Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2001 01:48 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 177-DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED:BAC LEVEL/FINES
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SB 177 to be up for consideration.
MS. LORETTA BROWN, staff to Senator Ward, said that SB 177 lowers
the blood alcohol content from .10 to .08 and increases fines for
first time offenders. It also goes one step further and lowers the
legal limit of blood alcohol content to .04 for those with one
prior driving under the influence (DUI) conviction. Anyone
convicted of a second offense will lose his or her driving
privileges for life and be subject to higher fines. Ms. Brown
stated, "There is no second chance. This is basically a zero
tolerance law for convicted drunk drivers making it illegal for
them to drink at all after one conviction."
MS. BROWN said that federal penalties are being strengthened in
2004 if the state does not lower the blood alcohol level to .08.
Number 620
SENATOR ELLIS said that .08 legislation has been around for years
but no public hearing was granted. He asked if there was a reason
it was being brought forward now.
MS. BROWN replied that some of Senator Ward's constituents came to
him who had a loved one hurt or killed by a first-time alcohol
offender. In addition, he thought the timing to pass this
legislation might be good since the federal legislation was being
worked on, too.
SENATOR ELLIS said he appreciated the change of heart.
MR. LOREN JONES, Department of Health and Social Services, stated
support for SB 177 and said he would answer questions on the fiscal
note.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked what the administration's position is on
the lifetime revocation of driving privileges.
MR. JONES replied that he couldn't tell him.
Number 820
MR. AL NEAR, Fairbanks, stated support for SB 177. He thought it
was a step in the right direction. He especially likes the part
about the repeat offender, because those are the people who cause
the fatalities. He said that in 1999, Alaska led the nation in
highway accidents in which alcohol was a factor. Forty out of the
76 fatal accidents for that year involved alcohol, about 53
percent. It wasn't much better in the year before that. In 1998,
people with blood alcohol concentrations above .08 were involved in
2,750 auto crashes in which 29 people died and 1,600 were injured.
In accidents involving drivers with an alcohol content of less than
.08, there were only 100 crashes killing 2 people and injuring 100.
MR. NEAR said he has found that a person, male or female, of
average weight could have three to four drinks per hour before they
reach the .08 level. He thought that social drinkers would not
drink that much.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Mr. Near's testimony was on the .08 level,
which he didn't have a problem with. He expressed concern about the
lower level of .04 for those operating a piece of equipment that
requires a chauffeur drivers license (CDL). A second offender would
lose his or her license for life if he or she was pulled over for a
tail light being out and the officer smelled alcohol and gave them
a breathalyzer test. He asked what the justification was for that.
MR. NEAR replied that it is actually written in the statutes that
commercial drivers are considered to be impaired in their driving
if they have a blood alcohol content of .04. He asked, "How could
it be then, that you and I can drive with a blood alcohol content
of .08, or as it stands right now .10, and be safe? How can we not
have some impairment ourselves? ... We are indeed impaired at .04
and even lower than that."
MR. NEAR said that one important thing to remember is that repeat
offenders cause 80 percent of the deaths.
SENATOR THERRIAULT responded:
Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure it's equal protection or what,
but you could have somebody that stops and plays pool or
whatever after work and drives home every day at .044 -
Every day he drives home that way. But somebody that had
a conviction - language in section 8 talks about previous
offenses - you could have somebody that had a previous
offense - 10 years ago - and they drive home and get
pulled over for a tail light or something and blow a .041
tomorrow and they lose their license for the rest of
their life. I don't know how that gets applied and
reviewed by the courts…
He asked for something that could be sensibly enforced and applied
across our society.
MR. NEAR asked Senator Therriault what he thought about a second
offense and an .08 level as a justification for a lifetime
revocation.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that he thought that was much more
defensible, but he thought Mr. Near's testimony sounded like he
wanted the general DUI law to be down at .08.
Number 1444
MS. CHRISTI ROWENSKI, representing Friends of Tom, said the
committee needs to think about what it means when the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration statistics say that
reduction to .08 has the potential of saving hundreds of lives and
reducing thousands of serious injuries on the highways if
implemented by all states. She said that drunk driving laws,
sustained public education, information efforts, and vigorous and
consistent enforcement can save a whole lot of lives. She said they
get asked if an experienced drinker gets as impaired, but she
assured them that experienced drinkers are significantly impaired
at .08. She said that people are impaired in regard to critical
driving tasks, such as divided attention, complex reaction times,
steering and lane changing.
MR. BLAIR MCCUNE, Alaska Public Defender Agency, said his agency is
mainly concerned with the permanent loss of license provision
because people can be rehabilitated through alcohol treatment. He
said:
Permanent loss of license would go against people who
were insured and licensed to be driving on the road.
License revocations - now people have hope, go through
treatment, demonstrate sobriety, they can get their
license back. At that point they have to get special risk
insurance. Having people insured rather than people who
just give up hope and drive anyway is preferable. I don't
think the deterrent effect, although I'm sure it would do
some, would be strong enough to justify not having a
chance to get your license back if you demonstrate
sobriety and go through the programs that the Division of
Motor Vehicles feels are appropriate. That is our main
concern with the bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how long he had been involved in criminal
litigation in the state.
MR. MCCUNE replied that he has been a public defender for 20 years.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if he personally tried DUI cases during that
time.
MR. MCCUNE said he did.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked for how long.
MR. MCCUNE replied that most of the DUI cases were in Fairbanks
some time ago.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked, during his experience with DUIs, at what
level of intoxication he normally found that the arresting officer
had probable cause to pull someone off the road.
MR. MCCUNE replied that most of his cases had to do with blood
alcohol levels quite a bit over .10. "The police would take video
tapes of those people. As people got higher levels, impairment on
the video would become very obvious." He said he wasn't qualified
to talk about probable cause because most of his experience had
been with high blood alcohol levels.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he asked because the committee has had
hearings on the .08 level in the past and all officers who
testified indicated that they would not pull over one additional
person in the state if we went to .08 because the objective
symptoms necessary to justify pulling someone over are not
exhibited until a driver is in the .10 category. That is why the
fiscal notes for .08 have been very small.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR assured the committee that they would pass a .08
bill out this year, primarily because of the National Highway
Transportation Safety Act, which would withhold millions of dollars
in the future from the State of Alaska for highways if Alaska does
not adopt this standard. He said he did not want to preclude the
House bill which had other remedies and would hold the bill to see
what other amendments are submitted.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|