HOUSE BILL REPORT
E2SHB 1793
As Amended by the Senate
BYHouse Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Ebersole, Appelwick, Patrick, Wolfe, Haugen, Tate, Crane, Ballard, Brekke, Bowman, Sayan, Brumsickle, Walk, Wood, Dorn, Horn, Valle, Youngsman, Wang, McLean, Cantwell, Basich, Day, Brough, R. Meyers, Rayburn, Moyer, Peery, Winsley, Rasmussen, May, R. Fisher, Holland, Sprenkle, Miller, Rector, S. Wilson, Baugher, Chandler, Cooper, Schmidt, Raiter, Betrozoff, Pruitt, Walker, H. Myers, Nealey, Heavey, Brooks, Ferguson, Padden, Doty, Fuhrman, Van Luven, Silver, D. Sommers, Beck, Spanel, Dellwo, Scott, Inslee, Todd, Morris, K. Wilson, Gallagher, Prince, P. King, O'Brien, Jones, Smith, Hine and G. Fisher)
Creating the Omnibus Alcohol and Controlled Substance Act of 1989.
House Committe on Judiciary
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (14)
Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Dellwo, Inslee, P. King, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, Tate and Van Luven.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (1)
Signed by Representative Belcher.
House Staff:Bill Perry (786-7123)
Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations
Majority Report: The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass. (16)
Signed by Representatives Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Silver, Ranking Republican Member; Appelwick, Bowman, Brekke, Dorn, Ferguson, Hine, May, McLean, Padden, Peery, Spanel, Sprenkle and Wang.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (5)
Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Belcher, Holland, Nealey and Rust.
House Staff: Jack Daray (786-7136)
AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 3, 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 variety of criminal and other laws currently address the problem in one way or another.
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 schedule I and II drugs that are also 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 presumptive sentence is based on the "seriousness level" of the crime committed and the criminal history score of the offender. The higher the felony of conviction is ranked, and the higher the offender's criminal history score, the longer the presumptive sentence will be. Presumptive sentences may be departed from by a sentencing judge in exceptional circumstances. If there are sufficient aggravating circumstances, a sentence may be given that exceeds the presumptive range. However, no sentence may exceed the statutory maximum sentence prescribed by the law that creates the offense of which the offender has been convicted. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act prescribes various maximum penalties for violations. In some instances the otherwise applicable maximum is doubled. 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 doubling of the maximums.
The state's Privacy Act generally prohibits the interception, transmission or recording of any private conversation or communication without the consent of all parties concerned. The state law, however, provides a number of exceptions to this general prohibition. Four major categories of these exceptions have to do with criminal activity. First, certain "wire" communications or conversations (e.g. telephone calls) may be recorded. A telephone call may be recorded if it is of an emergency, 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 requires no prior authorization of any kind. 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 might be wiretapping a phone call between two parties neither one of which knows of the wiretap. This exception requires the state attorney general or a county prosecuting attorney to get 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. Two exceptions are provided for this general 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 that 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.
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 may be by publication. In a forfeiture hearing, the burden of proof is on the owner of the property to 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 and of those suffering from 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: Penalties for various drug related crimes are increased, and the crime of first degree reckless endangerment is created as a class C felony.
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.
Enhancements are also provided for sentences 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 also 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 certain drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a school.
The points assigned to an offender for criminal history are 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 offenders 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 discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another person.
BOOT CAMPS: The Department of Corrections is to develop a regimented inmate discipline pilot program for implementation on July 1, 1990. The program expires July 1, 1993.
A pilot project boot camp for juveniles is also authorized. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) will develop the program. The program expires July 1, 1993.
ONE-PARTY CONSENT: A number of changes are made in the Privacy Act to give 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 or 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 times 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 officer 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 had probable cause and also not even to have had a "reasonable suspicion" that the conversation in question would involve illegal drug transactions.
The State Attorney General is given authority to prosecute violations of the Privacy Act.
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. Forfeitures are subject to bona fide security interests. The homestead right of an owner who did not participate in the illegal drug activities cannot be forfeited.
Until July 1, 1995, 25 percent of the proceeds from real property forfeitures will go to the seizing agency, and 75 percent will go to the state. After that date, the percentages will be reversed.
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 felony drug conviction and has been arrested for a felony 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; must 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 as are 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 to be placed in the drug enforcement and education account.
PROSECUTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: An advisory committee is established to oversee the operation of a state-wide 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 to be 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.
NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT: Local governments may condemn and acquire individual land parcels if those parcels are "blighted." A property is blighted if it is associated with illegal drug activity. The local government must adopt a resolution declaring the property a blight in the neighborhood. The government can then acquire the property, sell it, or improve it in the public interest.
SCHOOL LOCKER SEARCHES: A school principal or vice principal can search a student's person, property or locker if the principal has reasonable grounds to believe that the search will yield evidence of the student's violation of the law or school rules. The scope of the search is proper when the methods used are reasonably related to the search objectives and are not excessively intrusive considering the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. In addition, the Legislature finds students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in school lockers and a principal or vice principal can search all school issued student lockers at any time without prior notice. If during the search, the principal develops a reasonable suspicion that containers in the locker contain drugs, weapons, or contraband, the principal may search the containers.
COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION: A grant program is established in the Governor's office, to be administered by the Department of Community Development, 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 to be made throughout the state for maximum coordination of local and state resources 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 is to report to the Legislature by January 1, 1991, regarding the operations of the grant program.
INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT: 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.
EARLY INTERVENTION: Grants are provided for the implementation of local school district drug abuse intervention programs in grades kindergarten through 12. The programs are to provide counselling, assessment and referral for treatment, aftercare, student mentor programs, and training for staff, parents, students and the community.
Programs are to be 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 is to select districts to receive grants. Each grant is to be at least $20,000, and districts are to be 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. Grants are on a district match basis and may provide no more than 80 percent of program's cost.
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 is to provide 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 to be located east of the Cascade Mountains and up to 15 of the treatment slots may be staff secure. The treatment programs are to incorporate appropriate outpatient and aftercare programs, and the department is to develop intensive outpatient treatment services for youth for whom inpatient treatment is inappropriate or unavailable.
EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENTS: The senate amendment makes several substantive changes and also restructures portions of the bill. A few provisions are removed altogether, and some entirely new provisions are added.
Deleted Provisions: The amendment removes the portions of the bill dealing with the adult offender "regimented inmate discipline program", the civil process for local governments to deal with "neighborhood blight", and the authority of school officials to conduct searches of student lockers.
Added Provisions: The amendment adds provisions relating to delivery of hypodermic needles, cost recovery in criminal profiteering act violations, applicability of the death penalty, and monitoring of inmate phone calls.
(1) Delivery of, or possession with intent to deliver, a hypodermic needle is made a misdemeanor if it is known, or reasonably should be known, that the needle is intended for use in illegally injecting a controlled substance.
(2) Following a determination of liability under the criminal profiteering act, the court may order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of the prosecution and investigation, including the cost of any defense provided at public expense.
(3) The death penalty statute is amended to allow imposition of the death penalty for an aggravated first degree murder committed in the course of, in furtherance of, or in immediate flight from a violation of the uniform controlled substances act.
(4) Prison officials are given authority to monitor and record the outgoing telephone calls of inmates. All such calls are exempted from the state's privacy act. However, the Department of Corrections is not to intercept calls from an inmate to his or her attorney. Calls to an inmate are not exempted from the privacy act. All calls by an inmate must be collect, and the operator must announce to the person called that the call will be recorded. Recordings of calls must be destroyed after one year unless they are being used in an investigation or prosecution or unless they are necessary for the orderly operation of the prison.
Altered Provisions: Many provisions are altered by the senate amendment.
Reckless Endangerment: The crime of first degree reckless endangerment is defined as recklessly creating a risk of death or injury to another person by shooting at a building or at another vehicle from a vehicle or from the vicinity of a vehicle used to transport the shooter. The House bill does not require that the shooting be directed at a building or vehicle. The amendment removes language that allows an inference of recklessness whenever a firearm is discharged illegally from a vehicle.
The amendment expands the crime of second degree reckless endangerment to cover any reckless conduct that does not amount to the first degree crime, whether or not the conduct creates any risk of death or injury to anyone. The House bill requires that the conduct create such a risk.
Drug Transactions Near Schools: The 24 months sentence enhancement and doubling of maximum penalties are expanded to cover drug transactions occurring within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop. The amendment limits the applicability of the enhancement and doubling provisions to drug crimes other than simple possession. An exemption is removed that would have prevented the compounding of the doubling provisions with other doubling provisions in the controlled substances act.
Juvenile Boot Camps: The amendment replaces the "juvenile offenders structured residential program" with a "juvenile justice boot camp pilot project." Boot camps are to last for 90 days, with possible extension to 120 days, and are to include military discipline, physical training, counseling, community service, vocational education, and training in obedience to law. Boot camps are available to offenders between the ages of 15 and 18 who have received a sentence of at least 12 weeks confinement. The Department of Social and Health Services is authorized to contract with private entities for the operation of boot camps.
One-party Consent: Drug related conversations are added to the list of types of conversations that may be recorded without authorization beyond the consent of one party to the conversation. Before a police officer may record a drug related conversation, however, the officer's supervisor must give written authorization. That authorization must be reviewed by a district court within 10 days after a recording to see if the authorization was properly filled out. If the authorization was not properly given, the court is to send that information to the county prosecutor or state attorney general for possible prosecution as a violation of the privacy act. Validly authorized recordings that are found by a prosecutor not to be of value in a prosecution are to be sealed for three years and then destroyed unless ordered otherwise by a court. Failure to get a valid authorization is a gross misdemeanor.
Real Property Forfeiture: The amendment extends the same protection provided for security interests in real property to security interests in personal property. The protection for homestead interests of innocent parties is limited to parties who are married. The burden of proof regarding the ownership of seized real property is placed on the prosecution. A provision is eliminated that would have changed the distribution of proceeds of the sale of seized property as of July 1, 1995. Under the amendment, 50 percent of the money will continue to go to the act's drug enforcement and education account instead of being returned to the seizing agency after that date.
Off-Limits Orders: The amendment changes the definition of "known drug trafficker" to exclude prior juvenile offenders from other jurisdictions. The definition of "protected area against drug trafficking" is changed to remove the requirement that the area be reasonably related to the area of current arrest. Courts may allow a known drug trafficker to enter a protected area for health or employment reasons.
Drug Site Cleanup: The amendment removes a requirement that recoveries of costs by the Department of Ecology are credits against the department's budget.
Keg Registration: The regulations of this provision apply to containers of four gallons or more instead of six gallons or more.
Special Narcotics Enforcement Unit: The amendment removes the requirement that money obtained through the efforts of the special narcotics enforcement unit must go to the drug enforcement and education account.
State-wide Drug Prosecution Assistance Program: The amendment places the state-wide drug prosecution assistance program within the Department of Community Development. The amendment adds an express statement that special deputy prosecutors are under the direct supervision of county prosecutors during their assignments.
Involuntary Treatment: The amendment removes the limitation that the alcohol and drug treatment provisions apply only to persons 12 years old or older. The amendment removes a requirement that the Department of Social and Health Services reports to the legislature on the involuntary treatment act. The amendment adds a requirement that county prosecuting attorneys must represent petitioners in any commitment proceeding. Express language is removed that stated that department treatment programs do not constitute an entitlement and that stated that the department may limit admissions in accordance with availability of funds.
Prevention and Early Intervention in Schools: The amendment states expressly that the prevention and early intervention programs are not a part of the state's basic education obligation. The amendment adds to current substance abuse awareness programs rather than creating a new program.
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Services: The amendment replaces the youth assessment and treatment services provisions of the House bill. The Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment and Support Act (ADATSA) is amended and incorporated into existing laws relating to drug and alcohol treatment. Persons 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 treatment. Outpatient treatment may be accompanied by a stipend. A person cannot receive any combination of services for more than six months in a two year period, except in exceptional cases as determined by the department. The department must give priority of treatment to women with drug or alcohol problems who are pregnant or caring for infants.
Community Mobilization: The amendment adds a 25 percent local match requirement for communities seeking money under the community mobilization program.
Appropriations: The amendment makes several changes in the bill's appropriations.
(1) The bill gives $9,000,000 to the Department of Corrections for increased prison capacity. The amendment gives the department $8,800,000 for operational costs, and $12,505,000 for facilities renovation and construction.
(2) The amendment eliminates $300,000 to the Department of Corrections for the adult offender regimented discipline program.
(3) The amendment increases from $1,835,000 to $1,860,000 the appropriation to the Department of Social and Health Services for juvenile boot camps.
(4) The amendment adds $175,000 to the Department of Corrections for monitoring phone calls of inmates.
(5) The amendment increases from $4,000,000 to $4,900,000 the appropriation to the Department of Social and Health Services for involuntary treatment.
(6) The amendment reduces from $13,000,000 to $10,000,000 the appropriation to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for early intervention.
(7) The amendment reduces from $12,200,000 to $6,000,000 the appropriation to the Department of Social and Health Services for youth assessment and treatment and gives $3,000,000 to the department for drug and alcohol treatment.
(8) The amendment retains the $800,000 appropriation to the State Patrol for the crime lab, but removes a prohibition against using the lab for testing marijuana.
(9) The amendment removes a $5,500,000 appropriation to the Department of Social and Health Services for a pregnant and parenting women program, but gives the department $15,340,000 ($8,160.000 of which is federal money) for prenatal case management and support.
(10) The amendment increases from $622,000 to $625,000 the appropriation to the Department of Social and Health Services for detection and treatment of drug abuse in juvenile rehabilitation facilities.
(11) The amendment removes a $1,700,000 appropriation to the Department of Corrections for detection and treatment of drug abuse in adult corrections institutions and replaces it with: $650,000 for a model program of care to substance dependent offenders and for increased urinalysis; $110,000 for development of treatment programs at work release facilities; and $1,120,000 for community corrections drug surveillance.
(12) The amendment adds an appropriation of $75,000 to the State Patrol for assistance to local agencies in seizures of clandestine drug labs.
(13) The amendment adds an appropriation of $525,000 to the State Patrol for multijurisdictional drug investigations and the eastern Washington drug task force.
(14) The amendment adds an appropriation of $230,000 to the Criminal Justice Training Commission to support the drug abuse resistance education program.
(15) The amendment adds appropriations of $100,000 each to the University of Washington and Washington State University for their drug information centers.
Revenue: The amendment makes reductions in all of the house bill's tax provisions and adds additional taxes.
(1) The amendment reduces the additional tax on wine from 7 cents per liter to 2.4 cents per liter. There is no expiration date on this tax.
(2) The amendment reduces the additional tax on beer from $2.75 per barrel to 86 cents per barrel. The additional tax expires on July 1, 1993.
(3) The amendment reduces the additional tax on spirits from 7 cents per liter to 2.4 cents per liter. The additional tax expires on July 1, 1993.
(4) The amendment reduces the additional tax on cigarettes from 2.5 mils per cigarette to 1 mil per cigarette. The additional tax expires on July 1, 1993.
(5) The amendment reduces the additional tax on tobacco products from 10 percent of the wholesale price to 3.5 percent of the wholesale price. The additional tax expires on July 1, 1993.
(6) The amendment imposes a 5 percent sales tax on lottery tickets.
(7) The amendment imposes a variety of taxes on gambling events. A 3 percent state tax on the gross receipts from punch cards, pull tabs and card rooms is imposed. The limit on the amount of each chance on a punch card or pull tab is increased from 50 cents to $1. The local option tax limit on punch cards and pull tabs is reduced from 5 percent to 3 percent, and the limit on the local option tax on card rooms is reduced from 20 percent to 3 percent. The amendment requires that the proceeds from these local option taxes go to law enforcement, instead of "primarily" to enforcement of gambling laws.
(8) The amendment adds a sunset review of the dedication of the tax revenues to the drug enforcement and education account. The Legislative Budget Committee is to complete its program and fiscal review by January 1, 1991.
Fiscal Note: Requested February 3, 1989.
Appropriation: A dedicated "drug enforcement and education account" is created. The following appropriations are made from that account:
(1) For increased prison capacity, $9,000,000 to the Department of Corrections;
(2) For regimented inmate discipline programs, $300,000 to the Department of Corrections.
(3) For juvenile boot camps, $1,835,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;
(4) For prosecution assistance, $560,000 to the Department of Community Development;
(5) For community mobilization, $3,640,000 to the Department of Community Development;
(6) For involuntary treatment, $4,000,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;
(7) For early intervention, $13,000,000 to the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
(8) For enhanced security in secondary schools, $3,000,000 to the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
(9) For youth assessment and treatment, $12,000,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;
(10) For programs for pregnant and parenting women, $5,500,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;
(11) For constructing a modular prison, $12,500,000 to the Department of Corrections;
(12) For identification and analysis in drug cases, $800,000 to the Washington State Patrol. Conditions are placed on the funds authorized for enhancement of the identification and analysis of drug cases to exclude testing of marijuana except in cases involving issues of weight or cases in which cities and counties agree with the field administrator of the crime laboratories that the case is going to trial;
(13) For the drug assistance unit, $500,000 to the Washington State Patrol;
(14) For detection of drug use in juvenile facilities, $622,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services; and
(15) For detection of drug use in adult facilities, $1,710,000 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 re-authorized 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 will conduct a review prior to the 1995 expiration date.
Agencies receiving dedicated funds are directed to submit expenditure plans to the legislative budget committee by December 1, 1989.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: (Judiciary) (All testified for, in part) Paul Dzeidzic, Governor's Office; Gordon Clatt, Tacoma Physician; Alan Wallace, Renton Police Department and Washington Association of Sheriff's 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; Doug Jewett, Seattle City Attorney; Mike Doubleday, City of Seattle; Joseph Lehman, DOC; Pat Thibadeau, Childhaven
(Appropriations) Jerry Wasson, Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation; Dr. Maxine Hayes, DSHS; Dr. John Neff, Children's Hospital; Cathy Carson, King County Health; Dr. Heather Watts, Harborview Hospital; Phil Showstead; Mike Redman, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Jeff Carpenter, OSPI; Todd Herberg, Educational Service District Leann Chaney, Washington State PTA; Lyle Quasim, Safe Streets; Norm Chamberlain, Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency; John Kvamme, Tacoma Public Schools; Randy Garland, Washington State Substance Abuse Coalition, Washington State Elks Association; Joe Lehman, Department of Corrections; Jim Metcalf, Association of Counties;
House Committee - Testified Against: (Judiciary) (All testified against, in part) Howard Price, citizen; Bill Fritz, Tobacco Institute/Anheuser Busch; Geoff Gibbs, G. Heilman Brewing Company and Washington Brewers Association; Richard Shephard, citizen; Jerry Sheehan, ACLU; Ed Kelley and Michael Doctor, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Richard Troberman, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Tony Lee, Washington Association of Churches; Ned Dolejsi, Washington State Catholic Conference.
(Appropriations) Simon Siegl, Washington Wine Institute; Bob Betz, Ste. Michelle Winery; Gary Hogue, Hogue Cellars; Peggy Patterson, Hoodsport Winery; Kevin Tipton, DISCUS; Bruce Roberts, Washington State Licensed Beverage Association; Dick Ducharme, Washington Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association; Bill Fritz, Anheuser Busch Companies, Inc., Tobacco Institute; Sharon Foster, Wine Institute of California; Jim Halstrom, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.; Steve Wehrly, Miller Beer, Smokeless Tobacco, Chateau Ste. Michelle; Bob Seeber, Restaurant Association of Washington; Kathleen Durkan, Phillip Morris Tobacco.
House Committee - Testimony For: (Judiciary) The bill is a well balanced and comprehensive attack on the serious and growing problems of drug and alcohol abuse in our society. Those problems cause untold economic and social losses each year. The bill provides significant resources to educational, social and law enforcement agencies by taxing products which are themselves addictive and which may lead to the use of even more toxic or addictive substances.
(Appropriations) The bill provides a more appropriate allocation of resources by increasing funding for social and educational programs and for local based programs.
House Committee - Testimony Against: (Judiciary) The bill allows too great an invasion of citizens' rights of privacy by removing the requirement of prior judicial authorization for intercepting conversations. The bill allocates too many resources to social and educational programs and does not give enough to law enforcement. The tax on alcohol and tobacco increases taxes that are already among the highest in the country and will cause loss of jobs and encourage black market activities.
(Appropriations) The bill does not allocate enough resources to make significant impact on the problem; a change in social attitudes is required before state expenditures will have a real effect.
VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:
Yeas 89; Nays 8; Excused 1
Voting Nay: Representatives Anderson, Belcher, Leonard, Locke, Nutley, Phillips, Rust and Wineberry
Excused: Representative K. Wilson