Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

01/29/2010 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved Out of Committee
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                     HB 271 - DUI PENALTIES                                                                                 
1:09:00 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM  announced that the first  order of business                                                               
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271,  "An Act relating to the offenses of                                                               
driving  while  under the  influence  of  an alcoholic  beverage,                                                               
inhalant,  or controlled  substance and  refusal to  submit to  a                                                               
chemical test."                                                                                                                 
1:09:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  MIKE HAWKER,  Alaska State  Legislature, sponsor,                                                               
explained that  HB 271 is  intended to address  people's concerns                                                               
about repeat  driving under the  influence (DUI) offenders.   One                                                               
concern centers  on the  fact that DUI  offenders who  have their                                                               
vehicles impounded as a result of  the DUI can just reclaim their                                                               
vehicle  and drive  away.    The bill  would  require, via  court                                                               
order,  that  any  such  vehicle be  equipped  with  an  ignition                                                               
interlock device  before it can  be taken  out of impound  by the                                                               
DUI  offender  and  that  the DUI  offender  be  prohibited  from                                                               
driving  any  vehicle that  doesn't  have  an ignition  interlock                                                               
device, and  would amend  the repeat  [DUI] offender  [and repeat                                                               
refusal to  take a chemical  test] statutes such that  second and                                                               
subsequent offenses  within 10 years  would trigger  those felony                                                               
provisions that  are currently triggered by  third and subsequent                                                               
offenses within 10 years.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  offered  his understanding  that  ignition                                                               
interlock  devices have  been effective,  and that  research from                                                               
other  states indicates  that immediate  incarceration for  a DUI                                                               
does have  an effect on DUI  recidivism rates.  He  observed that                                                               
the [Department of Corrections'  (DOC's)] fiscal note estimates a                                                               
cost of  $7 million [for  the implementation  of Section 2  of HB
271], and mentioned that members'  packets now include a proposed                                                               
amendment,  labeled  26-LS1271\R.1,   Luckhaupt,  1/29/10,  which                                                               
     Page 1, following line 3:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Section 1. AS 12.25.180(a) is amended to read:                                                                   
          (a)  When a person is stopped or contacted by a                                                                       
     peace officer  for the commission  of a  misdemeanor or                                                                    
     the  violation of  a  municipal  ordinance, the  person                                                                    
     may,  in   the  discretion  of  the   contacting  peace                                                                    
     officer, be  issued a citation  instead of  being taken                                                                    
     before  a  judge   or  magistrate  under  AS 12.25.150,                                                                    
               (1)      the    person   does   not   furnish                                                                    
     satisfactory evidence of identity;                                                                                         
               (2)  the contacting officer has reasonable                                                                       
     and probable  cause to believe  the person is  a danger                                                                    
     to self or others;                                                                                                         
               (3)  the crime for which the person is                                                                           
     contacted is one involving violence  or harm to another                                                                    
     person or to property;                                                                                                     
               (4)  the person asks to be taken before a                                                                        
     judge or magistrate under AS 12.25.150; [OR]                                                                               
               (5)  the peace officer has probable cause to                                                                     
     believe   the  person   committed  a   crime  involving                                                                    
     domestic violence; in  this paragraph, "crime involving                                                                    
     domestic   violence"   has   the   meaning   given   in                                                                    
     AS 18.66.990; or                                                                                                       
               (6)  the crime for which the person is                                                                       
     contacted  is a  violation of  AS 28.33.030, 28.33.031,                                                                
     AS 28.35.030, or 28.35.032."                                                                                           
     Page 1, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Section 1"                                                                                                  
          Insert "Sec. 2"                                                                                                     
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  HAWKER noted  that current  law requires  certain                                                               
DUI offenders  to use  an ignition interlock  device in  order to                                                               
regain driving  privileges after conviction, whereas  the bill is                                                               
proposing to  require released DUI  offenders to use  an ignition                                                               
interlock device prior to their trial  - prior to conviction.  He                                                               
offered his  understanding that current law  already provides for                                                               
immediate incarceration.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  concurred  that  DUI crimes  are  a  huge                                                               
problem in Alaska, particularly on the Seward Highway.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that  a felony DUI conviction results                                                               
in   the  DUI   offender   having   his/her  driving   privileges                                                               
permanently revoked.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether Legislative  Legal  and                                                               
Research  Services  has  issued  an  opinion,  either  formal  or                                                               
informal, regarding the constitutionality of the bill.                                                                          
1:22:00 PM                                                                                                                    
JULI  LUCKY,  Staff,  Representative Mike  Hawker,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  on behalf  of the  sponsor, Representative  Hawker,                                                               
said  that although  a formal  legal opinion  was requested,  the                                                               
sponsor  hasn't received  one, but  discussions with  the drafter                                                               
indicate that  there is no  definitive answer, even on  the issue                                                               
of whether the use of  ignition interlock devices can be required                                                               
prior to  conviction.  In response  to a question, she  agreed to                                                               
submit a written request for a formal legal opinion.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  remarked  that  it was  that  issue  -                                                               
whether it's  constitutional to require  something that  would be                                                               
an element  of the  punishment phase,  "before they've  even been                                                               
charged"  - which  concerned him.    He asked  whether any  other                                                               
potential  constitutional issues  were  addressed in  discussions                                                               
with the drafter.                                                                                                               
MS. LUCKY said no, and  offered her understanding that some other                                                               
states do  require the use  of ignition interlock  devices before                                                               
conviction, but  she is unfamiliar  with whether there  have been                                                               
any constitutional challenges  to such laws.   She mentioned that                                                               
she  is researching  that  issue further,  though,  and so  would                                                               
provide information to the committee as soon as it's available.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  referring to Section 2,  asked whether                                                               
any constitutional issues have arisen  with regard to permanently                                                               
revoking  someone's   driving  privileges   for  a   second  DUI,                                                               
specifically whether doing so would  constitute cruel and unusual                                                               
MS.  LUCKY  said that  issue  has  not  yet  been raised  by  the                                                               
drafter, and offered  to research that point further.   She noted                                                               
that some states  and the [United States Virgin  Islands] do make                                                               
a second DUI conviction a felony,  though she is not sure whether                                                               
those laws have  been challenged; that issue  is being researched                                                               
further  as well.   In  response  to questions,  comments, and  a                                                               
request,  she agreed  to conduct  further research  regarding any                                                               
potential constitutional  problems with the bill,  adding that it                                                               
is the sponsor's intent to have  any such issues put on the table                                                               
for members to discuss.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES   expressed  interest  in   receiving  any                                                               
statistics illustrating  that those who  get stopped for  DUI are                                                               
then  reoffending  before  they  go  to  trial  for  the  initial                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER  said that sort  of analysis did  not enter                                                               
into  his consideration  of  the bill;  instead,  he is  bringing                                                               
HB 271  forward at  the  request of  his  constituents, who  feel                                                               
threatened by [repeat DUI offenders].                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked that the  aforementioned proposed                                                               
amendment be labeled.                                                                                                           
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM  expressed a preference for not  doing so at                                                               
this  time because  there could  be other  forthcoming amendments                                                               
that need to be addressed first.                                                                                                
1:30:35 PM                                                                                                                    
JOSEPH  A. MASTERS,  Commissioner,  Department  of Public  Safety                                                               
(DPS), relayed  that although the DPS  has not yet had  much time                                                               
to review  HB 271, the  issue of  highway safety is  an important                                                               
one for  the DPS  and deserves  serious attention  from everyone.                                                               
He noted that the DPS  is currently arresting approximately 6,300                                                               
people yearly for DUI; that in  2007, 2008, and 2009, 43 percent,                                                               
45 percent, and  25 percent, respectively, of  fatal crashes were                                                               
alcohol related;  that over a  10-year period, there  were 44,238                                                               
motor vehicle  accidents, with 454  being fatal,  8,888 involving                                                               
injuries,  and 2,900  caused by  multiple-DUI offenders;  that of                                                               
those  2,900 motor  vehicle accidents,  92 were  fatal and  1,024                                                               
involved injuries.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  expressed interest in  receiving statistics                                                               
illustrating the  link between DUI  offenders, and - in  terms of                                                               
their alcohol  consumption - sex offenders  and domestic violence                                                               
(DV) perpetrators.                                                                                                              
COMMISSIONER   MASTERS  agreed   to  attempt   to  compile   such                                                               
information, but  cautioned that it  might not be  possible given                                                               
the current capability of the DPS's database system.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  how  [Section 1]  would work  in                                                               
areas  of the  state  where ignition  interlock  devices are  not                                                               
COMMISSIONER MASTERS  said the DPS is  already investigating that                                                               
issue,  and  indicated  that Lieutenant  Dial  could  address  it                                                               
further.  In response to  other questions, he said that according                                                               
to his  experience, very, very few  people who are stopped  for a                                                               
possible DUI  actually refuse to  submit to a chemical  test; and                                                               
indicated  that there  are several  ways for  law enforcement  to                                                               
determine  a person's  sobriety or  lack thereof  when he/she  is                                                               
stopped for a possible DUI.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed  interest in receiving statistics                                                               
illustrating  the  percentage  of first-time  DUI  offenders  who                                                               
never  reoffend   again,  the   percentage  of   second-time  DUI                                                               
offenders who  never then reoffend  again, and the  percentage of                                                               
DUI offenders who simply continue to reoffend.                                                                                  
COMMISSIONER MASTERS  indicated that he would  attempt to provide                                                               
such statistics,  as well as  any other information  requested by                                                               
the committee.                                                                                                                  
1:43:01 PM                                                                                                                    
RODNEY   DIAL,  Lieutenant,   Deputy  Commander,   A  Detachment,                                                               
Division of  Alaska State Troopers,  Department of  Public Safety                                                               
(DPS),   expressed  concern   with   Section   1's  proposed   AS                                                               
12.30.022(2)  in that  vehicle impound  policies vary  across the                                                               
state,  and so  this provision  would have  different effects  in                                                               
different  parts of  the state;  in that  the wait  time for  the                                                               
installation  of ignition  interlock devices  also varies  across                                                               
the state,  and so this  provision could result in  some vehicles                                                               
being left in  impound accruing more daily  impound fees, perhaps                                                               
accruing to an amount greater than  the value of the vehicle; and                                                               
in  that because  a vehicle  can't be  released until  it has  an                                                               
ignition  interlock  device  installed, that  installation  could                                                               
cost more because it might have to  occur in the impound lot.  In                                                               
response to an  earlier question, he mentioned  that his research                                                               
indicates  that ignition  interlock devices  can be  installed in                                                               
all parts of  Alaska, though the wait  times, installation costs,                                                               
and  difficulties with  installation will  vary depending  on the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE   GATTO  questioned   whether  a   first-time  DUI                                                               
offender's vehicle could simply be  taken to his/her own property                                                               
instead of to an impound lot.                                                                                                   
VICE  CHAIR DAHLSTROM  pointed  out  that if  one  of her  family                                                               
members  were to  be struck  by a  DUI offender,  she would  have                                                               
great  concern if  the  DUI  offender still  had  easy access  to                                                               
his/her vehicle.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN,  in  response to  comments,  asked  whether                                                               
[Section 1]  could be altered  such that DUI offenders  living in                                                               
smaller  communities  could  be treated  differently  than  those                                                               
living in larger communities.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  predicted  that  an  equal  protection                                                               
issue would then have to be addressed.                                                                                          
COMMISSIONER  MASTERS surmised  that someone  other than  himself                                                               
could better address that point.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO   offered  his  understanding   that  under                                                               
current  law, people  in remote  locations  are already  exempted                                                               
from having to install an ignition interlock device.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON indicated that  in his district, because of                                                               
a lack  of storage  space, the local  impound company  refuses to                                                               
accept every vehicle that's impounded.                                                                                          
1:54:34 PM                                                                                                                    
LIEUTENANT DIAL in response to  a question, explained that when a                                                               
person  is  arrested   for  DUI,  he/she  is  asked   to  take  a                                                               
breathalyzer test  - generally via  DataMaster equipment-  but if                                                               
he/she  refuses,  law  enforcement informs  him/her  that  he/she                                                               
would  also be  charged  with  the crime  of  refusal  to take  a                                                               
chemical test.  Those arrested for  DUI have the right to obtain,                                                               
at their own  expense, an independent test  of their intoxication                                                               
levels -  this currently involves a  blood test.  In  response to                                                               
another question, he explained  that modern breathalyzers undergo                                                               
"failsafe checks" both  before and after a  test is administered,                                                               
and  are  frequently, routinely  calibrated,  and  are thus  very                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether proposed  AS 12.30.022(2)                                                               
would apply  to a vehicle that  the DUI offender was  driving but                                                               
neither owned nor had registered in  his/her name.  He also asked                                                               
what occurs now in situations involving a family vehicle.                                                                       
LIEUTENANT DIAL,  on the  latter question,  explained that  as of                                                               
January 2009, courts  have been requiring those  convicted of DUI                                                               
to install an  ignition interlock devise on  every vehicle he/she                                                               
owns - even  work vehicles - though currently there  is no way to                                                               
verify that such has occurred.                                                                                                  
2:00:34 PM                                                                                                                    
DOUGLAS  MOODY,  Deputy   Director,  Criminal  Division,  Central                                                               
Office,   Public    Defender   Agency   (PDA),    Department   of                                                               
Administration (DOA),  in response to a  question, indicated that                                                               
he'd not  considered there  being any  due process  problems with                                                               
Section  1, and  noted that  the  courts have  broad leeway  with                                                               
regard to setting bail restrictions.                                                                                            
2:03:42 PM                                                                                                                    
WINDY  HANNAMAN, Deputy  Director,  Anchorage  Office, Office  of                                                               
Public  Advocacy (OPA),  Department of  Administration (DOA),  in                                                               
response  to  comments,  agreed to  research  the  aforementioned                                                               
issues as well.                                                                                                                 
2:05:09 PM                                                                                                                    
KERRY  HENNINGS, Manager,  Driver  Licensing, Director's  Office,                                                               
Division of  Motor Vehicles  (DMV), Department  of Administration                                                               
(DOA), in response  to questions, said that there  is a provision                                                               
in  law that  allows the  DMV, when  there is  a court  order, to                                                               
indicate on a  person's driver's license that he/she  must use an                                                               
ignition interlock  device; that the DMV  does this automatically                                                               
when it  receives notice  from the  court; and  that when  such a                                                               
person  comes   into  the  DMV   to  reinstate   his/her  driving                                                               
privileges, he/she is required to show proof of installation.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered  his  understanding  that  the                                                               
Alaska Court  System (ACS)  is too  understaffed to  provide such                                                               
notice, and questioned  whether the bill should  have a provision                                                               
added  that would  require the  DUI  offender himself/herself  to                                                               
notify  the  DMV  that  he/she must  use  an  ignition  interlock                                                               
MS.  HENNINGS offered  her  belief that  many  DUI offenders  are                                                               
already  out  of  compliance with  their  court-ordered  ignition                                                               
interlock  device installation  requirements, and  predicted that                                                               
such people could not be relied  upon to notify the DMV that they                                                               
have  such requirements;  without notification  from the  courts,                                                               
the DMV  would be  unable to  place a  restriction on  a person's                                                               
driver's license,  and law enforcement,  as a result,  would have                                                               
no  indication that  the person  is required  to use  an ignition                                                               
interlock device.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG characterized  the  placing  of such  a                                                               
restriction on a DUI offender's driver's license as important.                                                                  
LIEUTENANT  DIAL clarified  that because  the court  is currently                                                               
required to  notify the  DMV within five  business days  that the                                                               
person must  use an ignition interlock  device, that notification                                                               
information is reflected in the  Alaska Public Safety Information                                                               
Network (APSIN), which law enforcement  accesses when pulling the                                                               
person over;  if the  person is  found to  be out  of compliance,                                                               
he/she is then charged with violating a court order.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether a  car rental  agency in                                                               
another state, for example, would have  any way of knowing that a                                                               
customer from  Alaska is  required to  use an  ignition interlock                                                               
MS. HENNINGS said  that any such restrictions are  defined on the                                                               
back of the  person's driver's license, but  acknowledged that it                                                               
would be up  to the rental car agency to  scrutinize the person's                                                               
driver's license carefully.                                                                                                     
2:11:48 PM                                                                                                                    
RICHARD  SVOBODNY,  Deputy   Attorney  General,  Central  Office,                                                               
Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law (DOL),  in  response  to                                                               
earlier questions, indicated that  proposed AS 12.30.022(2) would                                                               
not apply  to a  vehicle that  the DUI  offender was  driving but                                                               
neither  owned  nor had  registered  in  his/her name;  and  that                                                               
Section 1 would not be a  violation of due process, and would not                                                               
constitute a potential equal protection  violation, because it is                                                               
a privilege  to drive and not  a right.  The  court currently has                                                               
the  authority to  prohibit a  person  from driving  at all,  and                                                               
that's  more  onerous,  he  opined, than  simply  telling  a  DUI                                                               
offender that  he/she can only drive  a car that has  an ignition                                                               
interlock device.   In conclusion, he characterized  Section 1 as                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether   a  vehicle  could  be                                                               
searched once it's been impounded by law enforcement.                                                                           
MR. SVOBODNY noted that "impound"  searches already occur and are                                                               
meant to protect  law enforcement from accusations of  theft.  In                                                               
response to a further question, he  surmised that the bill is not                                                               
intended to  force the company  installing an  ignition interlock                                                               
device  to  do  that  installation  without  the  DUI  offender's                                                               
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM  offered her understanding that  that is not                                                               
the intention of the sponsor, either.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  surmised,   then,  that  [proposed  AS                                                               
12.30.022(2)] is  not requiring  a particular company  to install                                                               
an ignition  interlock device, but  is instead just  granting the                                                               
court the authority to prohibit  an impound agency from returning                                                               
a motor  vehicle to  a DUI offender  until an  ignition interlock                                                               
device is installed.                                                                                                            
MR.  SVOBODNY concurred,  but noted  that currently  there is  no                                                               
criminal sanction for violating such a prohibition.                                                                             
2:20:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. LUCKY, with  regard to an issue raised earlier,  noted that a                                                               
previous  iteration  of the  bill  would  have required  that  an                                                               
ignition interlock  device be installed  on any  vehicle involved                                                               
in a  DUI offense regardless  of who  owned the vehicle,  but the                                                               
drafter  had  expressed  constitutional   concerns  with  such  a                                                               
requirement,   and  so   as  currently   written,  [proposed   AS                                                               
12.30.022(2)] would not apply to  a vehicle that the DUI offender                                                               
was  driving but  neither  owned nor  had  registered in  his/her                                                               
name.   With regard to a  point made earlier, she  noted that the                                                               
DMV  has  compiled  a  list  of areas  of  the  state  where  the                                                               
installation of an  ignition interlock device is  not required in                                                               
order to comply  with existing law, but explained  that this type                                                               
of exemption wouldn't  apply under HB 271 because  [Section 1] is                                                               
simply setting  conditions of bail.   On the question  of whether                                                               
installation would  occur at  the impound  lot, she  relayed that                                                               
it's  not the  sponsor's intent  that vehicles  would be  left in                                                               
impound  until  installation  occurs, but  rather  that  vehicles                                                               
would be  released upon  proof that the  DUI offender  intends to                                                               
install an ignition interlock device,  and so the committee might                                                               
wish to  add language regarding what  would constitute sufficient                                                               
proof; without  such additional  language, the  onus would  be on                                                               
the  impound company  to keep  the car  and deal  with any  civil                                                               
liability associated with  the car, and that's not  the intent of                                                               
the sponsor.   House Bill 271  is a basic bill,  a starting point                                                               
for discussion purposes.                                                                                                        
MS.  LUCKY  pointed  out that  existing  law  regarding  ignition                                                               
interlock  devices provides  that  the [DUI]  fines imposed  upon                                                               
conviction may  be reduced  [in order to  allow the  offender] to                                                               
pay for  the device, but there  is not a similar  reduction under                                                               
HB 271 because  [fines don't accrue until  after conviction], and                                                               
the bill, again,  is addressing conditions of  bail; the question                                                               
of whether the courts have the  authority to reduce the amount of                                                               
bail [in  order to  allow the  offender to  pay for  the device],                                                               
however, is  something she would  be researching further.   There                                                               
has also been  a concern expressed about requiring the  use of an                                                               
ignition interlock  device on a  first offense as a  condition of                                                               
bail,  but since  the sponsor's  intent is  to target  repeat DUI                                                               
offenders,  the committee  might  wish to  consider whether  that                                                               
provision  should  be  altered  to  apply only  on  a  second  or                                                               
subsequent  offense.    Such  a  change  could  reduce  potential                                                               
problems regarding impound, she  surmised, since according to her                                                               
understanding, the majority of [first-time]  DUI offenders do not                                                               
go on  to reoffend  a second  time.   Furthermore, if  [Section 1                                                               
were changed  such that it]  only applied to those  who reoffend,                                                               
it  could  mitigate  constitutional concerns  because  the  court                                                               
could show  that the proposed  conditions of bail  were warranted                                                               
in order to protect the  community from those who've demonstrated                                                               
a propensity for continuing to drink and drive.                                                                                 
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM relayed that HB 271 would be held over.                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
1 HB271 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
2 HB271 Bill v R.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
3 HB271 Sectional.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
4 HB271 Background.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
01 HB144 ver A.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HL&C 4/8/2009 3:15:00 PM
HB 144
02 HB144 Sponsor Statement .pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HL&C 4/8/2009 3:15:00 PM
HB 144
03 HB144 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HL&C 4/8/2009 3:15:00 PM
HB 144
04 HB144 Fiscal Note -LAW-CIV-4-2-09.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HL&C 4/8/2009 3:15:00 PM
HB 144
05 HB144 UPC Definition.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HL&C 4/8/2009 3:15:00 PM
HB 144
5 HB271-CTS-01.27.10.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
6 HB271-DOA-OPA-01-26-10.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
7 HB271-DPS-AST-01-22-10.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
06 HB144 Letter of support - Hompesch & Evans.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HL&C 4/8/2009 3:15:00 PM
HB 144
8 HB271-LAW-01-28-10.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271
9 HB271-LAW-CRIM-01-28-10.pdf HJUD 1/29/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 271