SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(JUD) "An Act relating to the administrative revocation of a minor's license to drive; creating criminal offenses of minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol, a minor's refusal to submit to chemical test, and driving during the 24 hours after being cited for minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol or refusal to submit to chemical test; establishing penalties for these offenses; relating to court ordered drug and alcohol screening, evaluation, referral, and programs; relating to implied consent to certain testing if operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; relating t o a n instrument's working tolerance in a chemical breath test; relating to the authority of a court to impose a suspended sentence after failure to complete a treatment program upon conviction of felony driving while intoxicated o r felony refusal to submit to a chemical test; relating to the period of time a court may consider for determining prior convictions in sentencing a person convicted of felony driving while intoxicated or felony refusal to submit to a chemical test; amending Rules 6 and 32.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, to allow the use of hearsay evidence before a grand jury in a prosecution for felony driving while intoxicated or felony refusal to submit to a chemical test and to not require a presentence report for a first felony driving while intoxicated or first felony refusal to submit to a chemical test; and providing for an effective date." Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General was invited to join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill. She referred to the inexperience of children who drive combined with the use of alcohol results in a deadly combination. This bill would add three new statutes to Title 28 which would provide that children would not be allowed to drive after having had any amount of alcohol. A person who would be arrested for probable cause for drinking and driving, if they would refuse a breath test, they could also be cited for that. It would require a peace officer that arrested a child for drinking and driving or refusal to take a breathalyzer must give them a warning that they would not be allowed to drive within a 24-hour period after they had been cited. The offenses are violations with the provision of maximum of $1,000 fine plus community work service or combination of both. Pending a child's conviction they would be subject to administrative revocation of their driver's license or privilege to drive. First offense would be 90 days under the provisions adopted by the legislature last year. She noted there were four clean-up issues to the felony drunk driver statute passed last year. It would allow computer printouts rather than certified copies of the judgments of prior DWI convictions to be presented to the Grand Jury. (tape change to SF-96, #112, side 1) Senator Sharp asked if this bill only applied to juveniles and Ms. Carpeneti said the zero tolerance provisions in this bill apply to all under 21. She said the felony clean-up provision applied to all felony DWI cases. Senator Donley asked her to explain the zero tolerance level. She said this bill adopted zero tolerance level approach to drinking and driving for juveniles. If a police officer at the time of a stop has probable cause to believe the juvenile has been drinking before driving the officer would take the individual to the nearest police station for a breathalyzer. If the juvenile blows any amount of alcohol in their blood stream they will be cited for driving after drinking. Senator Donley said he supported this bill and he is convinced this is an important step. The medical evidence is overwhelming that alcohol has a much greater impact on the driving ability of young drivers than on experienced drivers. In response to comments by Senator Rieger Ms. Carpeneti said it was already illegal for juveniles to drink but it was far more serious for them to drink and drive. Senator Donley referred to the section dealing with the suspended imposition of sentence. She said the court in sentencing an individual for DWI is required to sentence the person to be screened and may also provide in the court order the treatment suggested by the screening agency, including in-patient treatment. If the individual failed to complete the treatment ordered the statute required the sentencing judge to impose the entire remaining suspended time of incarceration without discretion as to how much time was appropriate. This bill would amend it to allow the court to send the person back to treatment. Alcohol treatment does not usually take on the first try and sometimes it will take two or three times. This would allow the court to send the individual back into treatment and also gives the court the discretion of partial imposition of sentence. Senator Donley felt this was a step backward. Ms. Carpeneti said the sponsor of the bill is in support of this specific provision and MADD supports the bill also. Senator Rieger asked if other hearsay evidence is acceptable to a grand jury and Ms. Carpeneti said generally hearsay evidence is not admissable at a grand jury. This bill would allow an exception for the use of computer print-outs for prior records. She explained what "hearsay" evidence was and that in usual circumstances a document must be authenticated by an individual before it is admissible. She referred to page 11 and the Breath Test Result Validity. Under this test the court would accept the results without having to make adjustments for margin of error or working tolerances. Senator Rieger said .02 was a working threshold but basically meant zero tolerance. Ms. Carpeneti said children need to get the message that the tolerance level is zero. She felt using the .02 would give children the message that it was o.k. to drink if one did not exceed the .02 level. Co-chairman Halford commented on section 17 and Ms. Carpeneti said it was added on the floor. She said this was not in the original bill and did not feel it was necessary to have in. Co-chairman Halford said all violations would be based on a statistical violation that would be beyond the instruments tolerance to zero. Senator Donley said most cases are not prosecuted under .12 because it had been established there was a .02 discrepancy in breathalyzers. It is difficult to obtain convictions if one is below .12 rather than .1. Laurie Otto, Criminal Division, Department of Law was invited to join the committee. She concurred with Senator Donley. She said most cases registering .11 were within the limits and would not be prosecuted. What is needed to be shown now in DWI cases was that the machine was working and was calibrated correctly. Ms. Otto said that since it is known the margin of error is above what the offense level is it would be a logical amendment. This would make a better statute. Senator Donley said he would move that as a conceptual amendment. Discussion took place between Senators Donley and Rieger regarding blood alcohol levels. Co-chairman Halford asked if there was objection to the conceptual amendment that applies the machine tolerance to all statutes on the books currently except the new zero tolerance for minors and there being no objection the conceptual amendment was adopted. Senator Zharoff asked if there would be a message to young people that it would not be o.k. to drink and drive but it would be o.k. to drink at home but Ms. Carpeneti said she did not feel that was the message. There was still a prohibition on minor consuming. Senator Sharp moved SCS CSHB 204(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes from Department of Health and Social Services/Alcohol SAFety Action Program; Department of Public Safety/AST; Department of Public Safety/Driver Services; Department of Law/Criminal; Department of Administration/PDA; Department of Administration/OPA; and the Alaska Court System.