Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impaired Driving Protection Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to create "impaired driving protection order," defers action
Summary
The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee reviewed House Bill 14-26, which would establish a new impaired driving protection order and included five amendments addressing petitioners, ex parte relief, right to counsel and training requirements. The committee did not take executive action on the bill on Feb. 19.
The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 discussed House Bill 14-26, a proposal to create a new civil remedy called an impaired driving protection order but deferred executive action.
The bill, as presented to the committee, would establish an impaired driving protection order and included five proposed amendments. Representative Jacobson offered amendments described in the packet that would: remove “interested person” from the list of permissible petitioners and delete the related definition; prohibit the court from ordering, in an ex parte temporary impaired driving protection order, that a respondent install an ignition interlock device or submit to alcohol monitoring or 24/7 sobriety monitoring; and remove provisions authorizing ex parte temporary orders and all references to temporary impaired driving protection orders. A separate amendment by Representative Wallin would remove the requirement that the Criminal Justice Training Commission develop training for law enforcement on impaired driving protection orders and would remove the requirement that all new and current peace officers complete that training.
The bill packet also would provide a right to counsel for respondents: an amendment would state that a respondent has the right to be represented by an attorney at a hearing on an impaired driving protection order and requires the court to appoint counsel at public expense if the respondent cannot afford an attorney or if the cost would cause substantial hardship.
Committee leadership did not put the bill up for executive action during the Feb. 19 session; the committee instead proceeded to other bills on its agenda.
Why it matters: the proposal would create a specialized civil remedy tied to impaired driving and includes procedural protections and limits on temporary ex parte relief and law enforcement training requirements. Those elements affect how courts, law enforcement and potentially affected individuals would interact with the new order if enacted.
Next steps: no executive action was taken on HB 14-26 on Feb. 19. The bill may be scheduled for future committee consideration or amendment, but no date was announced during the hearing.
