HOUSE BILL REPORT

                  HB 1200

             As Reported By House Committee On:

                          Judiciary

Title:  An act relating to the jurisdiction of limited jurisdiction courts.

Brief Description:  Clarifying the jurisdiction over drunk drivers.

Sponsors:  Representatives Lantz, McDonald, Kastama, Schindler, Constantine, Sheahan and Carrell.

Brief History:

  Committee Activity:

Judiciary:  2/12/99, 2/22/99 [DP].

                 Brief Summary of Bill

$Updates the general statutes on the jurisdiction of district and municipal courts to reflect a specific five-year period of jurisdiction over DUI cases granted to courts in 1998.

$Exempts the enforcement of ignition interlock orders from the jurisdictional time limit.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Majority Report:  Do pass.  Signed by 12 members:  Representatives Carrell, Republican Co-Chair; Constantine, Democratic Co-Chair; Hurst, Democratic Vice Chair; Lambert, Republican Vice Chair; Cox; Dickerson; Esser; Kastama; Lantz; Lovick; McDonald and Schindler.

Staff:  Bill Perry (786-7123).

Background:

The district and municipal courts generally have jurisdiction over criminal defendants for two years.  In 1998, in conjunction with many changes in DUI penalties, these courts were given five years of jurisdiction over drunk driving cases.

Although the specific DUI laws were amended to grant this five-year period of jurisdiction, the general laws on jurisdiction of district and municipal courts still provide for a two-year period of jurisdiction.

As part of the 1998 DUI law amendments, very long periods of required use of ignition interlocks were provided for.  For a third-time offender, the minimum period of required use is 10 years.

Summary of Bill:

The statutes that deal generally with district and municipal court jurisdiction over criminal defendants are amended in two ways:

CThe statutes are made to explicitly reflect the five-year jurisdiction granted in the DUI law.

CThe enforcement of ignition interlock orders is exempted from the jurisdictional time restrictions.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  The bill will allow courts to use the tools the Legislature has given them to deal with DUI cases.

Testimony Against:  None.

Testified:  Representative Lantz, prime sponsor; and Judge Peter Lukevich, District and Municipal Court Judges Association.