HOUSE BILL REPORT

                  SB 6114

 

             As Reported By House Committee On:

                        Law & Justice

 

Title:  An act relating to providing liquor to persons under age twenty‑one.

 

Brief Description:  Increasing the penalty for providing liquor to persons under age twenty‑one.

 

Sponsors:  Senators Kohl, Roach, Owen, Long, Smith, Winsley, Quigley, McAuliffe, Prentice, Franklin, Spanel, Haugen, Goings, Heavey and Schow.

 

Brief History:

  Committee Activity:

Law & Justice:  2/21/96, 2/23/96 [DPA].

 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE

 

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.  Signed by 15 members:  Representatives Sheahan, Chairman; Delvin, Vice Chairman; Hickel, Vice Chairman; Dellwo, Ranking Minority Member; Costa, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Carrell; Chappell; Cody; Lambert; McMahan; Morris; Robertson; Smith; Sterk and Veloria.

 

Staff:  Bill Perry (786-7123).

 

Background:  At least three provisions of the state's liquor control laws prohibit providing liquor to a minor.  These provisions include

 

!A prohibition against supplying liquor to a minor, or permitting a minor to consume liquor.  (RCW 66.44.270)  Supplying includes selling or giving.  Permitting involves allowing a minor to consume on a premises controlled or owned by the permitting person.  Exceptions to these prohibitions are provided for liquor supplied or permitted by a parent and consumed by a minor in the presence of the parent (but not on a licensed premises); liquor given for medicinal purposes by a parent, physician, or dentist; and liquor consumed in minimal amounts as part of religious services.

 

! A prohibition against selling liquor to a minor.  (RCW 66.44.320)

 

!A prohibition against treating a minor to liquor.  (RCW 66.44.300)  Treating involves inviting a minor into a public place where liquor is sold and includes giving liquor to a minor, or buying liquor for a minor.

 

There appears to be considerable overlap among these three provisions.  Only one of them, the so-called "treating" provision is designated as a specific crime.  Treating is a misdemeanor, which means it carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.  The other two provisions, "supplying" or "permitting" and "selling" are covered by a general penalty provision in the liquor code that establishes the following penalties:

 

!With respect to an individual offender:  for a first offense, up to two months in jail and a $500 fine; for a second offense, up to six months in jail; and for a third offense, up to one year in jail.

 

!With respect to a corporate offender:  for a first offense, up to a $5,000 fine; and for a second offense, up to a $10,000 fine and loss of a corporate license.

 

Summary of Amended Bill:  The crime of supplying (including selling) liquor to a minor or permitting a minor to consume liquor is made a gross misdemeanor.  The maximum penalty for a gross misdemeanor is a fine of up to $5,000 and incarceration for up to one year.

 

A separate crime of selling liquor to a minor is repealed, and the crime of "treating" is made a gross misdemeanor.

 

Amended Bill Compared to Original Bill:  The amendment makes "treating" a gross misdemeanor and provides an immediate effective date.

 

Appropriation:  None.

 

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

 

Effective Date of Amended Bill:  The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

 

Testimony For:  Current penalties are inadequate.  Increasing penalties and enforcement have had an effect on DUI, and the same should be tried with supplying minors with alcohol.

 

Testimony Against:  A clerk who makes a good faith effort to determine the age of a customer should not be subject to criminal liability.

 

Testified:  Senator Jeanne Kohl, prime sponsor; Loie Lennon, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Washington State Chapter (pro); Randy Blair and Robert Carpenter, citizens (pro); Gary Gilbert, Washington State Liquor Control Board (pro, with suggested amendment); Janice Skinner, Active Disabilities of Grays Harbor (pro, in part); and Joe Daniels, Food Workers District Council (pro on intent, but has concerns).