HB 342-DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE/ALCOHOL OFFENSES  MR. CODY RICE, staff to Representative Carl Gatto, co-sponsor of HB 342, said this legislation addresses several issues related to driving under the influence (DUI), limited licenses, and look-back provisions. HB 342 sets up a situation where, based on blood alcohol content (BAC), the most egregious offenders will be required to have ignition interlocks for six months to one year. It also contains provisions that allow a 15-year look-back for misdemeanor DUI offenses. Currently, the law provides for a lifetime look-back. Felony DUIs would have a 10-year window. HB 342 also contains provisions for the granting of limited licenses and requires the offender to go through a series of steps. He offered to answer questions. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for further explanation of the look- back provisions. MR. RICE explained that under current law, the felony look-back provision requires that a third offense within eight years qualifies as a felony. In 2006, the look-back time period will increase to ten years. The misdemeanor look-back is unlimited. This bill would limit that window to 15 years. SENATOR FRENCH asked how the 15-year time limit was arrived at. MR. RICE said that was a provision of HB 175, which was Representative Rokeberg's bill. MS. AMANDA WILSON, staff to Representative Rokeberg, explained in looking at other states' provisions, 15 years is the longest look-back provision, except in Massachusetts. The only other state with a lifetime look-back provision is Massachusetts but the consequences for subsequent offenses are less harsh than Alaska's. Currently, Alaska has one of the harshest punishments for subsequent offenses in the nation. She noted the intent is not to go easy on subsequent offenders but to find some number to make the law more just. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if an intoximeter works in extremely cold temperatures. MR. RICE said he believes Senator Therriault is questioning how the ignition interlock works, and answered that ignition interlocks have been used in Canada and Poland and have been approved for use in Alaska since 1996. They have not been widely used because they are not commercially viable, since people are not required to use them. He noted that judges do not want to impose their use because they are not easily available and manufacturers do not want to market them here since they are not widely used. This bill will solve that problem by requiring the most egregious offenders to use them. He said his data suggests that about 50 percent of the DUIs in Alaska are double the legal limit. People in that range would be required to use an ignition interlock for six months after the offense. He informed members that he has talked to an ignition interlock distributor who has expressed a willingness to make them available in Alaska if this bill passes. CHAIR SEEKINS asked about the reliability and effectiveness of interlock devices. MR. RICE said while researching that question, he learned that what these companies are selling is their reputations because their devices cannot be bypassed. Part of the reason they require a minimum pool of ignition interlock users is that they must do background checks on installers and make sure they are well trained. He said they have been proven, according to journal articles, to reduce recidivism. MADD is on record in support. He explained that ignition interlocks are located near the steering column. The driver must blow into the device before the car will start. They are fairly complex to prevent someone other than the driver to activate them. They also require retests while the car is being driven and will log whether the retest was performed. The cost is about $3 per day; the offender would lease the device and pay for its installation. SENATOR OGAN questioned how such a device could ensure that the driver was activating it, not someone else. MR. RICE said no device could assure that but the fact is that it is highly unlikely that a sober passenger would activate the device for a drunk driver, which is a crime in existing statute. SENATOR OGAN commented that it appears the only way to get a limited license under the bill is to have an interlock device installed. MR. RICE said a person could receive a limited license for a first offense without an interlock device. The bill also contains a separate provision from HB 175 that addresses the wellness court program. MS. WILSON explained that the wellness court program currently has about 40 participants. That court only takes misdemeanants and provides an intensive outpatient treatment program. Participants must report to the court regularly and are required to take naltrexone. Upon graduation after 18 months of successful treatment, participants are provided a limited license without an ignition interlock device. An offender who does not participate is able to get a limited license within 90 days but must use an interlock device. SENATOR FRENCH referred to lines 6-7 on page 1, and asked what prompted that language. MR. RICE said the legal drafter used that language to allow the court to impose the use of an interlock device as part of the sentence. Initially, ignition interlocks were only assigned as part of probation requirements. CHAIR SEEKINS furthered that the judge could require the offender to use the device for a certain time period even if the offender was not on probation. MR. RICE agreed. SENATOR FRENCH asked how that would be enforced. MR. RICE said in all cases, the offender's license is revoked, either judicially or administratively. To reinstate the license, the offender would have to provide proof of certain actions to DMV personnel. That might include showing a letter from an interlock device company saying the device had been installed. CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Cashen to testify. 10:08 a.m. MS. CINDY CASHEN, representing four MADD chapters in Alaska, stated support for this legislation and the use of interlock devices. According to the studies conducted in Maryland, California, and Alberta, Canada, they have worked in other states. The use of the devices resulted in a 50 to 90 percent reduction of subsequent offenses compared to offenders who were not required to use them. She said that MADD supports the wellness court provision in the bill. The wellness court has been successful. She commented, "We've seen that by helping wellness court clients get back on the road quicker, they become a contributor to our community as opposed to draining our community of many things, among them resources." MS. CASHEN said the amendment is of concern to MADD because [the bill] as written, will make it easier for drunk drivers to get their licenses back and continue to drink and drive. MADD believes that the first and second time a person makes a mistake a look-back of 15 years is appropriate but not for a third offense. Studies show that a drunk driver drives between 200 and 2,000 times before being caught and, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, it takes 10 years to catch an offender the second time. She said the amendment is a reasonable request. If a person is caught three or more times, the court should be able to look-back in the records forever. She pointed out that some of the people that want the amendment that shortens the look-back provision to 15 years is a multiple DUI offenders, one an 8-time offender. This bill will allow that person to get his license back sooner. She cautioned that many high-risk DUI offenders have been caught more than twice, so this amendment is very dangerous. She asked members to consider the MADD amendment. SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Cashen if she was saying that 15 years is an acceptable look-back time period for a first or second offense, but a lifetime look-back period should apply to a third offense. MS. CASHEN said that is not MADD's official position. She explained, "With MADD national and MADD chapters, we are able to work within our states - we are given a certain amount of freedom and this is one that we've come up with within the state." REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, prime sponsor of HB 342, expressed a concern that if the bill is amended, it will have to go back to the House for concurrence and, due to time constraints, that could prevent passage of the bill. He said the goal of the bill is to prevent drunk drivers from driving. He said with that goal in mind, he asked whether the amendment will further that goal. He does not believe there is enough evidence to prove that extending the look-back time period will be beneficial. He said his intent is to provide motivation and encouragement for people who "have been on the wrong side" and to give them an opportunity to correct their actions. If indeed they are out of the loop, they will drive drunk regardless of anything. He said he believes 15 years is a good, long time and he questioned whether records will exist in some instances for a longer time period. He said this bill needs some restrictions. He said he believes this bill is an excellent one that has wide support and he does not want it to be jeopardized. He noted that extending the look-back provision could be considered next year. He repeated that his goal is to "get the drunks out of the cars" and not to look-back to get anyone who has ever been guilty of anything. SENATOR FRENCH noted that he had a schedule conflict. TAPE 04-64, SIDE A  CHAIR SEEKINS felt Representative Gatto's argument was compelling even though he agrees with the intent of the amendment. He expressed concern about the late date of the session and said he would like to see the concept of the bill embodied in law this year. He also pointed out that a very long look-back period could encourage offenders to plead to other offenses that would not go on their records as DUIs. He asked the will of the committee. SENATOR OGAN expressed support for Amendment 1, which reads as follows, and moved to adopt it. A M E N D M E N T 1 IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO CS HB 342(FIN)AM Page 4, lines 4-7 Delete all material and insert:     "(e) In (d)(2) of this section, "previously convicted" means having been convicted in this or another jurisdiction within the 15 years preceding the date of the present offense, of any of the following offenses; however, convictions for any of these offenses, if arising out of a single transaction and single arrest, are considered one previous conviction: (1) operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft in violation of AS 28.35.030 or in violation of another law or ordinance with similar elements, except that the other law or ordinance may provide for a lower level of alcohol in the person's blood or breath than imposed under AS 28.35.030; (2) refusal to submit to a chemical test in violation of AS 28.35.032 or in violation of another law or ordinance with similar elements; or (3) operating a commercial motor vehicle in violation of AS 28.33.030 or in violation of another law or ordinance with similar elements, except that the other law or ordinance may provide for a lower level of alcohol in the person's blood or breath than imposed under AS 28.33.030." Section 4 of the bill (page 4, lines 8-26): Delete all  material.    Add two new sections to the bill as shown on the  following two pages. "*Sec.___. AS 28.35.030(b) is amended to read: (b) Except as provided under (n) of this section, driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance is a class A misdemeanor. Except as provided under (p) of this section, upon conviction, (1) the court shall impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment of (A) not less than 72 consecutive hours and a fine of not less than $1,500 if the person has not been previously convicted; (B) not less than 20 days and a fine of not less than $3,000 if the person has been previously convicted once within the 15 years preceding the date  of the present offense; (C) not less than 60 days and a fine of not less than $4,000 if the person has been previously convicted twice and is not subject to punishment under (n) of this section; (D) not less than 120 days and a fine of not less than $5,000 if the person has been previously convicted three times and is not subject to punishment under (n) of this section; (E) not less than 240 days and a fine of not less than $6,000 if the person has been previously convicted four times and is not subject to punishment under (n) of this section; (F) not less than 360 days and a fine of not less than $7,000 if the person has been previously convicted more than four times and is not subject to punishment under (n) of this section; (2) the court may not (A) suspend execution of sentence or grant probation except on condition that the person serve the minimum imprisonment under (1) of this subsection; (B) suspend imposition of sentence; (3) the court shall revoke the person's driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license under AS 28.15.181, and may order that the motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft that was used in commission of the offense be forfeited under AS 28.35.036; and (4) the court may order that the person, while incarcerated or as a condition of probation or parole, take a drug or combination of drugs intended to prevent the consumption of an alcoholic beverage; a condition of probation or parole imposed under this paragraph is in addition to any other condition authorized under another provision of law."   "*Sec.___. AS 28.35.032(g) is amended to read: (g) Except as provided under (r) of this section, upon conviction, (1) the court shall impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment of (A) not less than 72 consecutive hours and a fine of not less than $1,500 if the person has not been previously convicted; (B) not less than 20 days and a fine of not less than $3,000 if the person has been previously convicted once within the 15 years preceding the date  of the present offense; (C) not less than 50 days and a fine of not less than $4,000 if the person has been previously convicted twice and is not subject to punishment under (r) of this section; (D) not less than 120 days and a fine of not less than $5,000 if the person has been previously convicted three times and is not subject to punishment under (r) of this section; (E) not less than 240 days and a fine of not less than $6,000 if the person has been previously convicted four times and is not subject to punishment under (r) of this section; (F) not less than 360 days and a fine of not less than $7,000 if the person has been previously convicted more than four times and is not subject to punishment under (r) of this section; (2) the court may not (A) suspend execution of sentence or grant probation except on condition that the person serve the minimum imprisonment under (1) of this subsection; (B) suspend imposition of sentence; (3) the court shall revoke the person's driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license under AS 28.15.181, and may order that the motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft that was used in commission of the offense be forfeited under AS 28.35.036; and (4) the court may order that the person, while incarcerated or as a condition of probation or parole, take a drug or combination of drugs intended to prevent the consumption of an alcoholic beverage; a condition of probation or parole imposed under this paragraph is in addition to any other condition authorized under another provision of law; and (5) the sentence imposed by the court under this subsection shall run consecutively with any other sentence of imprisonment imposed on the person."   Renumber bill sections accordingly. SENATOR THERRIAULT said he prefers that amendments be prepared by the Legal and Research Services Division and did not know whether he would support the amendment without knowing what the final product would be. SENATOR OGAN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1. MS. CASHEN informed members that the bill has a Senate Finance Committee referral. She cautioned that the amended bill would have to move out of that committee by Thursday for it to pass the legislature. She noted that MADD wants to see this legislation enacted. CHAIR SEEKINS proposed that the Senate Judiciary Committee take action on the bill today and that the sponsor and Ms. Cashen speak with the drafter to make sure there are no problems with the amendment and let the Senate Finance Committee address it. SENATOR OGAN moved CSHB 342(FIN)am from committee with individual recommendations. CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, the motion carried. He then recessed the meeting at 10:25 a.m. and said his intent was to reconvene after the Senate floor session.