS HB 342(FIN)am, Version 23-
LS1292\W.A would strengthen the consequences of Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) and would provide more authority to the Wellness
Therapeutic Court. He noted that a positive fiscal note accompanies
the bill.
CODY RICE, Staff to the bill's sponsor Representative Carl Gatto,
informed the Committee that this legislation entails several
changes to the punishments and sanctions of those convicted with
DUIs including that those convicted of driving at twice the blood
alcohol content (BAC) limit of .08 percent would be required to
install an ignition interlock device on their vehicles for six
months and those convicted of driving at three times the legal BAC
limit would be required to install the devices for one year.
Mr. Rice noted that another important provision addressed in this
bill is the "look-back provision." He shared that current State
regulations specify that "misdemeanor look-backs are lifetime" in
that, he explained, were a person convicted of a DUI at the age of
18 and then again at the age of 65, it would be recognized as a
second DUI offense. He compared the unlimited DUI look-back
provision to the State's felony look-back provision, which, while
currently set at eight years, is scheduled to be increased to ten
years by the year 2006. This legislation, he explained would reduce
the lifetime look-back for misdemeanors to 15-years.
Mr. Rice noted that implementation of a 15-year look-back period
for misdemeanors would more align Alaska's look-back timeframe with
other states' misdemeanor look-back provisions, as reflected in the
chart titled " National Conference of State Legislatures Drunk
Driving Sanctions Time Frames Used by States for Inclusion of Prior
Offenses" [copy on file].
Mr. Rice further noted that while current law allows only
individuals with a single DUI offense to be eligible for a limited
driver's license, this bill would allow those with multiple DUIs to
be issued a limited driver's license, provided they fulfill certain
requirements such as completion of Wellness Courts or installation
of an ignition interlock device. He pointed out that the Members'
packets contain a flow chart titled "Limited Licenses" [copy on
file] that reflects the various requirements. He also noted that
the packets contain another flow chart titled "HB 342 - DUI
Penalties" [copy on file] that outlines the proposed penalty
changes for differing BAC levels as explained in his opening
remarks.
Senator Bunde commented that were a 15-year misdemeanor look-back
policy adopted, it would "substantially exceed" the look-back
period of any other state.
Mr. Rice replied that that is correct, with the exception being
Minnesota, which has a 15-year look-back provision.
Senator Bunde questioned the rationale for implementing a
misdemeanor 15-year look-back policy when the State's felony look-
back policy is limited to ten-years.
Mr. Rice commented that Representative Norm Rokeberg originally
proposed this provision in separate legislation, HB 175-PRIOR
CONVICTIONS FOR DUI that was absorbed into this legislation.
Senator Bunde asked whether pampering with ignition interlock
device readings could compromise their BAC readings.
Mr. Rice expressed that while older devices might have been flawed
in this regard, modern devices have been upgraded to incorporate
complicated mechanisms and such things as "rolling re-tests." He
noted that the devices are constantly being modified to prevent
pampering.
Senator Bunde surmised that these "sophisticated" devices must be
expensive.
Mr. Rice replied that use of the device would cost approximately
three dollars per day, which could be likened "to the cost of a
drink a day."
Senator Bunde calculated that this would equate to approximately a
$1,000 a year.
Mr. Rice concurred. However, he stated that, were the device
"imposed at sentencing," current statutes could allow the cost of
the device to be deducted from the "fairly substantial fines"
imposed by the Court.
Senator Bunde expressed that his questions should not be
misconstrued to be supportive of drinking and driving but rather to
acknowledge that some people do this, as a result of "a mistake or
poor judgment." He noted that another example of poor judgment is
driving without use of a seatbelt. He stated that he is considering
an amendment to incorporate seatbelt requirements into this
legislation.
Senator Olson voiced the concern that imposing restrictive devices
such as the ignition interlock device might impede the safe use of
the vehicle by the offender or by other people who might use the
vehicle.
Mr. Rice responded that the device requirements are easy to comply
with.
Senator Olson continued to voice concern that, at an inopportune
moment, the requirements of the device might not allow the vehicle
to operate in a necessary manner when being driven.
Senator Bunde asked for additional information regarding the DUI
misdemeanor look-back timeframe of 15-years.
AMANDA WILSON, Staff to Representative Norm Rokeberg, expressed
that State laws pertaining to DUIs are harsh and that the lifetime
look-back policy reinforced that position. However, she noted that
treating individuals with two DUI offenses twenty or thirty years
apart in the same manner as repeat offenders who have multiple DUIs
in a relatively short period of time is unfair and is not the
intent of the law. Therefore, she stated that the purpose of this
proposal is to "correct an oversight" rather than to lessen the DUI
penalty.
Senator Bunde asked the reason the felony look-back timeframe is
less that the 15-year misdemeanor timeframe proposed in this
legislation.
Ms. A. Wilson stated that the 15-year misdemeanor look-back time
period was determined upon review of what other states were doing.
She noted that only one other state has a lifetime look-back
policy.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that this bill is the result
of the merger of other similar bills.
Mr. Rice replied that it is.
Co-Chair Wilken interjected that, due to the fact that
Representative Rokeberg sponsored one of the original bills, his
staff is available to answer questions.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department
of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage and
echoed the testimony that Alaska has some of toughest DWI offense
penalties in the country and that there is only one other state
with a lifetime look-back policy. She stressed that even with
limiting the look-back time period to 15-years, Alaska would
continue to have a tough stance on drinking and driving offenses.
She declared that current law is unfair in that it would treat
someone convicted of a DUI at the age of 18 and then convicted
again at the age of 72 as a second offender. She voiced support for
limiting the look-back to 15-years.
Ms. L. Wilson voiced concern that the bill does not provide
consideration to the fact that no ignition interlock devices are
available for off-road vehicles, which are utilized in road-less
areas.
SFC 04 # 111, Side B 09:53 AM
Ms. L. Wilson also voiced concern as to whether there would be the
ability to install the devices on vehicles in remote areas of the
State such as Nome, and if that ability were available, how much
the installation cost would be. She declared that requiring a
person to install the device might pose to be a difficult and
unfair thing that "might be harsh on poor people" or to those who
live in remote areas. She also questioned the manner through which
BAC would be measured and noted that the issue of whether someone's
BAC was double of triple the legal limit could result in
litigation.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Administration, testified via teleconference from an offnet site,
in support the bill; particularly the language that would expand
the issuance of a limited license to repeat DUI offenders provided
certain requirements are in place. He noted that currently repeat
DUI offenders are not eligible for limited licenses.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee in order to
address questions that were raised.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|