Legislature(2003 - 2004)

02/27/2004 01:20 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 342 - INCREASE DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE PENALTY                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2181                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL   NO.  342,  "An   Act  relating  to   driving  while                                                               
intoxicated; and providing  for an effective date."   [Before the                                                               
committee was the proposed committee  substitute (CS) for HB 342,                                                               
Version 23-LS1292\D,  Luckhaupt, 2/14/04, which was  adopted as a                                                               
work draft on 2/20/04.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2200                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CARL  GATTO, Alaska State Legislature,  sponsor of                                                               
HB 342, indicated  that his staff was available  for questions as                                                               
well.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2232                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS moved  to adopt  the proposed  CS for  HB                                                               
342, Version 23-LS1292\H, Luckhaupt, 2/23/04, as the work draft.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2240                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for  the purpose of discussion.                                                               
He  asked  whether Version  H  allows  certification of  ignition                                                               
interlock  devices  to  be  done   by  the  commissioner  of  the                                                               
Department   of  Administration   (DOA)   as  well   as  by   the                                                               
commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC).                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG  relayed that  the  language  in question  is                                                               
located on page 2, [lines 19-20].                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2269                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CODY  RICE,  Staff to  Representative  Carl  Gatto, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, sponsor,  confirmed that either the  commissioner of                                                               
the DOC  or the  commissioner of the  DOA could  certify ignition                                                               
interlock devices.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he   would  not  object  to  the                                                               
adoption  of  Version  H  as  long as  the  phrase,  "or  by  the                                                               
commissioner of administration" is not  included in Version H and                                                               
is instead offered for inclusion as a separate amendment.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested instead  that the committee adopt Version                                                               
H as the work draft and  then consider an amendment to delete the                                                               
aforementioned phrase.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would  prefer to have the phrase                                                               
deleted from Version H before it is adopted as a work draft.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his  belief that the phrase ought                                                               
to be included  because the commissioner of the  DOA oversees the                                                               
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  relayed, however,  that when  the issue                                                               
of ignition  interlock devices was  first brought forth,  it took                                                               
years  to  resolve  the  problem  of  whether  it  would  be  the                                                               
Department of  Public Safety or  the DOA that would  have purview                                                               
over ignition interlock devices.  He elaborated:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     The Hickel  Administration wanted, by  executive order,                                                                    
     to change  it from [the Department  of] Corrections, as                                                                    
     in  the  law, to  [the  Department  of] Public  Safety.                                                                    
     These two  departments fought  for years.   It  held up                                                                    
     the  administration of  this  whole ignition  interlock                                                                    
     law for  years, and  I had  to threaten to  sue.   So I                                                                    
     would ask  ... the  maker of the  motion ...  to please                                                                    
     just  not make  that part  of [Version  H], let's  talk                                                                    
     about  that  as  a  separate   amendment,  and  I  will                                                                    
     withdraw  my objection,  then, to  [Version]  H, but  I                                                                    
     would like  that [language] ...  offered as  a separate                                                                    
     amendment.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE indicated  that she  is  not sure  how they  could                                                               
procedurally go about adopting only  portions of proposed CS as a                                                               
work draft.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2369                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG called the question.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2375                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representative  Anderson,  Ogg,                                                               
Samuels, and McGuire voted in favor  of adopting Version H as the                                                               
work  draft.     Representative   Gruenberg  voted   against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Version H was before the committee by a vote of 4-1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-27, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2360                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[The end of the roll call vote concluded on Side B.]                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE relayed  that a  forthcoming amendment  addressing                                                               
Representative Gruenberg's concern would  be labeled Amendment 1.                                                               
She then asked for an explanation of Version H.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. RICE  said that  Section 1  of Version  H clarifies  that the                                                               
period of  time during which  one must use an  ignition interlock                                                               
device cannot  run concurrently  with the  period of  time during                                                               
which one's  driver's license  is revoked.   Language on  page 2,                                                               
lines 21-23  clarifies that  the term,  "motor vehicle"  does not                                                               
include snow  machines, boats, planes,  or anything  not designed                                                               
for  a  road   system.    "Essentially,  this   only  applies  to                                                               
automobiles," he  added.   These changes,  along with  the change                                                               
pointed   out   by   Representative   Gruenberg   regarding   the                                                               
commissioner of the DOA, are  the significant changes encompassed                                                               
in Version H.   In response to a question,  he confirmed that the                                                               
language,  "or sentence"  is now  included  in Section  1 of  the                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2263                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 1, to                                                               
delete, "or by  the commissioner of administration"  from page 2,                                                           
line 20.  Speaking to Amendment 1, he said:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     As I mentioned  at our last hearing, I'm  the author of                                                                    
     the  current ignition  interlock law.  ... The  current                                                                    
     law  requires the  commissioner of  [the Department  of                                                                    
     Corrections]  to  administer   the  ignition  interlock                                                                    
     certification program.   It turns out  that this became                                                                    
     an  extremely  contentious  issue, and  took  literally                                                                    
     years  to  resolve,  after  I   was  even  out  of  the                                                                    
     legislature,   because   neither  the   Department   of                                                                    
     Corrections nor the Department  of Public Safety really                                                                    
     wanted to  do it and  each wanted  the other to  do it.                                                                    
     It  was  kind of  an  unusual  program, and  they  just                                                                    
     didn't want to  do it.  And the  two departments fought                                                                    
     for at least a year, if not more, about this.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     And finally they left it  with the commissioner of [the                                                                    
     Department  of  Corrections],   but  literally  it  ...                                                                    
     wasn't resolved  until I, in  private practice,  had to                                                                    
     threaten  a  lawsuit.    And  if  you  put  this  other                                                                    
     language in, I  am most concerned that  this will cause                                                                    
     a similar problem and  terrifically delay the continued                                                                    
     implementation  of  this law.    This  is an  extremely                                                                    
     important change,  and I urge  you not to object  to my                                                                    
     deletion.   If  the  administration  comes before  this                                                                    
     legislature with its ducks in  a row and says, for some                                                                    
     reason, "We feel  a need to change  it, and everybody's                                                                    
     agreed to  it," then  I will  listen, but  please don't                                                                    
     put  it  in here;  this  is  going  to have  a  serious                                                                    
     adverse effect.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "We have addressed it."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. RICE added,                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     We've been in contact  with the administration and with                                                                    
     Duane  Bannock of  the DMV.  ... It's  my understanding                                                                    
     that  the  DMV ...  and  the  administration have  been                                                                    
     working with  us pretty  closely on  this. ...  I can't                                                                    
     speak for  them, but I  think that  they're comfortable                                                                    
     in dealing with us on this issue.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2142                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DUANE  BANNOCK,  Director,  Division  of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                               
Department of Administration (DOA), said  that the DMV is willing                                                               
and,  to a  limited  extent,  able to  assist  with a  relatively                                                               
seamless [transition],  at least from a  verification standpoint,                                                               
so that "this" can take place.  He went on to say:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     In the  research that  I've done in  the last  few days                                                                    
     regarding interlock  devices, what  I would  expect the                                                                    
     DMV to  do is not  go out and  touch the car  to verify                                                                    
     that it  is in there.   However, in reviewing  a couple                                                                    
     of  very  large  companies  that  this  is  what  their                                                                    
     business is,  they issue a  certificate that  will have                                                                    
     the   model  number,   the  serial   number,  of   that                                                                    
     particular  unit.     And   so,  potentially,   with  a                                                                    
     distributor   in  Alaska,   when  that   car  or   that                                                                    
     automobile goes  to that  station, because  that person                                                                    
     is  a certified  ignition  interlock device  installer,                                                                    
     they  issue  a certificate  of  compliance  - or  their                                                                    
     invoice, or repair order, or  whatever the word is.  We                                                                    
     at  the  Division  of Motor  vehicles  then  view  that                                                                    
     document,  record   that  document   as  part   of  the                                                                    
     requirement  for  issuing,   now,  either  the  limited                                                                    
     license or the new, reinstated driver's license.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said  that both last year  and this year                                                               
he has been  in touch with the commissioner of  the Department of                                                               
Corrections  and   his  staff,   and  they  have   had  extensive                                                               
discussions regarding  the ignition  interlock program.   The DOC                                                               
is quite  involved with that  program and  have been, now,  for a                                                               
number of years;  the DOC has not mentioned to  him, he remarked,                                                               
anything about wanting  to change the current system.   "Have you                                                               
totally coordinated  this with  them?" he  asked of  Mr. Bannock,                                                               
adding that  he would like  to hear from  the DOC on  this issue.                                                               
"Is  this  something   that  you  both  have   agreed  that  your                                                               
department will take over from them?" he also asked.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK replied,  "No, I certainly have not, and  I would not                                                               
want to imply that I have  spoken with anyone at [the] Department                                                               
of Corrections about that."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  remarked to  the committee,  then, that                                                               
keeping  the aforementioned  language in  the bill  constitutes a                                                               
serious change, and that he would  like to have full testimony on                                                               
this issue from the DOC  because the current wording could result                                                               
in  the  two  departments  fighting with  each  other  and  could                                                               
totally  bollix  up  the  program.   He  offered  his  hope  that                                                               
Amendment 1 would be adopted.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2039                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his belief  that the DMV would be                                                               
able to  handle applications  for ignition  interlocks in  a more                                                               
expeditious manner  and it would  therefore be important  to have                                                               
both departments involved.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "This  is  not  what  we're talking  about.  ...  We're                                                                    
     talking  about  the  department  having  a  program  to                                                                    
     certify which  type of  ignition interlock  devices can                                                                    
     be installed,  and it's a certification  statewide, not                                                                    
     on a  case-by-case basis.   And  it's a  very technical                                                                    
     kind of a  thing, and it is not just  the kind of thing                                                                    
     you're  talking about.   And  I would  urge, before  we                                                                    
     take  any  steps  like  this,   there  should  be  full                                                                    
     testimony from both  departments.  It's a  good bill, I                                                                    
     don't want to  see it held up on this  kind of [issue].                                                                    
     This isn't the place to do it, if we're going to make                                                                      
     a change, we shouldn't just do it in an ad hoc manner.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG  noted that  there  is  a difference  between                                                               
verification, which  is what  Mr. Bannock  was referring  to, and                                                               
certifying what  the device  is.   He opined  that it  should not                                                               
take two departments to certify what a device is.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  agreed with  Representative Ogg  that verification                                                               
and certification were two separate issues.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS   said  he  is  tending   to  agree  with                                                               
Representatives  Ogg and  Gruenberg.   He remarked  that the  two                                                               
departments might  not be  so inclined to  work in  a cooperative                                                               
manner  during  future  administrations, particularly  if  a  new                                                               
manufacturer starts producing the devices  - it could then become                                                               
a  question   of  departmental  political  power   influencing  a                                                               
commerce  issue.    He  indicated  agreement  that  certification                                                               
should not be under the purview of two departments.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1891                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there  were any further objections to                                                               
Amendment 1.  There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1873                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  made a  motion  to  adopt Amendment  2,                                                               
labeled 23-LS1292\D.1, Luckhaupt, 2/21/04, which read:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          ""An Act relating to driving while under the                                                                        
       influence and to the issuance of limited drivers'                                                                      
     licenses; and providing for an effective date.""                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, following line 2:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Section 1.  AS 28.15.201(d) is amended to read:                                                                  
          (d)  A court revoking a driver's license,                                                                             
     privilege to  drive, or privilege  to obtain  a license                                                                    
     under AS 28.15.181(c), or  the department when revoking                                                                    
     a driver's  license, privilege  to drive,  or privilege                                                                    
     to obtain  a license  under AS 28.15.165(c),  may grant                                                                    
     limited  license  privileges  [FOR THE  FINAL  60  DAYS                                                                    
     DURING WHICH THE LICENSE IS REVOKED] if                                                                                    
               (1)  the revocation was for a misdemeanor                                                                        
     conviction   under  AS 28.35.030(a)   and  not   for  a                                                                    
     violation of AS 28.35.032;                                                                                                 
               (2)  the person has not been previously                                                                          
     convicted  or,  if  the   person  has  been  previously                                                                
     convicted,  the court  or the  department requires  the                                                                
     person  to   use  an   ignition  interlock   device  as                                                                
     described  in AS 12.55.102  during  the  period of  the                                                                
     limited   license;  in   this  paragraph,   "previously                                                                
     convicted" has  the meaning  given in  AS 28.35.030 and                                                                    
     also includes convictions based  on laws presuming that                                                                    
     the  person was  under  the  influence of  intoxicating                                                                    
     liquor if there  was 0.08 percent or more  by weight of                                                                    
     alcohol in the person's blood;                                                                                             
               (3)  the court or the department determines                                                                      
     that the  person's ability to  earn a  livelihood would                                                                    
     be severely impaired without a limited license;                                                                            
               (4)  the court or the department determines                                                                      
     that  a limitation  under (a)  of this  section can  be                                                                    
     placed on  the license that  will enable the  person to                                                                    
     earn  a  livelihood  without excessive  danger  to  the                                                                    
     public; and                                                                                                                
               (5)  the court or the department determines                                                                      
     that the  person is  enrolled in  and is  in compliance                                                                    
     with,  or  has  successfully completed  the  alcoholism                                                                    
     screening,    evaluation,    referral,   and    program                                                                    
     requirements  of the  Department of  Health and  Social                                                                    
     Services under AS 28.35.030(h)."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Section 1"                                                                                                  
          Insert "Sec. 2"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1835                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  noted  that  because  Amendment  2  was                                                               
drafted  to  apply to  Version  D,  it should  become  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2  for the purpose of  applying to Version H.   He said                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 2  will delete  the  requirement that  only                                                               
during the  final 60  days of a  license-revocation period  may a                                                               
misdemeanant  DUI  (driving  under  the  influence)  offender  be                                                               
granted a limited  driver's license.  He said  that from comments                                                               
he's  received from  constituents, he  believes that  the current                                                               
law  hinders   one's  ability  to   work  and   remain  employed.                                                               
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment  2 would allow the  granting of a                                                               
limited driver's license anytime  during the revocation period as                                                               
long as the misdemeanant offender  has no prior convictions - or,                                                               
if there is a prior conviction,  the court or the department will                                                               
require  the offender  to  use an  ignition  interlock device  in                                                               
conjunction with  the limited driver's  license - and  also meets                                                               
other current statutory criteria.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON,  in response to questions,  said that it                                                               
is his intent  to remove the stipulation that  a limited driver's                                                               
license  can only  be  granted  during the  final  60  days of  a                                                               
revocation  period.   The  provision  in  Conceptual Amendment  2                                                               
pertaining to  those that have  prior convictions is  intended to                                                               
address  those  who  apparently have  a  recurring  problem  with                                                               
drinking and driving.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  Representative Anderson  whether                                                               
he  wanted  the stipulation  regarding  the  use of  an  ignition                                                               
interlock   to  apply   only  to   those  offenders   with  prior                                                               
convictions, or  would he be  willing to extend  that stipulation                                                               
to possibly apply  in other situations as well.   For example, in                                                               
cases  where  the limited  driver's  license  would be  used  for                                                               
purposes other than  earning a livelihood, such as  if the person                                                               
were someone  else's primary  caregiver or  had a  health problem                                                               
that could require  a visit to the hospital.   He opined that the                                                               
judge and  the department should  have the discretion to  grant a                                                               
limited driver's license for compelling cases.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1407                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered  a [conceptual]  amendment  to                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 2,  to  insert, "or  that  there are  other                                                               
compelling circumstances  that require the issuance  of a limited                                                               
license" into AS  28.15.201(d)(3) and (4), which  are included as                                                               
part  of Conceptual  Amendment 2.    In response  to a  question,                                                               
Representative Gruenberg said that  his [conceptual] amendment to                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment   2  would  only  apply   in  very  unusual                                                               
circumstances that "require" the use of a limited license.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that she did not like the word "require".                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he wanted the  entity granting the                                                               
limited  driver's license  to know  that it  has to  be convinced                                                               
that there is "really something unusual."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG  opined that use of  the word, "circumstances"                                                               
could open  things wide up.   He suggested that more  time should                                                               
be taken  in order  to draft  this proposed  conceptual amendment                                                               
narrowly,  remarking that  as  currently  proposed, judges  would                                                               
have  to   determine  exactly  what   is  meant   by  "compelling                                                               
circumstances."   He offered his  belief that that term  needs to                                                               
be clarified.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said that what he  means by "compelling                                                               
circumstances" are  those wherein  a life would  be in  danger or                                                               
wherein  there  are serious  health  problems.   He  opined  that                                                               
judges  will  make good  decisions  on  this issue,  noting  that                                                               
judges  make decisions  regarding "compelling  circumstances" all                                                               
the time.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that there  would also still be the                                                               
caveat  that the  offender not  be a  danger to  the public,  and                                                               
offered  his  belief  that  judges would  still  take  that  into                                                               
account when  determining whether  a circumstance  was compelling                                                               
enough.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1132                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE asked  whether there  were any  objections to  the                                                               
[conceptual] amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1119                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG objected.  He said:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     I still  think the  barn door is  wide open,  and we've                                                                    
     only  heard a  couple  of circumstances:    life is  in                                                                    
     danger.  And that might be  like when?  [It's just] one                                                                    
     particular circumstance.   Health  in the family,  or a                                                                    
     health circumstance  - I think  you can narrow it.   My                                                                    
     concern is  that ... we're revoking  a person's license                                                                    
     because  they  were  drinking  and  driving,  and  it's                                                                    
     supposed  to be  a  punishment.   And  we're making  an                                                                    
     exception here  for somebody who  wants to go  to work.                                                                    
     that's  an exception.   And  this is  a privilege,  and                                                                    
     when you open this door  up, it lessens the punishment,                                                                    
     and I  think you need  to be fairly particular.   [But]                                                                    
     if you  want to be  very broad,  then I guess  that's a                                                                    
     direction you want  to go, [but] I'm  not interested in                                                                    
     becoming very broad in this area.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA offered  that  if they  must choose  between                                                               
using limiting  words or listing specific  circumstances for when                                                               
a limited license would be  granted, he would be comfortable with                                                               
using limiting  words as long  as they  are limiting enough.   He                                                               
predicted  that if  they  only provided  an  exception for  those                                                               
specific circumstances  that Representative Gruenberg  could come                                                               
up with  in a given  amount of  time, some circumstance  that the                                                               
committee  might want  included as  an exception  could get  left                                                               
out.  He said he agrees  with Representative Ogg, though, in that                                                               
he  is  uncomfortable  with just  using  the  word  "compelling".                                                               
Representative Gara  said to Representative Gruenberg,  "I wonder                                                               
if you could think of a  limiting word that might move you closer                                                               
to Representative Ogg."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG replied:    "That's why  I said,  'that                                                               
require', not just, 'that allow'.  ... The circumstances have got                                                               
to be sufficiently compelling that they require it."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked,  "It has to be something  that is also                                                               
not ordinary, right?"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Well,  it could  be ordinary  in the  sense that  as we                                                                    
     age, there may  [be] more and more  seniors who require                                                                    
     that their kid be able to  take them to the hospital or                                                                    
     the doctor appointment or something  like that.  So, it                                                                    
     doesn't have  to be extraordinary  in that sense.   The                                                                    
     point is that it's compelling.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0956                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   McGUIRE  said   that   although   she  understands   what                                                               
Representative Gruenberg  is trying  to get  at and  supports the                                                               
general idea, she  would prefer the language to  be more specific                                                               
and so would oppose it at this  time with the caveat that if more                                                               
specific language is brought forth  to the House floor, she would                                                               
support making the change then.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     I'm trying to  ratchet it down, but I think  we have to                                                                    
     give  the judge  the  ability  to deal  with  it in  an                                                                    
     individual-fact  situation.   I don't  think it  can be                                                                    
     crafted any  more than, "compelling  circumstances that                                                                    
     require  the issuance  of a  license", and  we have  to                                                                    
     leave it to the judicial officer.  We're dealing with                                                                      
     superior court and district court judges here.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed  that she is reminded of  exemptions to the                                                               
permanent  fund  dividend  (PFD)  absence  requirement,  and  the                                                               
debate on the  House floor last year regarding  caring for others                                                               
who are ill.   She said she recalled that  in that situation they                                                               
needed to be  specific because, otherwise, if one  just says, "to                                                               
care for  other people's health  because it's  compelling", there                                                               
could be  all kinds of  people being cared  for and all  kinds of                                                               
people  qualifying  for the  exemption.    She indicated  that  a                                                               
concern is  that what might be  compelling to one person  may not                                                               
be compelling to another.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   remarked,  "It   would  have   to  be                                                               
compelling to the judge."  He  said he would be willing to accept                                                               
alternative language.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0861                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG called the question.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated  that the question would  be called after                                                               
Representative Gara had a chance to speak.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested  that  they  might  limit  it  by                                                               
extending the  additional use of  the interlock device  to health                                                               
and safety reasons,  but not just any health  and safety reasons.                                                               
"I think if you did,  'important health and safety reasons', that                                                               
might satisfy ... everybody's concern," he added.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said   "That  would  be  satisfactory,                                                               
sure."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative  Gruenberg whether he would be                                                               
withdrawing  the  current  [conceptual] amendment  to  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2 and offering a new one.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied:   "No.  What I want  to say is,                                                               
'compelling health or safety cases'."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said  he would not be  removing his objection,                                                               
and again called the question.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  clarified  that  the  language  change                                                               
created by  the [conceptual] amendment to  Conceptual Amendment 2                                                               
would involve the words, "compelling health or safety reasons".                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0814                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll   call  vote  was  taken.     Representatives  Gruenberg,                                                               
Anderson, Gara,  and McGuire voted  in favor of  the [conceptual]                                                               
amendment  to Conceptual  Amendment 2.   Representatives  Ogg and                                                               
Samuels voted against it.   Therefore, the [conceptual] amendment                                                               
to Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether members  would like  the                                                               
title  of  the  bill,  which   would  be  amended  by  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2,  to also say,  "also relating to  ignition interlock                                                               
devices".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0781                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
VANESSA  TONDINI, Staff  to Representative  Lesil McGuire,  House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing Committee,  Alaska  State Legislature,  noted                                                               
that  the  title  has  been  changed  in  Version  H;  thus,  she                                                               
remarked,  she   is  assuming   that  in   conforming  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  2, as  amended,  to Version  H,  [the proper  language                                                               
would be included].                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  commented that the committee  probably should make                                                               
a  specific change  to the  title to  include language  regarding                                                               
ignition  interlock devices,  so  that future  amendments to  the                                                               
bill don't  involve removing  the ignition  interlock requirement                                                               
for limited licenses.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that  this second amendment to                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 2  would  result in  the  title reading  in                                                               
part,  "influence,   ignition  interlock  devices,  and   to  the                                                               
issuance".                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON   said  he   would  accept   the  second                                                               
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0691                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE asked  whether there  were any  objections to  the                                                               
second amendment  to Conceptual Amendment  2, as amended.   There                                                               
being none,  the second amendment  to Conceptual Amendment  2, as                                                               
amended, was adopted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GARA  turned   attention  to   the  portion   of                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended,  that pertains to proposed AS                                                               
28.15.201(d)(2).   He said  he is  not in  favor of  relaxing the                                                               
license  revocation  period,  adding that  the  current  proposed                                                               
language change  to [paragraph]  (2) appears  to let  someone get                                                               
his/her  license  returned  earlier  on a  first  DUI  conviction                                                               
without having to  use an ignition interlock device.   He went on                                                               
to say:                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     I don't know  why we would do that.   If we're going to                                                                    
     require that  you have  to use  an interlock  device to                                                                    
     get your license back early  for a second conviction, I                                                                    
     think you  should do  it for a  first conviction.   And                                                                    
     the language seems to read to  me ... that if it's only                                                                    
     your first  [DUI] conviction, you can  get your license                                                                    
     back early without the use of an interlock device.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said, "I don't think it would do that."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that  she could understand Representative                                                               
Gara's  point, and  suggested that  they  delete from  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  2, as  amended, the  words, "the  person has  not been                                                               
previously  convicted  or,  if the  person  has  been  previously                                                           
convicted,".   Thus the language  in proposed  AS 28.15.201(d)(2)                                                           
would  start with,  "the  court or  the  department requires  the                                                           
person  to use  an interlock  device".   She asked  whether doing                                                           
such would solve the problem.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said  he did not think it  would, adding that                                                               
since Conceptual Amendment 2, as  amended, is relying on existing                                                               
statutory  language,  such a  change  to  Conceptual Amendment  2                                                               
would  take out  some of  that existing  statutory language.   He                                                               
said he  is a little  uncomfortable doing that because  he thinks                                                               
it is  there for a reason  for some other purpose.   He suggested                                                               
that the drafter needs to work on finding a different approach.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:49 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0536                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  relayed that during the  at-ease, he and                                                               
Representative  Gara spoke  with the  drafter.   In an  effort to                                                               
clarify, Representative  Anderson said that currently,  if one is                                                               
a  first time  misdemeanant DUI  offender,  one can  apply for  a                                                               
limited license and  does not need an  interlock device; however,                                                               
if  a  DUI offender  has  a  prior conviction,  currently  he/she                                                               
cannot get a limited license.   So, in order to achieve his goal,                                                               
he relayed,  the drafter  has suggested  altering the  portion of                                                               
Conceptual   Amendment   2,   as  amended,   pertaining   to   AS                                                               
28.15.201(d)(2) to  read, "the court  or the  department requires                                                           
the person  to use an  ignition interlock device as  described in                                                           
AS 12.55.102 during the period of the limited license;".                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON explained that if  such a change is made,                                                               
regardless of  whether someone  is a first  time offender  or has                                                               
one  or  more  prior  convictions,   he/she  can  go  through  an                                                               
application  process  with the  court  or  the department  for  a                                                               
limited  license.   Approval of  that application  would then  be                                                               
based  on the  applicant  successfully meeting  the criteria  set                                                               
forth in AS 28.15.201(d)(1)-(5), and  which includes, among other                                                               
things, the  installation of  an ignition  interlock device.   In                                                               
conclusion  he remarked  that  such a  change  would enhance  the                                                               
safety aspect [of the bill].                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked  that it may take  some time to                                                               
"ramp up"  the ignition interlock program,  "since there's nobody                                                               
who does  this now."   Therefore, if  Conceptual Amendment  2, as                                                               
amended,  is changed  in the  aforementioned fashion,  he opined,                                                               
the  committee will  have  to adopt  a  forthcoming amendment  to                                                               
Version H that reads [original punctuation provided]:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 30:                                                                                                           
          Delete "July 1, 2004"                                                                                                 
          Insert "January 1, 2005"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  remarked,   however,  that  the  other                                                               
alternative is to  "keep the 'or' in so that  you know that there                                                               
some places that  they just can't do it or  some people, frankly,                                                               
may choose  not to  do it."   But if  Conceptual Amendment  2, as                                                               
amended,  is altered  as  suggested  by Representative  Anderson,                                                               
Representative Gruenberg  opined, then  the committee  also ought                                                               
to adopt  not only what  he termed  a delayed effective  date but                                                               
another forthcoming  amendment to Version H  that reads [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 12, following "28.15.181(c).":                                                                                
     Insert "The court  may not order or require  the use of                                                                  
     an ignition interlock device unless  a provider for the                                                                  
     device is  located within 100 miles  of the defendant's                                                                  
     residence or domicile."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0329                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  that the  committee should  adopt                                                               
what he  referred to  as the "100  mile" amendment  because there                                                               
will  be  some  places  in  the state,  even  after  the  delayed                                                               
effective  date, that  won't have  access  to ignition  interlock                                                               
installation services.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, turning back  to his suggested change to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, said:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     I think we  can keep what we have; what  this is saying                                                                    
     is, if  you have multiple  DUIs, you have to  apply and                                                                    
     you  have to  have an  ignition device,  and ...  if we                                                                    
     don't remove  it, I don't  think it requires  the first                                                                    
     time DUI offender to have an ignition device.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  noted that the  amendment regarding  the effective                                                               
date would apply  to the entire bill, not just  to the provisions                                                               
of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  sought   confirmation  that  this  third                                                               
amendment to  Conceptual Amendment  2, as amended,  would involve                                                               
having  proposed  AS  28.15.201(d)(2)  read, "the  court  or  the                                                           
department  requires  the person  to  use  an ignition  interlock                                                           
device  as described  in AS  12.55.102 during  the period  of the                                                           
limited license;"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said, "Correct."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered  his understanding, though, that                                                               
Representative Anderson does not  support this third amendment to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON replied,  "Well, I think at  this stage I                                                               
would support it because then it  requires that anyone with a DUI                                                               
conviction, whether  one or  more, that  applies for  a temporary                                                               
license  has to  have an  ignition interlock  device."   He added                                                               
that although that  was not what he was intending  to begin with,                                                               
it's "great."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0200                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS moved  to  adopt the  third amendment  to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA indicated,  however,  that  adoption of  the                                                               
third  amendment  to Conceptual  Amendment  2,  as amended,  will                                                               
render a part of the bill senseless.  He elaborated:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Representative  Anderson's amendment  is a  good one  I                                                                    
     think.   But  in  places where  there  is no  interlock                                                                    
     device available,  what we're  now doing is  changing a                                                                    
     process   whereby   today   somebody  with   no   prior                                                                    
     convictions can  get [a limited license],  and changing                                                                    
     it so  that if they  live in  a place where  there's no                                                                    
     interlock devices available, they  can't get [a limited                                                                    
     license].   And in that sense,  we're actually knocking                                                                    
     a whole bunch of people off of the ...                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE interjected  and made  mention of  the forthcoming                                                               
amendment that  Representative Gruenberg  had referred to  as the                                                               
"100 mile" amendment.  She  noted that this forthcoming amendment                                                               
would apply  to the entire  bill, including  Conceptual Amendment                                                               
2, as amended, should it be adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA remarked,  however,  that he  did not  think                                                               
that  that forthcoming  amendment  fully  satisfies the  concern,                                                               
adding that he thought the  committee could create something that                                                               
would  do so.    He opined  that if  Conceptual  Amendment 2,  as                                                               
amended, is  amended this  third time and  then adopted  into the                                                               
bill along  with the  "100 mile"  amendment, it  will make  it so                                                               
that those who live more than  100 miles from an interlock device                                                               
provider  can get  a  limited  license even  if  they have  prior                                                               
convictions.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE disagreed.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 04-28, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in an effort to clarify, said:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     This is  still the gap  in the thing that  we're doing.                                                                    
     Currently, we don't want you  to have a limited license                                                                    
     if you  have prior convictions. ...  We're now changing                                                                    
     the law and we're getting  rid of this prior conviction                                                                    
     requirement.  We're now saying,  even if you have prior                                                                    
     convictions you can get a  limited license, ... you can                                                                    
     apply  for it.   Now  we're  saying, even  if you  have                                                                    
     prior   convictions  and   no  interlock   [device]  is                                                                    
     available in your area, you  can get a limited license.                                                                    
     ...  We are  making  it  easier to  for  you  to get  a                                                                    
     limited  license, if  you  have  prior convictions,  in                                                                    
     those   areas  where   an  interlock   device  is   not                                                                    
     available.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "That's true."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked, "I don't  think we want to do that;                                                               
... I don't think anybody intended  to do that, and ... some work                                                               
has to be  put into the language  of the bill if  we're not going                                                               
to do that."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he was not sure what to do.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 3:07 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that HB 342  would be held over  for the                                                               
purpose of  allowing Representatives  Anderson and Gatto  to work                                                               
on language  that would address  the issues raised, one  of which                                                               
being that they  did not want repeat  offenders getting [limited]                                                               
driver's licenses  without an interlock.   She noted that  at the                                                               
bill's   next  hearing   the   committee   would  address   other                                                               
forthcoming  amendments as  well.   [Version H  of HB  342, along                                                               
with a pending  motion regarding a third  amendment to Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2, as amended, was held over.]                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects