HB 283 - PURCHASE/CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL  2:10:17 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to the purchasing of and restrictions concerning alcoholic beverages." 2:10:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 283, disclosed that upon coming out of church on the evening of December 24, 2004, his wife was hit by a [repeat] drunk driver, and his son was missed by just inches. His focus, he relayed, has since been [to work on legislation that would help] prevent such a tragedy from happening to others. Obviously, punishment is not enough - there are still thousands of drunk drivers on the road every day. As the result of existing law, there are now 2,133 marked driver's licenses and State identification (ID) cards carried by people who have proven they can't handle alcohol, and existing law provides a monetary incentive for alcoholic beverage licensees to check a customer's driver's license or ID card. House Bill 283 [in part] would amend current law by raising the civil fine that could be awarded to licensees, from $1,000 to $2,000. Included in members' packets is a draft letter of intent stating that it is the legislature's intent that half of that civil fine award be shared with the licensee's employees and/or agents who confiscate the ID card or driver's license of someone prohibited from purchasing alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that Brown Jug, Inc. ("Brown Jug"), just one liquor store out of many, as a matter of course, confiscates the driver's licenses and ID cards of underage persons attempting to purchase alcohol, and has collected approximately $2 million in civil fines since the civil fine provision has been in effect. He said he would like more licensees to start checking and confiscating driver's licenses and ID cards from all who are precluded from purchasing or consuming alcohol. House Bill 283 would also add - to the list of those who could be prohibited from consuming or purchasing alcohol - [under proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13)(A), a person who is convicted of a felony and the behavior was substantially influenced by consumption of alcohol, or, under proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13)(B), is convicted of a third or subsequent crime, even if it's a misdemeanor crime, and the court finds that prohibiting him/her from consuming alcohol is necessary to protect the public]. Under the bill, the court would have the discretion to order such a prohibition, but it would not be mandated to do so, and any such person would then have his/her driver's license or State ID card marked to reflect that he/she is prohibited from consuming or purchasing alcohol. 2:16:37 PM CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in dealing with chronic inebriates, and in requiring - perhaps via an amendment - that the driver's license or State ID card of [a person under the age of 21] be marked so as to draw attention to the fact that the person is [under the age of 21], thereby perhaps stopping people who've reached the age of 21 from continuing to use the driver's license or ID card they got when they were a minor to go into places that sell or serve alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, on the latter issue, said he had tried to get an amendment included which would have required that State IDs expire on a person's 21st birthday and that they be renewed within 90 days, but the drafter said that such an amendment to HB 283 wouldn't comply with the single subject rule and could thus engender litigation. As a result, Representative Crawford relayed, he'd asked that another bill be drafted that could include such a proposed change. CHAIR RAMRAS referred to a proposed amendment, labeled 26- LS1218\E.1, Luckhaupt, 2/3/10, which read: Page 3, line 22: Delete "up to the lifetime of the defendant" CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that it is his understanding that the Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association (CHARR) is in favor of this change to proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13). If this amendment were to be adopted, the proposed statute would then in part read, "order the defendant to refrain from consuming  alcoholic beverages for a period of time, including during the  term of any sentence and as a condition of probation, suspended  sentence, and suspended imposition of sentence". REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13) is intended to address those people who continue to get arrested as the result of alcohol consumption, those who have proven they can't handle alcohol. He opined that even if HB 283 only stops just one person from abusing alcohol, it would be a good thing, and offered his hope that the committee would pass HB 283. [Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.] 2:24:45 PM WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), explained that the DMV currently puts what's called a "J restriction" on the driver's licenses and ID cards of individuals who are restricted from purchasing alcohol as a condition of sentencing. Such driver's licenses and ID cards have the words "alcohol restricted" in a red banner across the top. In conclusion, she relayed that the DMV is supportive of HB 283. [Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.] MS. BREWSTER, in response to comments and a question, explained that although under current law, a driver's license does expire 90 days after a person's 21st birthday, that law doesn't apply to ID cards. From the DMV's perspective, it would be ideal if ID cards were treated similarly. Enforcement, however, is an issue for the licensees themselves to address be refusing access to their establishments by those with expired driver's licenses and ID cards. The committee took an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:34 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to a question, explained that the existing $1,000 fine provided for in AS 04.16.047(b) is a civil fine, and offered his understanding that Brown Jug, for example, "settles it all up at one time during the year" and then shares a portion of the fines with the employees that confiscated the driver's licenses and ID cards. He then showed members a couple of examples of restricted licenses. CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether the DMV has the authority to change what is printed in the aforementioned red banner on restricted licenses. Could the DMV, perhaps via regulation, have that red banner indicate that the person is under the age of 21 until a certain date? MS. BREWSTER said she would have to research that issue further. 2:38:13 PM CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that under current law, when the driver's license of a person who reaches the age of 21 expires, he/she is required to take [an alcohol and drug awareness and safety examination] prior to getting a new driver's license. He indicated that he would be working with the sponsor of HB 283 to address further [the issue of people using expired driver's licenses and State ID cards to purchase alcohol]. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD concurred. In response to questions, he offered his understanding that for federal tax purposes, the civil fines [licensees share with employees] would be treated as wages. He acknowledged that it can be difficult to collect those fines, and surmised that that's one of the reasons that Brown Jug "settles" [up with its employees] just once a year and then only with regard to those fines that were actually collected. [Neither existing law nor HB 283] outlines how the civil fine is to be distributed; that's left up to the licensees. In response to a question, he reiterated that the bill would be increasing the civil fine from $1,000 to $2,000, and noted that members' packets include a draft letter of intent, which reads [original punctuation provided]: It is the intent of the Alaska Legislature under section #2 of HB 283 amending AS 04.16.047(b) to increase the civil award from $1,000 to $2,000 to enable licensees to share half of the award with their employees and or agents. The award is to provide an incentive to those who sell alcohol to check ID's. This should aide in the effort to prevent people who are restricted from consuming alcohol from purchasing alcohol. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in receiving more information regarding the distribution of the civil fine. 2:43:49 PM PAUL GROSSI, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Crawford, indicated that the driver's license or ID card would be confiscated by the licensee or his/her employees and then brought before the court, which would award the civil fine to the licensee; that fine would be paid by the offender. CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking that the aforementioned letter of intent needs to be reworded, characterized it as too vague and burdensome on employers, expressing concern that it could result in employees filing claims demanding payment of their portion of the fine from their employers, the licensees. The civil fine, currently something that benefits licensees when awarded, would, under the letter of intent, become a liability for licensees as employers. He questioned how the State would collect the fine, how it would be distributed, and what happens if it isn't shared with employees, and suggested that further testimony - from the administration and Brown Jug, for example - is warranted. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered his belief that the letter of intent won't create a legal expectation by the employee to receive a portion of the civil fine; that the licensee won't have to share any of the fine, regardless of whether the person is still in the licensee's employ; and that the letter of intent merely indicates that it is the legislature's wish that a licensee share the fine with the employee who confiscated the driver's license or ID card of someone who wasn't supposed to be buying or consuming alcohol, but it is not required. He indicated that although he is unfamiliar with how the awarding and distribution of the fine is accomplished now, he surmised that it would be the same for the proposed fine as it is for the current fine. CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he would also like to hear testimony from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board"), and noted that as a licensee, he, himself, hasn't ever pursued the civil fine. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that current law prohibits the awarding of the fine directly to the employee - the fine must instead be awarded to the licensee. In response to a question, he reiterated that this provision of statute is meant to work as an incentive for licensees to check driver's licenses and ID cards; currently, a number of establishments in the state aren't doing so. 2:52:53 PM BONNIE HAYES relayed that she has been convicted twice of driving under the influence (DUI) and has a red banner on her driver's license. The civil fine isn't really going to be an issue for people like her, she predicted, because rather than show someone their restricted ID and risk having it confiscated, they'll just walk out of the establishment if the licensee or employee asks to see their ID. It's sufficient that licensees have this incentive to check the driver's licenses and ID cards of those seeking to purchase alcohol, she opined, and said she views current law regarding restricted licenses and ID cards as a wonderful tool to help her stay sober, adding that for the most part, it has worked. If a person with a restricted license or ID card is stopped from buying alcohol, that person will essentially be stopped from drinking and driving, and so it is critical that the red banner be put on a person's driver's license or ID card right away. In response to a question, she indicated that because $2,000 is a lot of money, the proposed civil fine provides people like her with another huge incentive to not purchase alcohol. 2:59:30 PM JERRY McCUTCHEON opined that HB 283 should be changed to mandate that everyone's driver's license or ID card be examined by licensees prior to them selling or providing alcohol; without such a requirement, HB 283 is basically a "toothless tiger." He also indicated his belief that the people who have been killed by drunk drivers would be alive today if [existing Alaska law regarding drunk driving] were more stringent. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with the provisions of the bill that would add more people to the list of those who may be ordered by the court to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, but relayed that he is not convinced that the proposed increase in the civil fine would do anything other than double the amount of money that gets awarded to licensees, at least those who can afford to take people to small claims court. He again opined that the letter of intent would put too many burdens on the employer, adding that he is not convinced doubling the civil fine would provide any more incentive for people to refrain from buying or consuming alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he is questioning whether deleting the fine altogether would change a DUI offender's behavior. [HB 283 was held over.]