03/09/2001 01:11 PM House JUD

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE March 9, 2001 1:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair Representative Jeannette James Representative John Coghill Representative Kevin Meyer Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 32 "An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess or distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography, or a sexual offense." - HEARD AND HELD 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." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 97 "An Act relating to court approval of the purchase of structured settlements." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 32 SHORT TITLE:SEX CRIME AND PORNOGRAPHY FORFEITURES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HAYES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/08/01 0032 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/01

01/08/01 0032 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/08/01 0032 (H) JUD, FIN 02/09/01 0286 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE, GUESS 02/14/01 0327 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI 02/21/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 02/21/01 (H) Heard & Held 02/21/01 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/09/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 4 SHORT TITLE:OMNIBUS DRUNK DRIVING AMENDMENTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/08/01 0024 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00

01/08/01 0024 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/08/01 0024 (H) MINUTE(TRA) Committee MINUTE(TRA) MINUTE(JUD) 2AM KOOKESH; WITNESS REGISTER NATHANIEL ("NATE") MOHATT, Staff to Representative Joe Hayes Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 422 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, explained the two proposed committee substitutes for ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 01-29, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Ogan, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz. Representatives James and Kookesh arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB Number 0095 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced the first item of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 32, "An Act relating to the forfeiture of property used to possess or distribute child pornography, to commit indecent viewing or photography, to commit a sex offense, or to solicit the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit possession or distribution of child pornography, indecent viewing or photography, or a sexual offense." Number 0150 NATHANIEL ("NATE") MOHATT, Staff to Representative Joe Hayes, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. Mr. Mohatt explained the two proposed committee substitutes. The first [Version C, 22-LS0270\C, Luckhaupt, 3/7/01] limits the type of property that can be forfeited to electronic equipment only; it defines "property" with a list of various types of electronic equipment that could be forfeited. The second [Version F, 22-LS0270\F, Luckhaupt, 3/7/01] is a little broader in its limitation; it exempts real property from the forfeiture, and it limits the property to that which can be proven to have contributed directly to the crime. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Hayes whether he had a preference between [Version C and Version F]. Number 0255 REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 32, property] defined [as in Version C] leaves it open to a legal problem because new technology could arise that is not defined in the statute. However, he would leave the decision up to the committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Hayes whether he agrees that the breadth of the definition of the property in Version C is what he first intended with the bill, and that [the definition] could be broadly interpreted by the courts, in order to take into account new technology. Chair Rokeberg stated his own belief that if Version C were adopted, it would not be a strain for the courts to interpret it [broadly]. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES responded that both versions are adequate, to him. He again expressed concern that some new type of technology, in the next few years, might not fall under that definition. However, he had no problem with either version, and he was leaving it to the committee's discretion. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained his preference for Version F. He pointed out that [HB that aids in any sexual offense or assault. Although there has been a focus on use of a computer, a classic sexual assault would involve some instrument such as a knife or gun. If the statute is drawn narrowly, which Version C does, then the knife or gun couldn't be forfeited. By contrast, that forfeiture could occur under Version F, which addresses a broader problem of forfeiture related to crimes involving sexual assault. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Captain Miller of the Anchorage Police Department whether he had seen both proposed versions and whether he had a preference or recommendation. Number 0355 BILL MILLER, Captain, Anchorage Police Department (APD), testified via teleconference, specifying that [the APD] prefers Version F. He noted that he is in charge of the major crimes unit, which includes the investigation of sexual assaults and sexual abuse of minors. CAPTAIN MILLER explained that Version C is narrowly defined to include computer equipment; it doesn't take into account other types of sex crimes. Cars, for example, are used to facilitate a sexual assault, as are knives, guns, or other [implements]. In Anchorage, there is an increasing prevalence of date-rape drugs, which sometimes can be manufactured by private citizens, but Version C doesn't take into account the manufacturing paraphernalia, for example. That is part of the reason why the APD prefers Version F. CAPTAIN MILLER offered a proposed change to Version F. He referred to page 2, beginning at line 2, which read in part: Property, other than real property, that contributes directly and materially to a violation ... may be forfeited to the state upon the conviction of the offender. CAPTAIN MILLER informed members that the APD would prefer to see the phrase "other than real property" stricken. examples in which a juvenile is taken to a house and sexually assaulted by a predator; an adult female is given a date-rape drug at a bar and is then taken to a house specifically used for the purpose of sexual assault; and a gang rape of a juvenile occurs as an initiation. He explained that the APD believes the houses in those instances, as real property, are directly and materially related to those crimes. He asked: If other things, like guns and knives and vehicles, are at risk of being seized, why shouldn't real property - which is owned free and clear, and which has no innocent third party attached to it - also be placed at risk by virtue of the fact that [its use] was planned as an integral part of the crime? CAPTAIN MILLER reported that the APD sees some safeguards [in Version F] that it believes to be adequate. For example, it requires a conviction, which necessitates the involvement of a neutral third party - the judge. Because there are adequate safeguards, the APD believes that real property ought to also be at risk when it is directly and materially related to the crime. Number 0731 ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference. He told the committee that he would echo a lot of what Captain Miller had said, and would be more in favor of Version F because it is not as restrictive as Version C. He also said that the topic of forfeiture of real property, including homes, brought up a whole set of other issues about which he would have to do research before commenting. However, as far as other types of things that could be used directly to facilitate those crimes, he said he believes those should all be subject to forfeiture too; forfeiture should not be limited to electronic mechanisms. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. He closed public testimony and announced that HB HB Number 0837 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 4(TRA).] CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that there would be two areas of focus for today's meeting: .08 [blood alcohol concentration (BAC)], and the change-of-title issue. CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:25 p.m. to 1:26 p.m. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that included in the members' packets was information developed by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He asked Del Smith to present that information and to specifically focus on the [handout that showed the relationship between BAC levels to DWIs (driving while intoxicated)]; he noted that there were two different numbers that pertained to the column showing .08 to .0999 [BAC levels]. Number 0975 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, explained that the charts before the committee were prepared by Jeanne Swartz from information retrieved from the "intoximeter"/DataMaster logs. He added that the charts reflected six locations: the Kenai Peninsula area, the Fairbanks area, [the Juneau area, the Wasilla area], the Anchorage area, and the Bethel area. And, while the charts did not reflect statistics for the entire state, they did reflect a substantial majority. Mr. Smith began to explain the charts using the Anchorage Police Department (APD) chart as an example. CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected and said that the APD chart reflected one year and the charts of the other areas reflected two years. MR. SMITH clarified that the APD chart reflected 1,451 DWIs with BAC levels ranging from .00 to .40 during the period of 1/1/00 through 12/31/00 - 12 months in a calendar year. The note at the bottom of the chart stated that from 1/1/98 through breath tests reflecting BAC levels between .08 and .10. He explained that that note was by way of a comparison with [calendar year 2000]. By dividing 168 in half, it would reflect that there were 80-some [DWIs within that BAC range] for each of those [two prior] years. He added that [the DPS] did not have the time or resources to create charts for 1998 and 1999 in the same manner as the charts reflecting calendar year 2000. [Thus all six charts reflect the number of all DWIs at all BAC levels for 2000, and, in addition, the number of DWIs at BAC levels between .08 and .10 during 1998 and 1999.] MR. SMITH, in response to question by Chair Rokeberg, explained that each [row] contained the number of individuals in Anchorage with DWIs in 2000 who, when given a breath examination with a DataMaster or an intoximeter, had a BAC level in the corresponding column. For example, in 2000 there were 61 individuals with DWIs who tested at a BAC level of between .08 and .09. He added that in the 27 DWI cases reflecting BAC levels of .00, he understood it to mean that those individuals were under the influence of some kind of drug that would not measure on the intoximeter or DataMaster. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the number [under the DWIs column] reflected people who were given tickets for driving while under the influence. MR. SMITH answered that that column reflected the number of individuals who were taken to a police station or [Alaska State] Trooper location and given a breath test. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired what the difference was in someone's driving ability/skills with a .08 [BAC level] as compared to a .10 [BAC level]. He requested a comparison using the example of a man who weighs 180 pounds and who has not had anything to eat; he asked how many drinks would be needed to reach .08 [BAC level] versus the .10 [BAC level]. Number 1350 JEANNE M. SWARTZ, Criminalist II, Breath Alcohol Program, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory ("Crime Lab"), Department of Public Safety, said, using a rough estimate, that it would take a 180-pound individual approximately five standard drinks (a standard drink meaning one beer or one shot of hard liquor) to get to a BAC level of .08, and, during the same time interval, it would take about six [standard] drinks to achieve a .10 [BAC level]. With regard to the time interval, she said that starting from zero, it would mean the equivalent of five drinks in one hour, but because most people burn off, or metabolize, alcohol over time, it could be a cumulative effect, say, five drinks over one hour or six or seven drinks over two hours. She added that most people at the field sobriety testing labs are quite surprised to find out how much alcohol it takes to get to the "per se" level. CHAIR ROKEBERG added that at the lab he attended last November, he had to consume seven drinks in two hours to achieve that level. He noted that he had consumed four glasses of wine and three beers. He also added that he had heard that people can condition their bodies to tolerate more alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, with regard to lowering the DWI BAC levels to .08, if the equipment being used would need to be recalibrated. MR. SMITH responded that the DataMaster equipment that is being acquired is state of the art and is "right on." MS. SWARTZ added that if .08 [BAC] became the new "per se" limit, it would require recalibrating the instruments, but speaking from a technician's point of view, that would not be a difficult feat. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if newer intoximeters are more accurate. MS. SWARTZ responded that all the instruments in service have been tested and proven accurate and reliable, and in the case of the newer versions, which are called DataMasters, it was not so much that they were more accurate, but because of newer micro- processing technology, they had more features such as an internal barometer, for example. She said that for her purposes, a DataMaster offers distinct advantages in terms of gathering data. Number 1690 CHAIR ROKEBERG, referring back to the chart illustrating DWIs/BAC levels for the Anchorage area, asked if the 61 individuals who tested at a BAC level between .08 and .09 were convicted. He added that he was using 61 in his initial calculations, along with a "10 percent plug," to come up with a lower percentage. He asked if the 168 breath tests included in the note at the bottom of the chart reflected a two-year period, compared to the 61 individuals for a one-year period. MR. SMITH explained that of all the individuals who were transported to the APD in 2000 and given the breath examination, tested between .08 and .09 BAC levels. He explained again that the note at the bottom of the chart reflected 168 individuals who, during [both 1998 and 1999], tested at a BAC level between .08 and .09. And again, he explained that those figures were not broken down for each individual year, and hence would just be rough estimates if broken down and included in a yearly calculation. He added that with a rough breakdown of 80 each for [1998 and 1999], the figure has dropped in 2000 to 61. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed confusion regarding those numbers. He added that he would have to recalculate to come up with the impact numbers because the departments have used a 10 percent figure to calculate the fiscal notes on this particular provision of HB MR. SMITH said he was aware of that, although he cautioned the committee to make use of the data in its deliberations but not to take it as "the gospel," because the data was far from a scientific extrapolation of all the tests. Number 1885 CHAIR ROKEBERG said he did not want to use the data against the [departments] just to lower the fiscal notes. He asked Mr. Smith if he thought the implementation of HB 4. MR. SMITH said that he did not necessarily think a .08 standard would dramatically affect [the number of] people that are stopped by law enforcement, simply because a law enforcement officer sitting alongside the road or approaching an accident cannot determine whether a person is at a .08 or .11 [BAC level]; a lower BAC limit will not provide any more probable cause to stop someone. The difference with a lower BAC limit will be that if the offender is shown to have a .08 BAC level and to be substantially impaired, prosecution will be more likely, whereas currently, such a person might be allowed to plead out to something less because it was not presumptive. [Currently], the presumption is that a .10 [BAC level] means the person is intoxicated, and below that level there must also be a substantial amount of evidence. He added that although [a lower BAC level] would not bring about many more arrests, he guessed that more people will go to trial, which would in turn impact "the downstream agencies" that deal with individuals who have been arrested. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that "we" are always talking about prevention, and she wondered whether reducing [the BAC limit] to .08 would cause more people, who don't believe they have reached a .10 [BAC level], to refrain from driving because they might be at .08 [BAC level]. MR. SMITH responded that he thought [a lower BAC limit] would have some effect on some people, but he noted that judgment is "one of the first [things] to go" when a person has been drinking. He said that he would like to think that substantially emphasizing and publicizing the implementation of a .08 [BAC limit] would reduce the number of people [who drink and drive]. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES followed up by saying that it seemed to her that the focus should not be on punishment, but on prevention, and she said that maybe [lowering the BAC limit] would have a preventative effect. MR. SMITH said that he hoped so. CHAIR ROKEBERG requested confirmation that arrests were based on an impairment statute, which goes down to a [BAC level] of .05, and that it was only after a breathalyzer has been administered that charges might be increased to the current DWI standard. Number 2128 ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference, and explained that state troopers administer field sobriety tests when they stop an individual. And at that point, if there is any sign that the person's physical ability to drive a car is impaired by the ingestion of an alcoholic beverage, then that person is arrested and given either the intoximeter test or the DataMaster test. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that what struck him in looking at the charts provided by Mr. Smith was the significant jump in [DWIs] from .10 [BAC] and higher levels. He noted, with regard to mandatory treatment, that [.10 BAC and higher levels] seemed to be the level to focus on, because at lower [BAC] levels, such as .08, the numbers were less. He asked Mr. Smith if he thought people caught at .08 [BAC levels] needed to [receive mandatory treatment] as well. MR. SMITH explained that in the past ten years there had been about 43,000 individuals arrested in Alaska for DWI, which resulted in about 60,000 DWI charges (meaning that some of those arrests resulted in multiple charges). He added that he started out a year or two ago thinking that on an initial [DWI] arrest, an individual ought to be thrown in the drunk tank on whatever [substances] were on the floor and left there in order to give that individual a wakeup call. He said he had modified that view somewhat, based on research that showed of the 43,000, about 30,000 were first-time offenders; hence one could make the argument that first-time offenders were getting the message. He offered that some first-time offenders who fall into the category of .08 to .10 [BAC levels] might be starting the progression towards [chronic DWI behavior] and intervention would be appropriate. And certainly, second- and third-time offenders require intervention. He noted that although he was not an expert in treatment, these were his personal opinions. He said that he believed that the state's current treatment of first-time offenders seems to be having a good effect, though there was still room for improvement. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN also referred to the huge jump in the numbers from .10 and upward [BAC levels] reflected in the charts (specifically the Wasilla area chart). He said that it seemed to him that people who were driving while impaired at less than a .10 [BAC level] were not attracting much attention from the police. He wondered what the reason for the huge jump was. He added that he suspected that there were a lot of people driving around with [BAC levels] of .08 to .09 that don't get pulled over because they don't attract the attention of a police officer. MR. SMITH said that he could see how one could arrive at that conclusion and may even be right; there is a dramatic jump [in the numbers on the charts]. He offered that there may be people who are "practiced drunks" at [the lower BAC levels]. He gave an example from his past in which a drunk driver had run into a car in the middle of the day and torn off an open door, but when Mr. Smith arrived on the scene, it was not readily apparent that the individual was drunk. Number 2388 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, on the topic of Mr. Smith's statement that Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) had provided statistics that show that people arrested for DWI often have driven 10-12 times before getting caught for the first time. Representative James asked Mr. Smith if he agreed with that conception. MR. SMITH responded that the first time someone is caught doing something - robbing a liquor store, driving while intoxicated - the courts treat that person as a first-time offender, but he said he doubted that that was the first time the offender had done the crime. He added that it was an extremely unlucky individual who gets caught the first time he/she does something criminal. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the police aren't everywhere, and she added that she was sure there were people committing crimes who were "getting away with it." MR. SMITH added that there were far fewer Alaska State Troopers than he would like to see. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Smith if the DPS supported the .08 [BAC] standard. MR. SMITH said yes, absolutely, though he noted it was much easier to "get in line" after the federal mandate. He said that he did not think it would increase the arrests, but it was part of the solution towards solving the problem of DWIs. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that this legislature had the choice, under threat of federal law, to wait until 2007 to implement .08 BAC limits. TAPE 01-29, SIDE B Number 2477 MR. SMITH said that as a professional law enforcement officer and a citizen of the state, he did not see a benefit to delaying [implementation of the .08 BAC limits]. CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected that [delay of implementation] might save some money. MR. SMITH responded that that could be the case, but [implementing the .08 BAC limits sooner] could save some lives. Number 2448 CHRISTI ROWINSKI, Friends of Tom, testified via teleconference and relayed that California dropped its number of alcohol- related fatalities by 12 percent after implementing .08 BAC "per se." She also relayed that by lowering the BAC limits, the states of California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont experienced a combined reduction in alcohol-related fatalities of 16 percent per year. And while she did not know how many individuals that percentage represented, she surmised that it probably represented quite a few families that were spared a lot of pain. She also said that no one knows who is on the drunk driver's victim list; drunk drivers kill and maim a random sample of innocent people every year. She added, "Our family was like every other victim family, really surprised to find ourselves on this list when our son, Tom, was killed by a drunk driver." In conclusion, she asked the members of the committee to recognize, before voting on HB position to relay to the committee. Number 1593 CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC), explained that in trying to determine what kind of a fiscal impact the diversion program would have, [the DOC] used an estimate of 10 percent of first-time offenders who fell within the .08 and .10 BAC level category. That 10 percent estimated figure calculated into approximately 285 people, of which 75 people might not qualify because their BAC levels would prove to be greater than .10 when convicted. This left an approximate pool of 210 people who might qualify for the diversion program. And because the diversion program was specifically tailored towards simple DWIs - between .08 to .10 [BAC levels] and without probation violations - [the DOC] calculated that 70 people out of 210 would fall out of compliance with the diversion program. Thus [the DOC] estimated that the remaining 140 people who actually complete the diversion program would serve three days. The calculation was then 140 [people] multiplied by 3 days multiplied by 64 [dollars], for a total savings of $26,880. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that although the diversion program would affect only a small number of people, in the current version of HB 4, He added that prior testimony from APD and MADD had indicated that allowing offenders to avoid that jail time was not a good idea. He asked if the DOC had any evidence that incarceration had a deterrent effect vis-a-vis fines and other penalties. MS. BROWER responded that [the DOC] did not have any information/statistics yet because currently there was not a diversion program being utilized, and she said she did not know that any conclusions could be drawn yet regarding the effectiveness of incarceration. She reminded the committee that Mr. Smith had testified that many first-time offenders "seem to get it," but she said she did not know if that was a result of the fine, the embarrassment, or the incarceration. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he had to ask the question because there was some controversy regarding [the incarceration aspect of the diversion program]. He noted that the actual fiscal aspects were not significant. MS. BROWER confirmed that the fiscal impact on DOC with regard to the diversion program was not dramatic. She also confirmed that while some DWI offenders in outlying areas might serve their time in a community jail, most would serve that time in a community residential center (CRC). Number 1273 SUSAN HARGIS, Boating Safety Coordinator, United States Coast Guard (USCG), testified in support of dropping the [BAC] limit from .10 to .08. She went on to say that Alaska has been a leader on a national level with regard to "boating while intoxicated" laws because Alaska has not differentiated between what kind of vehicle is being operated. She noted that the USCG's [BAC] limit will go down to .08 on May 11, 2001, for watercraft. She provided the following statistics: In the last four years, of the 106 noncommercial [boating] fatalities that occurred in Alaska, 63 were confirmed to have involved alcohol; another 20 of those 106 fatalities could not be confirmed to have involved alcohol, either because the bodies were not recovered or because [BAC] tests were not performed at the time because of a lack of outward signs of intoxication. She also noted that commercial operators are held to a .04 [BAC] limit. She voiced the recognition that these fatalities have a large impact, not just on the victims, but on their families as well. MS. HARGIS clarified, for Chair Rokeberg, that when she spoke of Alaska not differentiating between operating a watercraft or other vehicle, she was referring to AS 28, which includes watercraft in its definition of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. She also clarified that the aforementioned fatalities had occurred in just the last four years and they involved noncommercial operators. She added that she would also provide the committee with those statistics in written form. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, with regard to licensing, what the USCG's "look-back" provisions were for multiple To clarify his question, he noted that [the USCG] "pulled" a license at a .04 [BAC level], and he asked if [the USCG] had something similar to the provisions in 4, MR. GUANELI acknowledged that the legislature has broad discretion to call crimes what it wants to. And because (in the current version of HB beverage and intoxicating liquor have not changed and remain broad, he said he did not see that changing the title [of DWI to DUI] would have any impact on enforcement, prosecutions, or the laws surrounding [DWI/DUI]. Thus [the DOL] does not have any objection to [changing DWI to DUI], although, he added, he still has the concern that inclusion of that change will make harder to read. He also said, in response to a question by Chair Rokeberg, that he did not see any legal ramification in terms of case law definitions, given that the definitions [in statute] are adequate. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if using the term "under [the] influence" would make it easier to recognize the use of substances other than alcohol so that offenders could still be charged under the [DWI/DUI] laws. MR. GUANELI explained that current statute covers not only alcoholic beverage/intoxicating liquor but also controlled substances, or a combination of those things. The critical point, in terms of prosecutions and what juries deliberate on, is based on the instructions given the jury by the judge. And the instructions given by the judge are dependent on statutory definitions that are unchanged by HB 4 was held over.] ADJOURNMENT Number 0969 There being no further business before the committee, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects