TAPE 93-45, SIDE A Number 000 MS. KNUTH expressed her opinion that the elements of HB 136, Drunk Driving and Breath Test Offenses, would dovetail well with HB 61. Number 020 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was interested in amending HB 61 so as to make the state eligible for federal funding. He asked Ms. Knuth if there were many acquittals for persons charged with DWI offenses, whose BAC registered on or near the .10 margin. Number 034 MS. KNUTH did not know about acquittals, but knew that there were many cases which were simply not prosecuted because the BAC was on or near the margin. She commented that under current law, a person could be charged with a DWI offense if his or her BAC registered under .10. However, she said that it was difficult to successfully prosecute such cases. If the state had a .08 DWI offense, she added, the state expected that persons who had a BAC at or near the .10 margin would plead down to the lesser .08 DWI offense. The state did not expect to make more arrests, she said, just to end up with more convictions. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that with HB 61, persons charged with a .10 DWI offense could plead down to the lesser .08 charge, whereas under current law, persons with a BAC at or near .10 were often not prosecuted. Number 081 MS. KNUTH was concerned about whether or not a .08 conviction would count as a DWI offense, in terms of the state's repeat offender sentencing laws. She feared that HB 61 would lessen the deterrent effect of the state's current DWI laws. Number 104 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what would happen in the event that a person was convicted of a .08 DWI offense, and later was convicted of a DWI offense, with a BAC of .15. "Would that person be treated as a second offender?" he asked. Number 112 MS. KNUTH believed that person would not be treated as a second offender. Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recognized that as a problem. He stated that the reason for making a .08 DWI a separate offense was to not add to the already overcrowded jails in the state. He noted that if HB 61 was amended as the DOL had suggested, it would require a DOC fiscal note. He mentioned Representative Eldon Mulder's HB 136, Drunk Driving and Breath Test Offenses, and said that if that bill passed, it would be a good idea to make the change suggested by Ms. Knuth. Number 156 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee could ask the DOC to draft a fiscal note based on HB 136 being law at the time that HB 61 was enacted. Number 445 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND requested that the committee write a letter to the DOC, asking that its fiscal note indicate the effect of HB 61 in the event that HB 136 was enacted. Number 456 MS. HORETSKI indicated that the committee could request two different fiscal notes from the DOC, one of which could reflect the fiscal impact of HB 61, given enactment of HB 136. Number 464 CHAIRMAN PORTER proposed asking the DOC to prepare two fiscal scenarios for HB 61, based on enactment and non- enactment of HB 136. Number 482 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE out CSHB 61 (JUD). There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.