HJUD - 02/27/95 CSHB 21 - DRIVER'S LIC. REVOCATION;ALCOHOL/DRUGS Number 585 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, bill sponsor, explained the bill. House Bill 21 closes a small, but important loophole in House Bill 299 which passed last year. The administrative license revocation can only occur when there has been a violation of the pertinent state law. That law should be amended to include municipal ordinance as well as state law. House Bill 21 does this. There are zero fiscal notes from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Health and Social Services, and the Department of Law. The simple fix will cost the state nothing, but will increase the effectiveness of the law. She proposed an amendment, on page 2, line 23; it was pointed out that one would assume that a municipal ordinance would pertain to drug or alcohol violations; qualification would leave no doubt. Number 615 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, Criminal Division, testified in support of this legislation. She asked the committee to consider another technical change that would address the existing problem with the "use it - lose it" law. We are requiring both probable cause and personal observation by the officer. For the underlying offenses, probable cause is sufficient for a case to be made, and for there to be a conviction. So we have an anomalous situation where the child can be convicted, but is not subject to the "use it - lose it" provision, when it is appropriate that there be consistency. One place this occurs is on page 1, line 7. With this change it would read, "if a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a person is at least 14 years of age". The same change could be made on page 2, line 17 and 18, replacing "and based on personal observations" with "to believe". Then it would read, "...one, that the officer had probable cause to believe that the person was at least 14 years of age and under 21 years of age." This would create harmony in the law with what we are doing with the violations and with citing these juveniles. MS. KNUTH stated the second issue that has come up with the "use it - lose it" since the law was enacted, is whether military police qualify as peace officers, allowing them to enforce this law. They would like to, but are not certain whether they are included or not. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a military police officer is not a peace officer by federal law. You cannot be a police officer and serve in the military at the same time. Number 790 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought they could put into the statute that this particular situation includes military officers. He mentioned this bill does not make the peace officer have to see the juvenile in the act of drinking. CHAIRMAN PORTER added the minor who is, visually, obviously intoxicated, cannot right now, be arrested. The juvenile can only be cited, given a ticket, and sent on his way. That is what we are trying to change. We want to be able to take this individual into custody because he is in a position of potential danger. A juvenile could not have his license suspended under the "use it - lose it," as it stands now. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version G of the committee substitute as their working draft. Number 800 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move the amendment offered by Margot Knuth, as described above. Seeing no objection, the amendment passed. She then made a motion to move Amendment Number 2, which would delete from page 2, line 23, "a violation of AS 11.71, [OR] AS 04.16.050, or a municipal ordinance;" and insert: "(A) a violation of AS 11.71 or AS 04.16.050; or (B) possession or use of a controlled substance or alcohol in violation of a municipal ordinance." There was no objection to the amendment so it was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 21, as amended, with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes, out of committee. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.