SENATE BILL REPORT

 

 

                                    SB 5832

 

 

BYSenators Thorsness, Talmadge, Fleming, McCaslin, Lee, Owen, Saling, Bailey, von Reichbauer, Bender, Smitherman, Bauer, DeJarnatt, Gaspard, Vognild, Rasmussen, Barr, Wojahn, Warnke, Stratton, West, Conner, Johnson, Metcalf, Madsen, Matson, Anderson, McMullen and Newhouse

 

 

Creating the omnibus alcohol and controlled substance act of 1989.

 

 

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

 

      Senate Hearing Date(s):February 2, 1989, February 7, 1989, February 16, 1989, February 24, 1989

 

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5832 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass and be referred to Committee on Ways & Means

      Signed by Senators Madsen, Nelson, Newhouse, Rasmussen, Talmadge, and Thorsness.

 

Minority Report:  Do not pass.

      Signed by Senators Niemi, Rinehart.

 

      Senate Staff:Cliff Petersen (786-7457)

                  March 2, 1989

 

 

Senate Committee on Ways & Means

 

      Senate Hearing Date(s):March 17, 1989

 

      Senate Staff:Randy Hodgins (786-7439)

                  March 13, 1989

 

 

         AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE, FEBRUARY 24, 1989

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Drug and alcohol abuse have become an increasingly heavy burden on many of society's institutions.  The problem impacts educational, social and law enforcement agencies.  A number of criminal and other laws currently address the problem in a variety of ways.

 

Most drug crimes are covered in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and sentencing for felony violations of that act is part of the Sentencing Reform Act.  The Uniform Controlled Substances Act contains "schedules" of drugs, with schedule I and II drugs generally being the most addictive or dangerous.  Cocaine and opium related drugs such as heroin are classified as "narcotic" drugs.  The maximum penalties for violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act are set by that act.  However, the Sentencing Reform Act determines the sentence that is likely to be given in a particular case.  The Sentencing Reform Act provides for presumptive sentences for various ranked felonies, including violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.  A presumptive sentence is a narrow range of incarceration time within which a judge is to sentence an offender.  The sentence is based on the "seriousness level" of the crime committed and the criminal history score of the offender.  The higher the felony's ranking, and the higher the offender's criminal history score, the longer the presumptive sentence will be.  The sentencing judge may depart from a presumptive sentence in exceptional circumstances.  If there are sufficient aggravating circumstances, a sentence may exceed the presumptive range.  However, no sentence may exceed the statutory maximum prescribed by the law that creates the offense for which the offender has been convicted.  The Uniform Controlled Substances Act prescribes various maximum penalties for violations, and in some instances the otherwise applicable maximum is doubled.  For example, if an adult distributes certain drugs to a minor, the maximums are doubled.  A second or subsequent conviction for most drug offenses also results in a doubling of the maximum sentence.

 

The state's Privacy Act generally prohibits the interception, transmission or recording of any private conversation or communication without the consent of all the parties.  The state law, however, provides a number of exceptions to this general prohibition.  Four major categories of these exceptions pertain to criminal activity.  First, certain "wire" communications or conversations (e.g. telephone calls) may be recorded.  A telephone call may be recorded if it is an emergency, of a threatening or harassing nature, or if it involves a hostage holding situation, so long as one party to the call consents to the recording.  This exception applies to private citizens, as well as government officials, and does not require any prior authorization.  Second, incoming calls to police, fire and emergency personnel, as well as arrest procedures by law enforcement agencies, may be recorded without prior judicial authorization.  Third, a police officer (or undercover agent) may record a conversation without the consent of all parties if the officer has acquired prior judicial authorization.  That authorization may be obtained from any judge or magistrate in person or by telephone and must be based on probable cause to believe that the conversation will involve a felony.  Fourth, an exception exists for certain conversations in which no party has consented to the interception.  A typical example involves wiretapping a phone call between two parties without either party's knowledge of the wiretap.  This exception requires the state Attorney General or a county prosecuting attorney to obtain prior authorization (an "ex parte" order) from a superior court judge.  This exception is limited to situations involving national security, threat to human life, arson or riot.

 

Information obtained through an interception or recording of a private conversation in violation of the Privacy Act is generally inadmissible in court.  Information obtained pursuant to an ex parte order (i.e., when no party to the conversation has consented to the interception or recording) is also generally inadmissible.  There are two exceptions to this rule of inadmissibility.  First, the rule does not apply to a person whose rights have been violated under the Privacy Act.  Second, the inadmissibility rule does not apply to prosecutions of crimes that jeopardize national security.

 

A violation of the Privacy Act is a gross misdemeanor.  Persons injured by violations may also bring a civil suit to recover actual damages, attorney fees, costs and liquidated damages of up to $1,000.

 

Under the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act, certain property which is used or intended for use in illegal drug activities may be seized by law enforcement or regulatory agencies.  These provisions apply only to certain items of personal property such as illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, drug money, manufacturing equipment, drug containers, and vehicles used to transport drugs.  Real property is not covered under the act.

 

Seizure and forfeiture are civil processes and are independent of the filing or outcome of any criminal charges against the owner of the property.  The seizing agency must notify the owner of seized property of the right to a hearing.  Notification requirements may be satisfied by publication.  In a forfeiture hearing, the burden of proof is on the owner of the property.  He or she must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property either was not used in illegal drug activity, or was used without the consent or knowledge of the owner.

 

Current law allows for the involuntary treatment of persons suffering from mental disorders or alcohol addiction.  While such persons may also be suffering from drug addiction, the involuntary treatment law does not specifically address the treatment needs of drug abusers, and does not allow their treatment at all unless their problems also stem from mental disorders or alcohol abuse.

 

SUMMARY:

 

CRIMES AND PENALTIES:  The seriousness levels of various drug crimes are increased.  Delivery of heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines is increased to a level VIII crime, which carries a presumptive sentence for a first time offender of two years.  Delivery of heroin or cocaine was previously a level VI crime, with a first-time offender sentence of 13 months.  Delivery of methamphetamines was a level IV crime, with a first-time offender sentence of six months.  Misdemeanor drug offenses are given a mandatory minimum sentence of one day in jail and a $250 fine.  The minimum fine rises to $500 on a second offense.  A felony drug conviction carries a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense and $2,000 for a second offense.

 

Enhancement sentences are also provided for various drug offenses.  An additional 24 months is added to the presumptive sentence for any offense involving two kilograms or more of certain drugs.  An increased maximum fine is allowed for offenses involving two or more kilograms.  A fine of $100,000 may be imposed for two kilograms, and an additional fine of $50 per gram may be imposed for amounts above two kilograms.  The otherwise applicable maximum penalties are doubled and the presumptive sentence is increased by 24 months for drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a public school.

 

The criminal history score of an offender is increased for prior drug offenses.  If an offender is being charged with a drug offense and has prior drug offenses, those prior convictions count three points instead of two in determining the offender's criminal history score.  This increase in counting will increase the presumptive sentence for repeat drug offenders.

 

The crime of first degree reckless endangerment is created.  The crime is a class C felony and involves the discharging of a firearm from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another person.

 

BOOT CAMPS:  A pilot project for an adult regimented inmate disciplinary program is implemented.  The Department of Corrections will develop two programs, one for the eastern half and one for the western half of the state.  Offenders are eligible for the program if the offender is:  (1) 18-25 years old, (2) convicted of a nonviolent felony that is not a sex offense, (3) has not served a prison term, and (4) is physically capable of meeting program requirements.  Inmates will spend 90 to 120 days in the program.  If the court recommends the "boot camp," the department places the person in the boot camp if the person is eligible and bed space is available.  The program is limited to 30 people at a time.  The offender is be placed on intensive community supervision after the program for the remainder of the sentence.  The department can also send a person to a boot camp if eligible, even if not recommended by the court.

 

A pilot project boot camp for juveniles is also implemented.  The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation, is to develop the program.  A juvenile is eligible for the boot camp if the juvenile is between 12 and 18 years old and is committed to DSHS for a term of at least 12 weeks.  Juveniles spend from 90 to 120 days in the program.  If the court recommends the juvenile be placed in the boot camp, DSHS places the juvenile in the boot camp if bed space is available.  The department is to provide an after care component for the juvenile.  If the juvenile does not comply with the program, the department may remove the juvenile and place the juvenile in another detention facility.

 

ONE-PARTY CONSENT:  A number of changes are made in the Privacy Act to afford law enforcement agencies greater authority to intercept, transmit or record conversations that involve illegal drug activities.

 

OFFICER SAFETY:  Certain police officers may authorize interceptions and transmissions of private conversations solely for the purpose of protecting the safety of an officer or undercover agent.  A police commander or officer above the rank of first line supervisor may authorize such an interception if:  (1) at least one party has consented to the interception; (2) the authorizing officer has a reasonable suspicion that the consenting party's safety will be in danger; (3) the conversation will involve illegal drug activity; and (4) the authorization is made in writing.

 

Law enforcement agencies are to make monthly reports to the Office of the Administrator for the Courts indicating the number of authorizations issued and the number of conversations intercepted under these officer safety provisions.

 

Information obtained through these officer safety interceptions is inadmissible except with the permission of a nonconsenting party or in a trial involving death or injury to an officer.  However, officers may testify as to information gained independently of the interception.  An agency must destroy records of information obtained through any interception where an officer has not been injured or killed.

 

INTERCEPTIONS WITH JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION:  Existing provisions for obtaining judicial authorization to intercept a conversation in which one party to the conversation has consented to the interception are altered.  The Office of the Administrator for the Courts is to establish a procedure for insuring that a judge or magistrate is on call at all time for purposes of issuing authorizations.  The period for which such an authorization is good is extended to 14 days in the case of conversations involving illegal drug transactions.  Authorizations in other cases remain good for only seven days.  The requirements for specifying the parties to, and circumstances of, the conversation to be intercepted are lessened in drug cases.

 

INTERCEPTIONS WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION:  Police agencies are authorized to intercept conversations in one-party consent drug cases without prior judicial authorization.  The chief officers of an agency may authorize an interception if there is probable cause to believe the conversation will involve an illegal drug transaction.  The authorization must be in writing and must indicate whether an attempt was made to get judicial authorization, and if so, what the outcome of the attempt was.

 

Agency authorizations are good for only 24 hours.  Any recordings made must be protected from alteration.  Within 15 days after an authorization, a court must review the authorization to see if probable cause existed for the agency to authorize the interception.  If the court finds there was no probable cause, any record of information obtained by the interception is to be destroyed.  Six months following such a determination, the court is to notify nonconsenting parties to the conversation that an unauthorized interception was made.  Agencies may seek extensions on this six-month period in cases of ongoing criminal investigations.

 

Intentionally violating these provisions relating to agency- authorized interceptions is a class C felony.  Civil damages of $25,000 are also available to parties whose privacy rights are violated if the agency has been found not to have probable cause and also did not even have a reasonable suspicion that the conversation in question would involve illegal drug transactions.

 

PROPERTY FORFEITURE:  Real property is added to the types of property that may be seized and forfeited under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.  Special standards and procedural rules are made applicable to the forfeiture of real property.

 

In a hearing on forfeiture of real property, the seizing agency must prove that there was a "substantial nexus" between the seized property and the illegal drug activity.

 

Notice of the right to a hearing must be given to the owner of seized real property in the same manner as notice is given in ordinary civil actions.

 

Certain limitations apply to the forfeiture of real property in some cases.  Giving drugs as bona fide gifts, or possessing small amounts of marijuana, or selling small amounts of marijuana or legend drugs cannot lead to forfeiture.  A forfeiture of real property is subject to a bona fide security interest.  The homestead right of an owner who did not participate in the illegal drug activities cannot be forfeited.

 

Twenty-five percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of real property and personal property will go to the seizing agency.  Twenty-five percent of the money derived from forfeiture of real and personal property will go to the public safety and education account while 50 percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of real and personal property goes to the drug enforcement and education account.

 

OFF-LIMITS ORDERS:  A court may enjoin a known drug trafficker from entering an off-limits area.  A known drug trafficker is someone who has any prior drug conviction and has been arrested for a drug offense.

 

An off-limits order may be sought in conjunction with any civil action, nuisance abatement action, an action to evict tenants for drug activity, pretrial release of a known drug trafficker, or post conviction sentencing.

 

A prosecutor, city attorney, or any resident or owner of property in an area affected by drug trafficking may seek a temporary or permanent injunction against a known drug trafficker.  Private applicants must file a bond of at least $1,000 in connection with their applications for an order.  Permanent orders are for a one-year period with extensions possible.

 

DRUG SITE CLEANUP:  Law enforcement agencies are authorized to contract with private firms to clean up illegal drug manufacturing sites.  The Department of Ecology is to attempt to recover the cost of cleanup from the responsible parties.

 

KEG REGISTRATION:  A system for registering beer kegs is established.

 

Sellers of beer kegs must require retail purchasers to supply certain information.  A purchaser must provide adequate identification and sign a receipt; agree in writing not to allow minors to drink from the keg; indicate where the keg will be used; and post a sworn statement near the keg indicating that minors may not drink from it.

 

The Liquor Control Board is required to develop rules for the identification of kegs.  Selling of an unidentified keg is a misdemeanor.  A civil penalty of $500 may be imposed for failure to comply with the registration of sales provisions of the act.  An intentional violation of those provisions is also a misdemeanor.

 

The state preempts the entire field of keg registration.  Local ordinances may contain only the same or lessor restrictions and penalties provided by the state law.

 

SPECIAL NARCOTICS UNIT:  A special narcotics enforcement unit is established within the State Patrol's drug control assistance unit.  The new unit is to consist of three attorneys, two investigators, accountants and support staff.

 

The special narcotics enforcement unit is responsible for conducting criminal narcotic profiteering investigations and prosecutions, training local undercover narcotics agents, and coordinating interjurisdictional narcotic investigations.

 

All fees, fines, forfeitures and reimbursements collected as a result of action initiated by the special unit are placed in the drug enforcement and education account.

 

PROSECUTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:  An advisory committee is established to oversee the operation of a statewide drug prosecution assistance program.  The committee consists of the Attorney General, the Chief of the Washington State Patrol, both United States Attorneys in the state, and three county prosecutors picked by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.  One of the three county prosecutors is selected by the committee to be the project director.

 

The project director may employ up to five attorneys to act as deputy prosecutors in counties that request help in prosecuting drug cases.

 

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION:  A grant program is established in the Governor's office for the purpose of community mobilization against substance abuse.  At a minimum, grant applications must include:  (1) a description of a community's geographical area; (2) the extent of substance abuse in the community; (3) evidence of active community participation; (4) identification of a community-wide strategy for the prevention, treatment, and enforcement activities; and (5) identification of activities requiring additional or new funding.  Grants are made throughout the state for maximum coordination of local and state resources used to combat substance abuse.  Not more than 50 percent of the funds are to be awarded on a per capita basis, and not less than 50 percent through a competitive allocation process.  The Governor reports to the Legislature by January 1, 1991, regarding the operations of the grant program.

 

INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT:  The Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act (RCW 70.96A) is amended to allow for the involuntary commitment of drug abusers.  The act generally provides for longer periods of care, conditional release and revocation procedures.  The applicable privilege statutes affecting spouses, physicians and registered nurses are amended to establish procedures for a conditional waiver of privilege upon a showing of necessity.

 

   Gravely disabled is defined in language that is similar to that used in mental health, but is made applicable specifically to alcohol and drug abuse.  The definition is necessary because grave disability as currently defined in RCW 71.05 requires a mental disorder, which is not relevant to the proceedings at issue here.

 

The definition of incapacitation is amended to include drug abuse and broadened to include "care" in addition to "treatment."  This is to provide for long-term care, as opposed to treatment on a medical model.

 

Emergency detention procedures are provided for and defined as "protective custody" for persons who are incapacitated, gravely disabled or dangerous to themselves or others.  The mechanisms and procedure is established by which commitment is court-ordered are also established.  A provision for conditional release is added and a procedure for re-commitment in the event that the patient deteriorates or fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the conditional release.

 

EARLY INTERVENTION:  Grants are provided for the implementation of local school district drug abuse intervention programs in grades kindergarten through nine.  The programs provide counseling, assessment and referral for treatment, aftercare, student-mentor programs, and training for staff, parents, students and the community.

 

Programs are delivered by, or under the supervision of, substance abuse intervention specialists.  These specialists may be certificated counselors, psychologists, nurses or social workers, or they may be staff from a certified drug treatment center under contract with the district.

 

The Superintendent of Public Instruction selects districts to receive grants.  Each grant is at least $20,000, and districts are selected on the basis of district characteristics such as family income levels, truancy rates, juvenile justice referrals, social service caseloads, and community group participation in drug prevention programs.

 

Grant applications must include comprehensive planning, establishment of an advisory committee and a needs assessment.  Districts receiving grants must send annual program evaluation reports to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

 

YOUTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT:  The Department of Social and Health Services provides an additional 90 slots for assessment and treatment services for youth who may be addicted to alcohol and drugs.  Forty percent of the new slots are located east of the Cascade Mountains and at least 15 of the treatment slots are designated as staff secure.  The treatment programs are to incorporate appropriate outpatient and aftercare programs, and the department must develop intensive outpatient treatment services for youth whenever inpatient treatment is inappropriate or unavailable.

 

PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN:  The Department of Social and Health services is to provide a treatment program to serve pregnant women and post-birth women and their infants and children.  The components of the program may include inpatient treatment services, transition housing or sheltered living space, outpatient and follow-up treatment, and medical stabilization or detoxification services.

 

The Department of Social and Health Services is to develop training programs to improve service coordination and provide information on early identification and special needs of alcohol or drug abusing pregnant women.  The department is to develop chemical abuse education and prevention materials for distribution to schools, social service providers, physicians and others who provide services to pregnant women.

 

 

EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:

 

The substitute makes many technical and grammatical changes.  In addition, substantive changes are made in the following parts of the bill.

 

CRIMINAL PENALTIES:  The 24-month enhancement on sentences for crimes where the amount of controlled substances was two kilograms or greater is deleted.  This allows the court to impose an exceptional sentence in cases involving less than two kilograms and does not limit them to a 24-month enhancement in cases over two kilograms.

 

The provisions regarding reckless endangerment in the first degree are modified.  The crime involves recklessly discharging a firearm at a dwelling, building or motor vehicle from a motor vehicle, or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm to the scene of the discharge.

 

The provisions and increased penalties regarding controlled substance violations within 1,000 feet of a school are expanded to include areas within 1,000 fee of a designated school bus stop, or on a school bus.  The increased penalty will not be imposed if the prohibited conduct took place within a private resident, a person under the age of 18 was not involved and the transaction did not take place for profit.

 

The Criminal Profiteering Act is amended.  Following a determination of liability under the Criminal Profiteering Act, the court may order the payment of all costs and expenses of the prosecution and investigation, including any costs of defense provided at public expense.

 

ONE-PARTY CONSENT:  The original bill utilized a three- tier scheme concerning the interception, transmission and recording of drug conversations or communications.  The substitute strikes all of the original language and replaces it with provisions that allow for interception, transmission or recording of drug conversations without prior judicial review.

 

Any communication involving the unlawful manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell controlled substances, legend drugs, or imitation controlled substances, may be intercepted and recorded with the consent of one party to the communication without prior judicial approval.

 

Prior to making a drug-related interception, a police officer must obtain written authorization from his or her commander or an officer above the rank of first line supervisor.

 

A district court judge is required to review the authorization and recording for compliance with the statute within ten days of the recording.  After review by the court, the prosecutor or Attorney General review the recording to determine its value in a prosecution.  Recordings of intercepted communications must be destroyed after three years unless otherwise ordered by the court.

 

The Privacy Act exception for "wire" communications or conversations is expanded to all communications or conversations.  This exception includes the already existing categories of emergencies, threatening or harassing conversations, and the added drug related conversations.

 

The rules about admissibility of evidence are changed.  The grounds are expanded upon which information obtained in violation of the law or pursuant to an ex parte order may be admissible.  Such information is admissible to impeach any witness in any case.

 

The Chief of the Washington State Patrol is required to make two reports to the Legislature on intercepted communication involving drug transactions.

 

MONITORING OF INMATE TELEPHONE CALLS:  The original bill did not address the issue of monitoring inmate telephone calls.  Under the substitute, the Department of Corrections may intercept and record or divulge calls from an inmate of a Washington State correctional facility.

 

The department must notify the inmates that their calls may be monitored and divulged.  Personal calls made by an inmate must be "operator-assisted" collect calls.  The operator must tell the person answering the call that it is coming from a prison inmate, being recorded, and may be monitored.

 

Only the superintendent and/or his or her designee may have access to the recording.  The recording may be divulged to safeguard the orderly operation of the institution, in response to a court order, or in the prosecution or investigation of any crime.  Finally, the recordings must be destroyed one year after the interception unless they are being used in an investigation, prosecution, and/or to assure orderly operation of the institution.

 

To safeguard the attorney-client privilege, no legal calls may be monitored.

 

PROPERTY FORFEITURE:  The definition of substantial nexus is removed.  The substitute also limits homestead protection in real property cases to parties who did not participate in illegal drug activities.

 

Amendments are added to assure that innocent lenders and their successors in interest do not have their security interests in real property forfeited.

 

Provisions are added that allow for the notice and hearing regarding the seizure of all kinds of personal property such as equipment used in manufacturing or processing the drugs, containers, books, records, tapes and formulas used in drug operations.

 

The formula for splitting the proceeds of forfeitures is modified.  The substitute provides that 25 percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of real property and 75 percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of personal property will go to the seizing agency.  Twenty-five percent of the money derived from forfeiture of real and personal property will go to the public safety and education account while 50 percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of real property goes to the drug enforcement and education account.

 

OFF-LIMITS ORDERS:  The substitute makes off-limits orders available only for persons involved in felony drug law violations other than simple possession.  The original bill would have included all drug law violations.

 

The court may allow an offender to travel within a PADT area for purposes of employment or to seek health care services.

 

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION:  The substitute appropriates $3,640,000 to the Department of Community Development, whereas the original bill appropriated $40,000 to the Governor for the program.

 

In the Governor's report to the Legislature regarding the operation of the grant program, an assessment is to be included on the program's impact on encouraging and supporting coordinated community action against substance abuse.

 

All grant applications must include evidence of additional local resources committed to its strategy that total at least 25 percent of the funds awarded.  These matching resources may consist of public or private funds, donated goods or services and other measurable commitments including in-kind contributions.

 

INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT:  The original bill extended the full measure of the alcoholism Involuntary Treatment Act to drug addiction as well.  The original bill also extended the period of involuntary treatment from 30 to 180 days instead of 60 days as provided in the substitute.

 

Under the substitute bill, the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act is amended to allow for limited involuntary commitment and treatment of drug abusers.  Drug addicted persons may be detained for 72 hours of detoxification.

 

Applicable privileged communications statutes affecting spouses, physicians and registered nurses are amended to allow for a conditional waiver of a privilege in cases of involuntary treatment of alcohol abusers.

 

Certain definitions are changed or added to allow treatment of a wider variety of alcohol and drug affected persons.  The period of involuntary treatment of alcoholics is extended from 30 days to 60 days.

 

PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN/ADEQUATE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT SERVICES WITH PRIORITY GIVEN TO PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN:  The original bill required the Department of Social and Health Services to provide an alcohol and drug treatment program to serve pregnant women and post-birth women and their infants and other children.  The program was to include inpatient treatment services, transition housing, follow-up treatment services, and medical stabilization services.  All of the language in the original bill was stricken in the substitute.

 

The substitute bill amends and incorporates the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment and Support Act into existing laws relating to drug and alcohol treatment.

 

Individuals who are unemployable due to alcohol or drug addiction are to be advised by the Department of Social and Health Services of the appropriate assessment, treatment or program services available.

 

The department is directed to continue to provide inpatient and outpatient treatment.  The outpatient treatment is accompanied by a living stipend.  A person cannot receive any combination of outpatient or inpatient services for a period more than six months in a two-year period, except in unusual circumstances.

 

Priority treatment is given to women with a drug or alcohol problem who are pregnant or parenting infants.  The department is to coordinate case management and support for these women when available.

 

Appropriation:    A dedicated "drug enforcement and education account" is created.  The following appropriations are made from this account:

 

(1) For increased prison capacity, $9,000,000 to the Department of Corrections;

 

(2) For regimented inmate discipline programs, $5,000,000 to the Department of Corrections;

 

(3) For capital cost of the regimented inmate discipline program, $2,210,000;

 

(4) For juvenile boot camps, $1,835,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

 

(5) For keg registration, $10,600 to the Liquor Control Board;

 

(6) For drug site cleanup, $250,000 to the Department of Ecology;

 

(7) For prosecution assistance, $560,000 to the Department of Community Development;

 

(8) For community mobilization, $3,640,000 to the Department of Community Development;

 

(9) For involuntary treatment, $6,200,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

 

(10) For early intervention, $10,000,000 to the Superintendent of Public Instruction;

 

(11) For enhanced security in secondary schools, $3,000,000 to the Superintendent of Public Instruction;

 

(12) For youth assessment and treatment, $6,000,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

 

(13) For the alcohol and drug addiction treatment and support act, $3,000,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

 

(14) For constructing a modular prison, $8,000,000 to the Department of Corrections;

 

(15) For identification and analysis in drug cases, $800,000 to the Washington State Patrol;

 

(16) For the drug assistance unit, $500,000 to the Washington State Patrol;

 

(17) For detection of drug use in juvenile facilities, $622,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services; and

 

(18) For detection of drug use in adult facilities, $2,287,000 to the Department of Corrections.

 

Revenue:    Various taxes are imposed to fund the drug enforcement and education account.  Additional taxes of $.07 per liter of wine, $2.75 per 31 gallon barrel of beer, $.07 per liter of hard spirits, $.05 per pack of cigarettes, and 10 percent on the wholesale price of tobacco products are imposed.  Unless expressly reauthorized by the Legislature, the dedication of these revenues to the drug enforcement and education account will expire July 1, 1995. After that date, revenue from these taxes will go to the general fund.  The Legislative Budget Committee conducts a review prior to the 1995 expiration date.

 

Fiscal Note:      available

 

Senate Committee - Testified: LAW & JUSTICE:  PRO:  Paul Dzeidzic, Governor's Office; Gordon Clatt, Tacoma physician; Alan Wallace, Renton Police Department and Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; Leo Poort, Seattle Police Department; Joe Zimmerman, King County Police Department; Ronald John, Sedro Wooley Police Department; Robert Schilling, Seattle Police Officers Guild; Charles Marsh, Washington State Council of Police Officers; Phillip Showstead, King County; John Kvamme, Tacoma Public Schools; John Ladenburg, Pierce County Prosecutor; Rick Jensen, Washington State Patrol; Ed Crawford, Washington State Patrol; Frank Krall, WAPA; Mike Redman, WAPA; Leann Chaney, Washington P.T.A.; Frank O'Connor, Association of Washington School Principals; Carter Mitchell, Washington State Liquor Control Board; Linda Grant, Association of Alcoholism and Addictions Programs; Robert Crutchfield, University of Washington, Department of Sociology; Frank Glasply, Yakima County War on Drugs; Dennis Flannigan, Pierce County Drug Coalition; Fred Johnson, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Frank Hamilton, Washington State Law Enforcement Association; Larry Shannon, Washington Mortgage Bankers Association; Robert Songer and Rod Manchester, Clark County Sheriff's Department

 

AGAINST:  Howard Price, citizen; Bill Fritz, Tobacco Institute/Anheuser Busch; Geoff Gibbs, G. Heilman Brewing Company and Washington Brewers Association; Richard Shephard, citizen