Drunken Driving Gets A Sober Look Senate Panel Backs Tough Measures, But Others Object

A Senate panel embarking on a binge of drunken driving legislation sped through several measures Tuesday amid signs many of the proposals will get a long and sober look down the road.

On the 1998 legislative session’s second day, the Senate Law and Justice Committee approved measures requiring that:

Highly inebriated or repeat drunken drivers install breath testing devices in their cars that would prevent their cars from starting if the driver is drunk. The bill is SB6165.

Drunken drivers’ records stay with them for life, rather than being erased after five years, and drivers get just one “deferred prosecution” in a lifetime, rather than one every five years. The measure is SB6166.

The panel, headed by Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, also took testimony on several other measures, all so new they had no bill numbers, with plans to pass them later this week. Among them were bills that would:

Allow for seizure of licenses and impoundment of cars before conviction even after a first offense.

Reduce from .10 percent to .08 percent the blood-alcohol level that makes a motorist legally drunk.

Greatly increase fines and jail time for drunken driving.

Provide for revocation of licenses after a first offense and before conviction.

Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran was among several people who told the panel they liked the legislation. Sidran called the package “a real meaningful message for reform” to get drunks off the roads. He especially praised the measures allowing for quick seizure of licenses and cars, saying other states have shown this to be an effective deterrent to drunken driving.

But behind the scenes, there is concern that the legislation as a whole might be too much too fast.

Some House members are asking, for example, if lowering the blood alcohol level to .08 percent would do little more than clog police blotters and courts while contributing little to public safety.

“The statistics show that the really bad actors, the ones who do all the damage, have really high blood-alcohol levels. Those are the people we need to go after,” said Rep. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville.

Others, such as Rep. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, are worried that measures to make it easier to seize autos and licenses could threaten the constitutional right to due process.

“We’ll certainly look at everything Senator Roach sends our way, but really, I think the House will be focusing more on going after the really chronic drunk drivers, the ones who do all the damage,” said House Law and Justice Chairman Larry Sheahan, R-Rosalia.

He said his panel will take considerably more time than Roach to examine some of the proposals.

“These things (bills) are going by pretty fast,” said Sen. Jim Hargrove, a member of Roach’s panel. Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, noted that there appears to have been little attention paid to the cost of the legislation, something that could doom it when and if it reaches each chamber’s fiscal committee.

Many lawmakers have concerns about the potential cost to local governments.

“We’ve got to be careful that we don’t just hand our local governments more laws without the money to pay the cost,” Sen. Shirley Winsley, R-Tacoma, said earlier.

The Washington Association of Counties expressed just that concern to Roach’s committee.

Earlier, Gary Lowe, a spokesman for the association, said his group “has been working almost on a daily basis to try to get a local government fiscal note (on cost) we feel is accurate.”

Lowe said county officials are just as eager as anyone to crack down on drunken drivers. “But the bottom line is, as we get tougher on any kind of crime, the cost goes up. And the biggest single cost is prosecution and jail. Where’s the money going to come from” when motorists fight tougher sentences and other sanctions? he asked.

Gov. Gary Locke, who backs most of the legislation proposed by Roach, has promised to pump several million dollars into local government coffers to help defray the cost.

But legislative leaders have been noncommittal about giving local governments money to enforce tougher drunken driving laws.

Without funding, new laws would have little effect, Lowe said.

Roach said she was confident “that in the end, the funding will be there for this legislation.”