Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB98 Motor Fuel Theft topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates and amends motor‑fuel theft bill; sponsor keeps 90‑day suspension but acknowledges need for intent language
Summary
SB98 would impose a 90‑day driver's license suspension for gas station 'drive‑offs'; senators raised concerns about mandatory suspensions and uninsured driving, and sponsor said prosecutors must prove intent — the bill was amended on the floor and moved forward.
Senate Bill 98, which targets motor fuel 'drive‑off' thefts, generated substantive floor debate on Feb. 19 as senators weighed criminal penalty enhancement against potential collateral consequences.
Sponsor Senator Greiner explained the bill's intent: when a customer fills a tank and leaves without paying, the offense will carry the possibility of a 90‑day driver's license suspension and other penalties. He said the proposed suspension was intended to deter repeat offenders and help merchants recover losses. "That's the essence of the bill," he told colleagues, citing concerns that some operators were losing margin because of credit‑card fee structures and theft.
Several senators urged caution. Senator Hilliard warned that mandatory suspensions often result in continued driving without a license or insurance, creating broader public‑safety and enforcement problems. He recommended giving courts discretion rather than an automatic administrative penalty. Senator Stevenson asked about accidental drive‑offs where a motorist returns and pays, and the sponsor said the statute includes an intent requirement: prosecutors would need to prove intent to deprive the owner of fuel for the suspension to apply.
Greiner signaled willingness to amend language to address judicial discretion and the proof‑of‑intent standard before third reading. The amendment that was placed on the bill clarified suspension language to apply as written to appropriate offender classes; the bill was then placed at the bottom of the third‑reading calendar and later reported passed by recorded vote in the floor record.
The exchange highlights the balance lawmakers sought between retail theft deterrence and avoiding penalties that could worsen uninsured driving or unfairly sweep up accidental conduct. Next steps include final third‑reading consideration and any conference or enrollment actions required before the measure becomes law.
