HCS HB 346 Roberts, Lane Committee
HCS HB 346 -- DIVERSION PROGRAMS
SPONSOR: Roberts
COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "Do Pass with HCS" by the Standing Committee on Crime Prevention and Public Safety by a vote of 14 to 6.
The following is a summary of the House Committee Substitute for HB 346.
This bill creates a criminal case diversion program specifically for cases involving driving under the influence. In such cases, the current diversion program available to prosecutors will not apply; instead, the provisions of this bill shall apply. A prosecutor may divert a criminal case involving driving under the influence if certain requirements, specified in the bill, are met and the defendant consents. Such diversion may continue for up to two years, and the defendant may be ordered to comply with appropriate terms, conditions or programs. One such requirement is the installation of an ignition interlock device for a period of no less than 12 months on any vehicle the defendant operates, and the defendant will be prohibited from operating a vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. The installer of the ignition interlock device must notify the Department of Revenue if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device; if the person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the device; or if the device registers a failed start. If the person has a failed start within the last 90 days of the required period of installation of the device, the term will be extended for 90 days.
If the defendant complies with the terms and conditions of the diversion program, the action against the defendant will be dismissed, the dismissal will be recorded, and the record will be transmitted to the Department of Revenue. If the defendant does not comply with the terms and conditions, a hearing will be held after notice to the defendant to determine whether the criminal proceedings will be reinstated. Any defendant found guilty of an intoxication-related traffic offense and who has previously utilized the DWI diversion program will be considered a prior offender as defined in Section 577.001, RSMo, if the prior offense occurred within five years of the intoxication-related offense for which the person is charged. Finally, for the limited purpose of determining whether a defendant is a chronic, habitual, persistent, or prior offender under Section 577.001, a criminal case diverted to a DWI diversion program will be counted as one intoxication-related traffic offense.
The following is a summary of the public testimony from the committee hearing. The testimony was based on the introduced version of the bill.
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this is a diversion program for DWI offenses. A person who would be diverted to such a program would have to meet certain qualifications to qualify for the diversion program. This is different from the current program because this requires an ignition interlock device. This would be at the expense of the person completing the program. Drunk driving deaths nationally have increased 14% and there was a 32% increase in Missouri since 2020. Diversion programs have benefits to society. This bill has the requirement of victim impact panels, which have had lots of success and lead to a reduction in recidivism. Ignition interlock devices are currently the only thing proven to stop people from driving drunk. The only fee associated with the device that goes to the manufacturer ends up being approximately $3 per day.
Testifying in person for the bill were Representative Roberts; Cody Carlson, Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers; and Jerod L. Breit, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that they support diversion court but the concern with the bill is some constitutional issues and practical issues. We can already do this under Section 557.014. A prosecutor may currently set up a DWI court but you cannot do it for someone with a commercial license. The bill also does not give the defendant any sort of choice. There has to be a way for the defendant to opt out. Even if a person completes the program, they are considered a prior offender. If the ignition interlock malfunctions, it is held against the defendant, not the manufacturer. The point of the program is to meet the person where he or she is so that he or she can be diverted from the court system. That way they can see what the specific person needs. There are negative consequences to completion of the program as they would be considered prior offenders. Under Section 557.014, they can go through the diversion program and not be considered a prior offender.
Testifying in person against the bill were Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and Missouri State Public Defender System.
OTHERS: Others testifying on the bill say Missouri has a horrific record for traffic fatalities and we get a failing grade on our traffic laws. AAA generally opposes diversion programs but they broadly support the efficacy of ignition interlock devices because there is a value in the tremendous success they have in slowing down impaired driving and reducing recidivism. It is important for courts to be able to see the records and know that there was a previous offense there. Diversion programs should be available only to first-time offenders and not to anyone who has committed something serious like killing someone in a drunk driving accident.
Testifying in person on the bill was AAA Auto Club of Missouri.
Written testimony has been submitted for this bill. The full written testimony and witnesses testifying online can be found under Testimony on the bill page on the House website.