HB 408-REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE  4:24:45 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to revocation of a driver's license." 4:25:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee, presented HB 408. She said that the impetus for HB 408 was brought forth by a constituent who will testify on his experience; however, this bill also would affect many other people. She paraphrased from a sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: In Alaska, a person who has had their license permanently revoked due to alcohol related offenses can apply to have their driver's license restored if 10 years have passed since the revocation and they have not been convicted of a driving-related criminal offense in that time. However, if someone was convicted of any driving-related crime (such as driving without a license) any time after the date of revocation, their license may never be restored under current law. 4:26:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained the limited exception. She related that if a person was convicted after three strikes and had his/her driver's license [permanently] revoked, but the person subsequently was arrested for another DUI [driving under the influence] offense, the person would be eligible to apply for a limited license. She then highlighted the inconsistency in current law pertaining to DUIs. She said that a person who stayed totally clean for 10-15 years and has not been charged with a DUI has no pathway to obtain a driver's license; however, a person who had a fourth DUI who adhered to the therapeutic court process would be eligible to get his/her driver's license back. 4:29:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on how current law would affect someone who lost their license but did not drive for ten years. 4:30:16 PM GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State Legislature, stated that HB 408 would address someone whose license was permanently revoked due to 3 felony DUIs within a 10-year period. If that person committed any driving-related offense, there would not be any remedy to reinstate driving privileges. He was not sure about the insurance requirements. 4:31:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reiterated the purpose of the bill, to create a pathway for reinstating a limited driver's license for those who are "clean" for ten years, including not driving without a license. MR. SMITH answered yes; that was his understanding. He described the situation was being encountered by someone who had multiple DUI convictions as a young person, had his/her license permanently revoked, but who has since reformed and cannot obtain a driver's license. 4:33:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification for someone who was conviction of a felony DUI, but in Year 9 was subsequently cited for driving without a license, that the person would need to wait 10 years before he/she was eligible for a limited driver's license under the bill. MR. SMITH answered yes; that the intent of the bill is that the person must have 10 years of no driving-related criminal offenses before they could petition for restoration of his/her driver's license. 4:34:11 PM SEAN HOOPER described his experience with losing his driver's license. In 2002, he received a felony DUI, went through treatment, and in 2003 was cited for driving a motorcycle without a license. It has been nearly 15 years since he straightened out his life. He has tried several times to have his license reinstated; however, since he had an offense after his license was revoked due to a felony DUI, he is not eligible for a limited license or license reinstatement of any type. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX thanked him for testifying since it identifies an issue that affects not only him, but many others. 4:36:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether his license was revoked for a third felony DUI. MR. HOOPER answered that it was his third offense right after the law was changed to reflect three DUI offenses within five years. He said he had three DUIs in his early 20s. 4:36:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether he was driving the motorcycle without a valid license and if it triggered something else. MR. HOOPER said his license was permanently revoked for a [third] felony DUI. The law was written that after 10 years from supervised probation a person would be eligible to apply for termination of revocation unless the person had any criminal offense. His criminal offense was driving with a revoked license in 2003, he said. 4:37:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said it sounded as though he could have applied for the termination of driver's license revocation if he had not had a moving violation on the motorcycle. He was unsure if Mr. Hooper could have applied for his license under current law. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that Mr. Hooper could have applied after ten years if he had not had a driving-related criminal offense. Mr. Hooper did have one since his criminal offense was driving without license. She said he has been "clean" now for 15 years; however, he can never obtain a license. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked it was a bit like the SR-22 issue. 4:39:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recapped that essentially the bill would allow a person to apply for termination of driver's license revocation after ten years with a clean record. This bill would reset the ten-year clock, he said. 4:39:59 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that part of the concept, as he understood it from the House Judiciary Standing Committee hearing was that under current law with justice reform that SB 91 has a pathway to reinstate his/her license. He asked for clarification on the pathway. 4:41:02 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), responded that prior to passage of SB 91, there was not any pathway for a person with a felony DUI law, which required permanent revocation to get a limited driver's license. She explained that misdemeanants could obtain a limited license to allow the person to drive to work under certain circumstances. She stated that SB 91 added a provision that would allow a person with a third felony DUI conviction within 10 years, whose license has been permanently revoked, to obtain a limited license if the person had gone through a therapeutic court program and met other requirements such as proof of financial responsibility [SR-22], use of the ignition interlock device, and a few other things. MS. MEADE explained that if an individual lived in a community without a therapeutic court, the person must demonstrate to a judge that the person had completed a treatment program with conditions similar to a therapeutic court, including that it spanned 18 months, had intensive oversight, and had some residential component. If the person could do that it was an alternative to the therapeutic court, she said. She related that a person who had driven under the limited felony license for three years could apply under the same provision, AS 28.35.030(o) under proposed Section 2, to obtain a full restoration. She stated that the provision was retroactive. For example, if someone went through therapeutic court in 2004, the person meeting the requirements could have his/her driver's license reinstated. 4:42:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification whether a person who used the therapeutic court exception and obtained a limited license would need to use the ignition interlock system or not. MS. MEADE explained that the ignition interlock device is a requirement for anyone conviction of a DUI. The law states that the person would permanently lose his/her driver's license; however, the law also says when and if the person ever drives again, the person must use the ignition interlock device for a set period of time. She related that language was included in every judgment. She acknowledged that after three years of a limited license the person can have his/her driver's license restored. She referred to language on page 1, starting at line 13. She explained that proposed AS 28.35.030(o) provides a different method for those who do not go through the therapeutic court process to obtain a full driver's license restoration after 10 years of a clean driving record despite the fact that the revocation was permanent. 4:44:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related a scenario in which a friend got three DUIs early on and only recently after 15 years or longer, with passage of SB 91 was able to obtain a driver's license but uses an ignition interlock device. He also went through therapeutic court, he said. He asked for clarification that with passage of HB 408, if his friend had no prior violations in 10 years that he could apply for a full driver's license, which would remove the requirement for the ignition interlock device and he would have the same privileges as any other driver. MS. MEADE answered yes; but there would be a better avenue to get the full driver's license, which would be after driving under a limited license for three years without any driving related problems could get his license restored. She said it would be more advantageous to use that route. 4:45:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he liked [the bill] and believed in redemption. He expressed an interest in statistics on drivers whose license was reinstated after ten years who subsequently reoffended. MS. MEADE stated that [AS 28.35.030(o)(1)&(2) went into effect in 2002, which relates to restoration of a revoked driver's license after 10 years with no convictions of any driving- related criminal offenses. Thus, the first people eligible to apply under this statute would have been in 2012. She deferred to the DMV to provide figures on the number of people who applied and how many were granted. She agreed with Representative Wool's assessment that many drivers whose licenses were revoked continued to drive with suspended licenses and therefore disqualified themselves. 4:47:35 PM MARLA THOMSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration (DOA), was unsure but offered to provide information to the committee. 4:47:59 PM MR. SMITH said he found information showing that revocation of a license was a mechanism to reduce recidivism, but what was less conclusive was the optimal length of a revocation. In some cases, long revocation periods taught people that it was okay to drive without a license when they discovered they could drive and not be caught. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that ultimately it is about public safety, so he was interested in the recidivism rates. 4:48:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone like Mr. Hooper, whose DUIs were 15 years ago, would be eligible to attend therapeutic court. MS. THOMSON answered no; that therapeutic court was an alternative option to deal with a DUI charge; therefore, the case must be active. The courts do not provide social services to people who do not have an active case. If a person was arrested and came before the court, the therapeutic court provides an alternative route to the traditional court. 4:49:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that if Mr. Hooper got an additional DUI and was referred to therapeutic court, he could then apply for a limited license. Obviously, Mr. Hooper would not want to get a DUI, but in keeping on "the straight and narrow path" places him in a worse position than if he got a subsequent DUI. MS. MEADE answered that was literally true; however, therapeutic court is an intensive 18-month program with social workers, probation officers, and seeing the judge every few days at the beginning and tapering off to a weekly visit. Everyone must agree that the person is an appropriate candidate for the therapeutic court route; for example, they must agree that the person was capable of rehabilitation, she said. She said she did not wish to indicate that anyone could go through the therapeutic court because it is a difficult process. 4:51:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she understood this; however, it seemed unfair that someone could go through the therapeutic court route to get his/her driver's license back. However, someone without a DUI after 15 years could never get his/her license privileges restored. MS. MEADE answered that this is what the law currently provides. She offered her view of what happened in SB 91; that there was not a way to provide a limited license. The ten-year period without any DUIs does not help anyone who drives with a suspended license, which many people in that situation choose to do at some point. She further stated that under SB 91, the view was taken to make it available to some people, but still have some assurance that this person will not recidivate and show some signs of rehabilitation. She acknowledged that therapeutic court was one concrete indicator. 4:52:20 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Meade to describe the therapeutic retroactivity associated with the therapeutic court pathway to restore a person's driver's license. MS. MEADE responded that SB 91 offered a route for those with offenses before the effective date of SB 91; for example, if a person had a felony DUI in 2009, had not been driving since that date and went through therapeutic court, the person could still apply to DMV for a limited driver's license. It was intended to address parties who needed some avenue to restore their licenses. Therapeutic court was one way to show the person was somewhat rehabilitated, she said. 4:53:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding that prior to the passage of SB 91 someone with a felony DUI who lost his/her license permanently and had no violations within 10 years could apply to get their driver's license restored. MS. MEADE answered yes. 4:54:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that having some option to obtain a legal driver's license was good since the penalty for someone whose license was suspended and continued to drive would not be a deterrent. He asked whether 10 years would be the appropriate amount of time. He was unsure of the penalty for driving with license suspended [DWLS] and whether people would get jail time for the offense. MS. MEADE responded that the DWLS was a common charge and conviction. She reported that approximately 1,800 per year are convicted of DWLS. She stated that SB 91 separated the crime. If a person whose license was suspended was caught driving for a reason other than DUI or refusal, the penalty is an infraction with a $300 fine. However, if the driver's license was suspended due to a DUI, the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor under SB 91. The statute spells out the penalty as 10 days in jail with 10 days suspended and the second offense would result in 10 days in jail. 4:56:29 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the DMV has taken a position on HB 408. MS. THOMSON stated that the DMV has not yet taken a position on the bill. 4:57:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that he was glad to reform some things, including the SR-22 remedy. He viewed HB 408 as an amendment rather than a bill and it is a necessary fix that needs to happen. 4:58:02 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 408 would be held over. [HB 408 was held over.]