H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments: transcript

That's pretty good. You could, uh, roll the R and get a little more Scottish in it. Mc, McPherson, I'll give you a little bit. Um, Mr. Chair, would, would it be okay if I had my intern pass around a, um, a little bit of information to the committee members? That'd be great. Thank you. And thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee for the opportunity to present, uh, this bill again. Um, So currently in our code, we have a number of, uh, ways that you can drive on Utah roads. And, uh, this bill doesn't actually change any of that. Um, if you are, uh, learning to drive, you can get a permit. Um, if you are a resident alien and you have a visa, you can get a temporary driver's license. If you are a US citizen, you can get, assuming you have, uh, passed the relevant test, you can get a driver's license. And if you're not even in this country legally at the moment, you can get a driver's privilege card. We have a lot of different methods and, and ways for individuals to drive on our roads. There is though a growing problem that we have in Utah, statewide, um, and in some areas more affected than others, which you'll see on the second and third pages of this, uh, report. We gathered some data from several law enforcement agencies, including, uh, highway patrol. Uh, so you could see some of the statewide effects as well. Um, but we have a, uh, contingent of drivers and they, they come from all walks of life. We have a lot of, uh, kids nowadays that aren't getting driver's licenses. Um, it's just not in their priority list. Um, but there are a lot of them that still drive. We have a number of what you might consider your sovereign citizen types, um, that, uh, don't believe li driver's licenses are, uh, are something that we should do. Um, we have a number of, uh, other individuals that, for whatever reason, have either not gotten a privilege card or any type of, uh, regular license, or they don't have a driver's license from any other country. They may be here visiting, uh, whether they're, uh, visiting friends or family. Um, and they may be driving on a roads without a valid license from either out of state or out of country as well. But in all these situations, um, um, and I'm sorry, there's one last category. We have individuals that are driving also on suspended or revoked licenses, and that's a different category as well. But in all these cases, we, we, uh, tell law enforcement that you have to have a legal credential to drive on our roads, and there's a reason for that. And, uh, and we suspend that or revoke that, uh, privilege in many cases, um, for various, uh, purposes. Um, but when it comes to the language of the code itself, we have some disparities. So if you're driving on a revoked or a suspended license, um, or if you have a, an expired license, there is a different set of standards required. There's a different level. It's a misdemeanor in Utah law, if you have never been issued a driver's license from any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, um, but you continue to drive on our roads, it's an infraction. And what this means is that law enforcement can offer you a ticket, uh, for that offense. And this has been, uh, an issue that has grown over time because as unlicensed drivers has grown as a problem. Um, we have discovered more and more issues when we have a situation. For example, we have more than 350,000 active warrants out right now, and there's a population that are using this, um, loophole to avoid law enforcement, uh, detection. We also have a number of crashes. We had eight fatalities on highways alone last year. Um, from unlicensed drivers. We've had hundreds of crashes. Um, and you can see in some jurisdictions, like the one I represent, west Valley, where the numbers are far greater, more than 40% of hit and runs. Um, and, uh, 36 or 37%, I believe, on the form in front of you, of, uh, DUIs, uh, maybe I have those numbers reversed. But the, the numbers are very high of those individuals without, um, a driver's license. And so in that regards, we've looked at how we can bring the law into parity so that the, uh, penalties are identical regardless of the type of invalid driving credential. So that would mean lifting the infraction of a, uh, driving without a, a, a driver's license to a misdemeanor to match the other categories. Um, this would also allow law enforcement to have the same tools they have. If you notice at the beginning of the, um, of the form here at the bottom, that law enforcement has, um, a shall language for impounding vehicles. And on the next page, you have another category for they may impound vehicles under these categories. Um, the one thing that's missing from this category is an unlicensed driver. And this is a, this is actually a difficult problem because some of our agencies have actually gotten to the point where they've issued policy to their law enforcement officers. You see, an individual is not allowed to break the law in front of a police officer by policy. A police officer has to intervene. So if you pull over an individual that cannot produce any form of valid credential for driving, and their only option is to give you a ticket, but they can't impound your car, then they also can't necessarily let them drive away. That would be breaking the law. So instead, these agencies have actually written policy in some cases that state that you have to tell the individual to not leave the scene until their vehicle has, so to speak, gone over the horizon. So they don't have to witness and they just tell them, do whatever you need to do. But that's what I'm telling you is, you're not allowed to drive, but here are your keys. Don't do anything until I'm outta your sight. Um, which is ridiculous. So we have a, we have a growing, um, problem that has expanded over the last several years. And law enforcement just needs tools when now when you have to issue a ticket to an individual that does not have a name, does not have an address, does not have any valid credential that cau it causes a couple of problems. And both of these problems create ghosts in our system. This individual that may be pulled over without a valid driving credential, may have been pulled over a dozen times, may have been pulled over multiple times, um, in the past. And this is important because, um, we've, we've had, for example, in December, we had an individual that was, um, that was killed, um, in a traffic accident by a unlicensed driver. Um, and that individual had purportedly been pulled over multiple times before. And there is strong likelihood to believe that if there was the ability by law enforcement to impound that vehicle or to issue, uh, some sort of, uh, criminal offense in these circumstances, especially on multiple occasions that the, these types of tragedies could be avoided. So with that, to go over the, the aspects of what this bill actually does, we're gonna elevate the, uh, driving without a valid credential to match the other sections of code. Um, a, uh, I believe it's a class C misdemeanor, is that correct? Class B, class C, class C, class C misdemeanor. Thank you. Which matches the other sections of code as well for driving on a suspended license. Um, we'll add it to the impound list so they can get those vehicles impounded and off the roads, there is an adjustment that's also being made to the impound fees. Um, this is actually a critical issue that's kind of related, but also somewhat unrelated. We have a large number of vehicles that are going into the impound list every year, including RVs and other vehicles. Many of these vehicles in some cases don't have insurance. They're not very expensive vehicles. These tow yards are being required to impound these vehicles under state law. Um, they hold onto it for some time. They can't collect any fees. No one comes to collect the vehicles. So they're recourses to sell the vehicle, but the vehicles aren't worth anything. So in many cases, just to get them out of their hands, they put 'em up, uh, for free or to a simple auction where the vehicle is then sold right back to the original owner for almost no cost, sometimes for free. And then the process starts all over again. So we are looking at trying to collect, uh, a slightly higher fee as well, um, because this will increase the impound, uh, likelihood of, uh, vehicles, especially in the short term. And there is gonna be some costs associated with that. We are trying to capture that as well as the ongoing need to increase the, the cost in these areas. Also, it's already currently a crime to knowingly provide your vehicle to an unlicensed driver. We are just making a, uh, code change. There is a, uh, there is a, uh, uh, a schedule of how, uh, fines could be attached to this type of crime. And we're just simply putting in a minimum, uh, standard in there. It's all, it's already within the range, but we're just saying at least charge them the minimum that's in there. So you don't, so we can actually start, um, enforcing this, uh, at, at a broader level, the last little bit of this, it might, um, there are some questions that have come up and that is on the fingerprinting aspect. So, um, this is where we get into some of the real kind of nitty gritty specifics. Um, and I, and I do apologize, I do have an amendment, amendment two that I'll need to move. And it's related to this discussion on fingerprinting. Um, when, when you do, um, identify an individual that is pulled over from law enforcement on a legal stop, and they are in fact detained and they have a legal right, law enforcement is legal right to demand their identification, and it is a crime not to provide that identification. In those circumstances. We're asking law enforcement, law enforcement DPS has asked, um, that they be able to provide when they can't identify that person, um, that they're able to do what's called a rapid scan. And what this is, it does not create a record. There's no record generated. This simply allows them to scan the AFIS database or any other fingerprint database. They currently are connected to, uh, usually a federal database, um, to rapidly, I, uh, do a scan to see if that person is currently on the wanted list. From a law enforcement perspective, that's a, that's an important thing because again, we have a large and growing number of wanted, um, uh, many felon uh, cases in Utah, and they are now, uh, utilizing this loophole to avoid law enforcement. And that would help us solve that. Right? Now, currently, if you get a ticket in highway patrol, you're already have to put a fingerprint on the ticket. Um, this is far less invasive than that because that creates a record. This does not. This is simply a scan that's, that is done at the time of the instance and there's no record kept. Now, the other aspect of this is just clarifying in code that if, um, and this is under the, um, uh, under the authority of the officer, if you so believes, and this is already, they already had this statutory authority, but if they believe that they would like to do a, um, what's called a non-custodial booking, where they can take that person into custody temporarily in order to do a 10 print fingerprint panel, um, that is already their right. They can do that. But this is making it clear. In most cases, this is actually impossible for most of our, uh, enforcement agencies. It's very time consuming. They usually don't have equipment on them. They would have to take them into a facility, most likely a jail in order to get it done. Um, but we're at least making it clear in the code because of these policies that have been placed now on law enforcement agencies in some cases that we need to clarify it in code in order for them to reverse them so that they can actually, uh, be able to perform the duty here and, and get to the issue here. Um, I'm trying to see if there's a, again, there was a lot to this bill and there was a lot of policy pieces. Um, and some of them have, uh, various, um, impacts on how this would look forward. If you turn to the last two pages, you can see some graphs here. The first page is the West Valley City data. And the, uh, second page will have some data that came from other agencies across the state, um, where they were able to report, uh, some of this data. Now, I will point out in the last little bit that from a data collection standpoint, most of our agencies do not have a collection method. That's easy. There's no simple checkbox that says this individual does not have a valid, or has never had a valid driver's license. Usually has a driver's license box that they can fill out. And if they don't fill it out, there's an assumption made. But in many cases, these agencies have to actually pull these records manually in order to find out whether or not there was actually a, a driver's license or a lack thereof, and then to figure out whether or not it was the, uh, individual that caused the accident or otherwise. So some of this data is a, again, it's not completely statewide. We can only get it from agencies. We were able to collect that data from, um, easily. Um, but you can see that in varying degrees this is a problem, uh, across the entire state. Um, and, and then, and then since I apologize, I missed one last piece is on the impound for vehicles, there is a large exemption list that has been growing over time that we have established. Now that exemption list was established to protect, uh, plenty of individuals, law enforcement officers, children, any, any category of people that might be harmed by this. So this includes, for example, if you're under the age of 18, the vehicle doesn't have to be impounded If you have children in the car, it doesn't have to be impounded. If law enforcement has too much work going on, they don't have to stop what they're doing and impound the vehicle. If you can, as a driver of that vehicle, contact someone with a valid license to pick up that car. They don't have to impo it. We're not trying to make it so that every vehicle is impounded. We're trying to get the unlicensed driver away from the car until they have a valid credential to drive on our roads. Um, and with that, I believe that's the entirety of my presentation. I'm open to questions or clarifications and I apologize. I went through that a little bit quickly.

Two, right? Yes. And the amendment covers the fingerprint, uh, piece. We're just making it clear that the APHIS database isn't the only database that is sometimes used. Um, that was a request from DPS 'cause it currently said APHIS was the, the database where fingerprints were scanned to check, but that's not technically true. There may be, uh, other databases that do get involved. So we're just trying to clear it up that it may, it, it could be afis, it could be some other national database that is already connected to law enforcement. Also in the future, if they adopt other databases or technologies, they don't want us to have to go back and change the law every time. And then the, uh, last little bit, I believe was on the amendment, was a, uh, that we had, um, over, uh, had some oversight on the infraction to the Class C misdemeanor that was in the, the bill last year. Um, and it just got missed in the drafting portion for this year. So we added it back in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have two questions. Could you tell me, kind of draw a picture, fingerprinting the driver would create a safety concern for the driver or law enforcement? What would be examples?

So the easiest example would be if you have a wanted felon, even in the most extreme case, it could be, for example, someone that's wanted for murder, that someone that had killed a police officer at a, at a, uh, at a traffic stop. Um, that individual could and has in some cases avoided law enforcement detection by simply claiming that they are, um, they, they have no credentials, they have no information. Um, they may in some cases actually claim they're from another country or they're visiting. And in most of these circumstances, unless they've been pulled over for some, uh, reason other than a, um, than speeding or, or an equipment malfunction, something that's just listed as an infraction, typically a law enforcement just doesn't have the bandwidth to go through a process of, um, of, even though they have to identify themselves, they're not gonna go through the process of dragging that individual into jail, getting them fingerprinted and identifying who they are, even though they have the right to do so. So the rapid scan is just simply to identify, is this person in front of me as a law enforcement officer, is this person a threat to me? Um, these are, these are one of the most dangerous situations from our, especially highway patrol, is when you come up on a, a vehicle, especially at night, especially in our rural locations, um, they're typically alone. It's dark. Um, law enforcement would like to know who they're talking to in most cases, and that's why actually the law requires them to identify themselves.

Okay. So this is an exemption from the fingerprinting. If it would be a risk, that's what it, at least that's the way I'm reading it. If law enforcement makes a reasonable determination that fingerprinting the driver would create a safety concern for the driver or for law enforcement, Then they exempt from

Then they don't have to take the fingerprints. We, we, we try to create a, um, there, there, there's a couple of pieces in there when it comes to the exemption. You're right. One is the safety concern and one is the technology concern. Um, we're trying to loop a lot of, um, let's just say we, we don't wanna be too prescriptive at telling law enforcement how they have to do things all the time. Um, but at the same time, give them enough leeway to say in circumstances where it may be dangerous. So for example, if you're doing a fingerprint scan on the side of a busy freeway, um, that might be a safety concern. Perhaps you don't feel like you need to do that. We wanna leave that to the discretion of the officer to say, I don't think this is a good idea. You know, depending on traffic or whatever's going on. Maybe it's icy roads and it's very cold. There's children in the car. Okay. I don't know. There's, you can stop. That's okay. Yeah, we're trying to create enough scenarios that, okay.

I was just curious to know what kinds of situations those would be. Okay. And then the other question is, you said, is it APIs? API S, is

That APIs? A FI

SS? Oh, two Ss?

Uh, no one SI believe. One

S. Okay. What other databases might be used?

Um, if I could, uh, phone a friend. Do we have any of our DPS guys here that might be able to Answer that coming up? Bless your, uh,

Really quick, Marcus Yaki, the director of the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification with the Utah

I apologize for that. You have to slide, He doesn't wanna stay down. So, Utah, uh, so I'm Marcus Yaki with the Utah Department of Public Safety. I'm the director, um, of the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification. So we have the aphis, so the automated fingerprint index system, which is aphis. We have win, which is our Western Index Network. Um, and so that's with nine states. And then we also have the federal system, which we bounce off of.

Thank you so much. Um, I appreciate McPherson, um, chatting with me about this bill yesterday. And, um, I, you know what, on the surface, this bill feels very targeted in terms of a community who hasn't had the opportunity to have a driver's license opportunity of receiving a license and taking a license, um, and their native language. And it feels targeted in the sense that we are targeting a whole community, um, with that. So that's a perception on this bill. Um, my question to you, and I have a few questions, is walk with me through the steps of, of if I have a license that is suspended, what will happen from being pulled over to being in front of a judge?

Well, I'm not a police officer, so why don't I ask, uh, maybe one of our police officers, uh, in the room that might know that process better than me trying to, uh, under explain my understanding of that. I can I ask, uh, any of your guys that come up? Thank you. Put you on the spot. Yeah, I'm so sorry.

No, you're all good. Uh, so my name's Herbert Allen with the Unified Police Department.

Okay. And if you could just, uh, restate the question for me

Real quick. Yes. Um, so I'm curious to know, oh, sorry. Uh,

Herbert Allen. I'm a Sergeant with the Unified Police Department.

Thank you. Yes, sorry. Um, yes. So I want, I wanna know what the process is when you pull somebody over with a suspended license is already

Yes. So technically the officer has discretion, but if the officer issues a citation, they would just issue a citation. They're usually told, since they don't have a valid license, they can no longer drive the vehicle. Um, at that point in time, the, uh, defendant or the person that was issued the citation would have the, would have to contact the court, which would be the justice court for whatever municipality they were stopped in. So they would contact the court and they would have the right to either plead guilty to the citation, um, to work out some type of deal with the court or to fight the citation.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much, officer.

Oh yeah, no problem. Thank you.

And the reason why I ask that question is we have a process in place. How are we skipping that process to get to a justice court? And why are we not allowing the Justice Court to continue to create those citations or make, make those arrests?

So I guess, lemme make sure I understand your question. So you're saying in circumstances when they don't have a license of any kind, you're asking why we're not issuing a ticket,

A ticket, or allowing the courts to complete the process? Sure. Because right now, the way that your bill reads, it leaves the discretion to the officer. Is that correct?

For, uh, whether or not to issue a citation or whether or not to,

To issue a citation, to arrest them, book them Sure. Yes. To impound their cars,

All of the above. Like on, like on many of these, I think we only have a few mandatory arrest laws in Utah. But, but yeah, law enforcement has job broad discretion in many of these cases. Um, but when it comes to, um, this particular instance, this is actually why in fact this is necessary, is that's exactly the problem. When you have to issue a ticket, there's a couple of bits of information that law enforcement needs in order to give, uh, issue a ticket, you have to have some sort of record to attach that to the court has to know who that record attaches to. And if you haven't provided any identification of any kind, no driving credential, no Id, you could say your name is John Doe. Um, you could say you live at 1, 2, 3, no street. Um, but that, that may not be accurate. There's no way to verify that they can look you, in fact, if they give you a name and a birthday and they can look you up on anywhere in, in, uh, the database mm-hmm. If you give them a social security number, a birthday, you can show 'em, in many cases they'll say, show us your social media account. Right? So we know that there's a name here, we can create a record for you. Mm-hmm. But in this case, we have the problem of, we have individuals that are unable to identify themselves or unwilling to identify themselves. And in those cases, there's no practical way to issue a ticket. In fact, in many cases, they were issuing tickets years ago to false name address. Law enforcement has to go through the process of generating this. It goes into the courts, the court system has it, officer has to show up to court. Nobody's there. They have to issue a bench warrant to someone who doesn't exist. This is, this is kind of a compounding problem. We just need something to attach to this is why there, why the, the privilege card, for example, comes into play, which is why I believe that was put in in Utah, whether you like the program or not. But it does create a record for individuals. So now if they are in fact, uh, driving erratically or breaking the law in some ways, um, they can, they can have a, uh, a record that we can attach something to. If they're pulled over five miles down the road, there's, there's knowledge that we just pulled you over five minutes ago, you know, that, that, that can create. But without any information, without any identification, there is no record and there's no way to issue a citation or send someone to the justice court system, for example.

Okay. So my follow up question to that is, don't most cop cars also have license scanners to be able to identify a location for the car that they're driving and the

vehicle they're driving? I don't Their lease. I know about most, I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you that because

They can run license plates.

The vehicle Yeah. And the vehicle registration. And, um, it doesn't always have to match the driver. In many cases it doesn't. And even the, even the insurance information in many times doesn't match, match the driver's license, the driver. So it, it, uh, this is a, this is an issue that's just, it's kind of a hole. We, we just need to fill the hole somehow so that law enforcement could just identify who's in front of them if they're, especially if they're driving on our roads.

Okay. My next question, um, and, and I'll, I'll leave it here because I think this one is one of the most important questions is when we seize a car without a warrant, because your, your bill says the officer can seize a car without a warrant. Isn't that also a violation of your, of the constitution?

I appreciate that question and that's a good one too, because I do love my constitution, uh, very much. Um, I will just refer, if you look at that first page of our, um, analysis here, we already have a number of situations where a mandatory impound is in law. Um, road rage, for example, is an automatic impound. Um, driving without insurance if the vehicle's involved in an accident is an automatic impound. Uh, DUI, automatic impound speed, uh, specifically racing. So there's a, there's a, a statute there that describes this is an automatic impound driving on a suspended, revoked, disqualified driving credential, um, for certain offenses, automatic impound. And not on this list, even though I believe it is maybe, uh, Rachel can verify is I believe, uh, if your registration has been expired for more than three months, I believe is also a mandatory impound. She's checking right now live as we speak, but, and go, Go ahead. May I, I, I've been told because I was asked if I would make it a may, uh, and I was open to that idea, but, uh, that I was under the impression that it's a must or a, or a shall. But I would say, and we already have a, a, a wide range of safety related issues where we're saying, if, if your credential's been revoked, that's usually for a safety reason. If you're driving erratically racing road rage, that's a safety issue. If you're driving without insurance, that's a problem. Um, we don't want these vehicles on the road. It's not necessarily intended to, well, I, I guess it is intended to punish the individual, but most importantly it's to protect the rest of the drivers on the road. Um, and so this is just basically trying to be consistent with the other sections of code when it comes to this section here.

And I just, um, thank you for that. I appreciate that. And lastly, I just wanna say, um, you know, I, I appreciate the data and I think we all can see this. It, it's, it varies, but one of the most important things I think I'm reading on this, is that even the chiefs and departments aren't necessarily clear on what you're trying to accomplish here in the data that they're giving you. In terms of, yes, we don't know if it's necessarily a problem of unlicensed driving. Um, but here's information according to accidents that have happened with an, um, unlicensed participants. And again, my concern is, one, we have a population that we could easily help by providing a driver privileged car testing for their native language. And two, um, creating some sort of educational campaign in this. I've had my license suspended when I was younger. It's not a fun process. I even walked outta the court, drove my car, and got arrested, like, had to go back into the court. So it's a, it's a process that works. I don't, I don't foresee this being like the ultimate problem to some, to a solution that's already been had. So,

And I appreciate that. And I, and I would, I would, I would say too is that, yeah, some of this is a data issue because we do have collection problems and it is difficult to track. Um, also there are varying degrees, you know, some, some departments have this in very, very large numbers. Some, and, and when you compare it to a percentage of issues, they're very small. Um, but I, I, but I would go on to say that this is a fixable problem where we can't always fix all the issues out there. There's a lot of issues that, you know, I think some believe that we can fix all the problems of the world with legislation. I don't, um, I'm trying to just fix one little problem and when it comes to the driver credential issue. This is the same question that came up last year. Um, it's not relevant right now to my bill. I'm not looking at expanding driving credentials. Um, I would, I would welcome any individual to run a bill to expand driving credentials in the state of Utah. I know that law enforcement in many cases do believe that that's an issue too. And they think that if they could get more individuals in the driver's privilege card program, then they could also start to try to track and tackle this problem somewhat, but only for one contingent, let's say, of the population. 'cause it's more than just, um, immigrant, illegal, immigrant population that, that falls under that category. There's plenty of other individuals that are in that category as well. So this is trying to more broadly capture the issue rather than focus on one particular type or category of person. And so I appreciate, I appreciate that input and I would welcome anyone to run a bill in that place, but it's not really relevant to my specific bill. 'cause mine's focusing on the unlicensed drivers, not the credentials. Thank

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Representative. We've, we've talked and, and I, I mean, I totally support what you're trying to get at. Um, I, I served in a Spanish speaking church congregation and, and we had people from all over Latin America. And, you know, people that love this country, many of them don't know any other country. And, and, you know, they've been here since before they knew anything before they could talk. And yet they don't have the IDs. And, and we've been talking through this whole process and we're like trying to get 'em our driver privilege card and we can't do it. And, and so, you know, I mean, I've got one example of, of a gentleman who, you know, employs people outta prison and teaches them skills and puts them to work. And he's in peril of the whole thing shutting down and every time he drives. And so he would love to have an ID and be fingerprinted and be known in the system, but we can't seem to do it. And I know there are a lot of people like that. And so I'm hesitant to have something that we punish people for something they absolutely can't help. I mean, they would love to be fingerprinted and have an ID and, and we can't get 'em there. And so that's my struggle. I mean, I, I, I very much sympathize, agree completely with what the bill's trying to do. I'm just concerned that we're catching maybe not a lot, maybe a lot, uh, people that are contributing and helping and, you know, they want to be in there. And I, I don't know if there's a way that we can somehow capture that in here. If we could do that. I'm, you know, full support.

I, I appreciate that. And it, and you know, my bill has a section in here that talks about what credentials being driver credentials mean, and they are categories. Yeah. And so if any of those categories get expanded on in future legislation, then they're automatically captured in here. Yeah. So that there is an opportunity under this for, for those to get, um, expanded coverage in that way. And, and I know that law enforcement would appreciate that as well. Um, I guess my only, not only counter and maybe argument against that is we, we still have laws and we still want individuals driving on our roads to verify that they have understood the road signs, the road conditions. They know what a school zone is and how it works. They know what a school bus stops and puts their stop sign out. They know how that works. We wanna make sure that people on our roads are, are, um, that are capable of safely driving on 'em. So I, I do sympathize, but at the same time I say we do need to have some rules in place. And yeah, there, there may be people that fall on the margins on that, and if there's ways to capture those, I'm open to it. But right now, this bill is trying to solve the problem of the safety issue.

Yeah. I mean, I completely agree with you. We wanna make sure they know. But there are people that do know that they don't speak any language other than English. Right. And, and yet we still can't get them an id. Would you be open to an amendment possibly to see, you know, we give it the driver's license people and see what we can do. Because if you read, I've got the driver privilege criteria here, and it seems when you read it very simple when you apply for it, it doesn't work that way.

I'd be interested to see what, um, what the driver's license division has to say about what are the, the, the, uh, barriers when it comes to the individuals you're describing getting on there. Because it does, you're right in code. It seems very straightforward. And if those barriers need to be solved legislatively, then absolutely. Let's talk and figure it out.

'cause just, I mean, I agree with, but I don't wanna stop down the slow down the process. Yeah, sure, sure. Of this bill right now, and I know there's still time to open bills.

Yeah. So it may be, may be best to open a new bill to, to solve it,

But, but I do agree. We want to know who's driving on our streets. And right now we don't know that because we're not allowing them to let us know who they are, which just seems counterintuitive. But yeah. Anyway, I appreciate, thank you. Yeah, I was just gonna say thank you, Mr. Chair. It's not too late to open a bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative. Can you just remind me, uh, when someone gets a Class C misdemeanor citation, what actually happens? You, you're not in handcuffs in the back of a car. Right.

In most cases, you're gonna get a ticket. You're gonna get a ticket then, or, Or you might be discretionary just given a warning, especially in a traffic violation.

But then after you get the Class C misdemeanor, then you got, first of all, you gotta figure out how to get where you're going. 'cause you don't have a car. You mean if the vehicle's been impounded, you got, yeah. Yeah. But, and then the Class C means you gotta show up at the court and do some whatever you gotta do.

Probably, there's a process. It's up to 90 days if you get mm-hmm. Right. So it could be zero, could be mm-hmm. Could be just a fine. Depends on the judge.

But my, my understanding is, is that class C misdemeanors for first time offenses, jail time is almost never a thing unless you're a really habitual offender. Not, I'm not looking at Representative Dominguez or anything, but, but, but typically that, so it's typically it plays out as if it was a citation for most people. It,

From what I understand, yes. From speaking with law enforcement.

All right. I'm looking at if anybody, law enforcement in the room can wink at me if I got it right. Okay. We, I think looks like we got it right. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to point out that opening a new bill is almost never the right answer, but maybe in this case You'd be supportive too, huh? All right. Uh, thanks. And, and I had this question earlier, and I'm not, and I was listening to the discussion, but if somebody, if, if someone's vehicle is impounded and you, there's several things, either they're, uh, taken to jail because of the infra, because of the situation, or they call somebody to get a ride, I guess they could jump in with the tow truck driver and go that way. I don't know if that's,

Sometimes the officers even give 'em a ride

And they give 'em a ride. Okay. So they can, and if the officer feels like none of those are gonna work, and, and it could jeopardize the safety of the people, then that officer has the discretion to say, I'm not gonna impound the car. But there's other,

We, we've given a very broad discretionary list for law enforcement when it comes to situations in which they don't have to impound the vehicle. We're actually trying to make it as easy as possible to not impound vehicles, including up to just, if they can just contact anybody who can pick up the vehicle with a valid license, then it doesn't have to be impounded. An officer doesn't wanna stick around waiting for a tow truck either. There's usually a lot to do. Um, and so even if they're just busy, they don't have to, they don't have to impound it. There's a lot of situations we're trying to make it so that the impound is gonna be, uh, the, the only in those situations where law enforcement feels that it's absolute, that it's basically necessary. Right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Colonel Greg Hawley, uh, representing, uh, DPS Utah Patrol, and then, uh, also the LALC. Um, we're speaking in favor, in favor of the bill. Um, we appreciate the, the, it gives us, uh, made additional tools to, uh, enforce, you know, this law. We do greatly appreciate the, uh, the exceptions is they do allow for a lot of officer discretion in, uh, you know, this scenario may be necessary. We tow the car and, and some lessons learned, uh, but gives us the discretion to, uh, make the, make that decision on the side of the road as to what's best for both, uh, the public law, the law enforcement officer, and the driver.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably re recommend. Bill, can I get an amendment? We have an amendment. I move that we adopt the fabulous amendment number two.

I move that we favorably recommend House Bill 1 36 as amended.

Um, I don't think I will.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a problem with this bill, and I just think it's right now the climate in our state and, and across the country. But more importantly, I think it's been mentioned a couple of times about the driver's privilege card. And the reason why we, uh, established a driver privileged card was for people to be able to drive on the road safely. And it has increased our roads and the safety on our roads. But there are people right now that are just afraid. And I'm afraid that we're going to punish someone if they get pulled over, take their car, and they're already working a job where they don't make enough money, and how do they get their car? So how do they feed their family and all these other things. And so, for, for me, I just, I have a fundamental problem with the bill. And if we had the driver privilege card offered and some other languages, I might be supportive of the bill, but right now I can't.

Yeah, I, uh, am afraid, I agree with my good colleague, uh, minority leader that, um, and we agree on a lot of things, but, but it is, uh, I just, I, I really like what you're doing. I'm afraid we're capturing people in and completely unintentionally not the people that you're trying to get, that we should get to, but there's a, a number that just, they can't do anything about it, even though they're trying and they hire a lawyer to try to help them to try, and they still can't get there. That just, I, I, I struggle with that. I think I'm a no vote. I want to work with you. See if we can work through it. And I would love to be a yes vote on the floor.

You so much. I appreciate it. I appreciate you coming to me and talking with me about this. I, um, along with the concerns I did mention, one of the other concerns I have is we're trying to capture bad players. We aren't even looking at, um, international information that we could receive or not, if, if this is capturing bad, all black, bad players. Um, the second thing too is even, even with fingerprinting, the second thing too is the affordability on this, on top of getting your car impounded, the parking lot, the parking fees, all of those things, um, are, will affect. And, and lastly, this could be anybody that can live this situation, not just people of color, not people who can't get the driving privilege card. This can be anyone. And, um, and I do know that the, um, I do know that some of the actors in this who would, you know, officers are not in support of this and would like an amendment. I do know that for a fact. So I, I can't support this bill without all the stakeholder holders at play to have input and feel like they too have a voice in these, in this as well. So, thank you so much.

Thank you. Yeah, this is, this is a tough one. And I, and I, and I worry for the folks that, uh, that are gonna get swept up. But I also worry for the families who are devastated, uh, as their, as their families are either, uh, loved ones are injured or, or killed by folks who shouldn't be driving. And I know some of those folks too. And I'm also worried for the families who are financially devastated by folks who aren't carrying insurance. So, uh, while I feel for that, I, I also believe in the rule of law, and so, and so I'm gonna have to vote in favor of, of this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I wanna weigh in on this as well. Uh, you know, if if people don't obey the law and we allow them to continue to, to do that, then nothing's gonna happen. And as soon as we, we make a decision like this, then it may bring up other issues that we can take care of. And I think maybe we ought to look at another bill where we do some things. But in the meantime, we need to, we need to, um, respect the law and give tools to our law enforcement agencies to, uh, carry out their responsibilities. And this clarifies a lot of things. It makes it safer for, uh, others of us who drive the road that we want to be protected. And, uh, I Juab, I, I support what you're doing. I think it's a, a good bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the very long discussion and all the considerations here. This is a tough bill that we've been working on for 18 months now. We've involved nearly every stakeholder in the state. We've involved cities, we've involved, um, sheriffs, we've involved, um, uh, law enforcement at all levels. Um, we've, uh, engaged with, uh, immigrant communities, communities and dreamers. We've engaged with, uh, individuals across the state that have interest in this, including victim, uh, advocate groups. And while I do agree that there are some, um, penalties here, and it might cause some financial hardship we're talking about, on one hand, we're always weighing things. There's never a policy that is a win-win, so to speak. There's always a trade off. There's always, what are we getting and what are we giving? And in this scenario, I'm saying that we have individuals that are knowingly breaking our laws. They're driving on our roads without any valid credential, and that is a crime, and they know it's not allowed, and they continue to do it. And in these circumstances, we're asking for tools for law enforcement so they can put a stop to that. And in return, it may lower the amount of individuals that are facing car crashes. Individuals involved with DUI crashes hit and runs people that are being killed on our streets. Again, this isn't the entirety of the problem, but this is a piece that we can solve. And the trade off, again, we're talking about maybe they're gonna lose their vehicle for a couple of days, depending on their situation. They may have to pay a fine. That is the penalty of the rule of law that exists for all of us. It's the same if I were to drive on the road erratically and get pulled over for road rage. My vehicle would be taken from me. Uh, my vehicle be impounded. Um, I may face some stiff penalties in court. That's how the law works. We're not asking for this to be some special case. We're actually trying to make this the normal case, the case that exists for every one of us that drive on our roads legally. And in return, there is going to be a net benefit that we can clearly see from the data that's been provided by the agencies out there. So with that, I ask for your support and hope that if there are, uh, changes that are suggested that can help us solve this policy, I'd welcome to work with you. We have plenty of time to get that through. If there are other bills that need to be run that would support this, I support that as well. But in the meantime, I hope for your, your support so we can get it to the floor and continue this process.

Yeah, I, I agree with the sponsor on many of these issues. Uh, this is not complicated. Uh, it's, it's not that hard to get a driving privilege card. Uh, I've had family members who've come from other countries and, uh, taken them down to the DMV and gone through process. It's, it's just not, I mean, there is some effort required, but this is a privilege. And so there, the people put in the effort, uh, you, you can take care of this, and people who just don't know, don't care, don't want to, uh, just, it's not fair to the rest of society for people like that to be out there, especially in the second part of the bill, like not being able to know who they are, which is really an equally difficult problem. So when they do endanger society, finding out who, who are we, who are we dealing with here? Is this just an average citizen who's just as an oversight, or is this a person with felony warrants, or what are we talking about here? So, uh, with that, I I, I, I do think this bill is, is in the right spot and would urge passage.

Thank you. Committee.

Thank you Chair members of the committee. Um, I do have a, um, um, I don't wanna say co-sponsor, but an individual online, uh, that'll be, um, speaking with me. Her name is Jane. Um, also, I am gonna be speaking to the, lemme make sure I'm getting this correct. We have a fourth sub, fourth substitute. Yes. Okay. So I'm gonna just go through this very briefly. Um, there's a couple of pieces of this bill that are different from last year, but I really just wanna go over the, the basic policy pieces very, very briefly. Um, first of all, um, this currently, um, does not increase any penalties. Currently driving without a license in the state of Utah is an infraction. This will maintain it as an infraction. Last year we increased it to a Class C misdemeanor to match driving on a suspended or revoked license. After some feedback, we've decided to, to keep that as an infraction, so it'll be a ticketable offense. The primary difference here is when it comes to the impound portion, we've expanded the carve outs. So essentially if, uh, an individual is pulled over and they're driving without a license and they've never been issued a license, there's a number of carve outs in the bill. Um, I'd like to just point to very, very briefly because, um, I think that this, uh, greatly, uh, explains the policy is that if the operator is driving on an expired credential, then that would, the vehicle would not have to be, um, impounded if it would create a public safety concern, either for the operator or for any occupants of the vehicle. If it would prevent a police officer from addressing public safety concerns. For example, if they're just busy, if the operator's under 18 years of age, if the person, um, that is an occupant of the vehicle, um, has a driver's license, they can just simply take the car. Also, if they can just contact someone that has a license that can come pick up the car, that vehicle does not need to be impounded this. Um, the goal of this, and the policy consideration here is we're, we're not interested in the vehicles. We don't want to impound more cars. The goal is, is to get an individual that is not licensed to drive on our roads, um, to not continue to drive. And I'm gonna turn some of this time over briefly, um, in just a moment to Jane to explain why. But I want to go over the other p portions of this. There is also, um, uh, circumstances where individuals that they don't have a license or they, or they refuse to provide a license. Currently it's a crime, uh, to not identify yourself to police officer in a valid stop. Currently though, the only thing that an officer can do is take you to jail. And that's not very practical and it's kind of a nuclear option. So what this would, uh, allow officers to do, we've already funded this last year, is, uh, we've, uh, provided fingerprint scanners to many of our agencies. This is a rapid fingerprint scan. It allows them, if in those circumstances when a person refuses to identify themselves, they can do a rapid fingerprint scan. This does not create any record of any kind. Um, it simply checks the afis or other, uh, databases to see if they have any warrants. If they are a warranted individual, then they would probably proceed with a, an arrest in that case. Um, but otherwise that is just basically kind of a pass fail, sort of a scan. The only other piece to this is, um, I wanted to make clear to this doesn't apply to anyone that just simply doesn't have any credentials on them. If you forgot your license or you don't have anything on you, there's no requirement currently in the law that you have to carry this on you. And this doesn't change that you can simply provide your name, your address, your birthday, your social, your social media profile. There's a million, million things that law enforcement will tell you. You can show them to verify your identity, and they can clear you, clearly find you in the system. Um, the last pieces of this, um, uh, I may have, um, uh, DLD and um, uh, other agencies, uh, maybe DHHS come and explain. There is, uh, two changes here. One, also, we've increased some of the fees including a fee for DHHS to provide, um, testing when an individual wants to have the revoked license or suspended license reinstated, currently the Department of Health Human Services does, does testing on that drug testing. They're losing about 1.2 million a year under the fee structure we have right now, this increase is $30 and it will only make up about a quarter of that revenue, but they're, they're able to make up the rest internally. Um, so that's a need to change. Also, one additional change is, um, law enforcement under the scanners that were provided last year under, um, another senate bill, um, there was a mismatch in some of the language. Um, and the law enforcement agencies came and asked us to update some of that language to ensure that their, uh, hardware that they already purchased is compatible with the systems, which it's currently not. So there's some language change there. And then finally, um, Representative Hall had a constituent whose, uh, young daughter was involved in a car accident. Um, and she had made a unprotected left-hand turn and was struck by another vehicle. Um, unfortunately her passenger was killed in the accident. Under the current code, they are mandatorily required to suspend their license for a year, even without any convictions or without any, um, fault, uh, uh, placed. Um, DLD is actually asked under, um, looking at this policy, and under the circumstances they would like that to change. They do not, they believe that the, uh, ability for them to put these revocations in are necessary at times, sometimes under A DUI, for example, where it may take some time to get a conviction, but you want us to suspend the license, um, for, um, certain types of, uh, offenses. But in a case where you've got a young girl who is obviously traumatized, is gonna have to learn how to drive still, and she can't for at least a year under the current policy, makes it very difficult for them to reintegrate into the system. So there's been a slight change to that policy there as well. Um, I think that's the, uh, entirety of this bill.

And if it's okay, Mr. Chair, I'd like Jane to just speak briefly.

Uh, Mr. Chair members of the committee, um, sorry, sorry. Uh, my name is Jane Nelson. I'm representing myself as the resident of Delta. I'm here today to testify in strong support of House Bill 1 36 unlicensed drivers. Um, on February 20th, 2025, my husband was killed by an unlicensed driver. This tragedy was the result of a systemic failure that repeated itself three times in a single month. The man who killed my husband has been pulled over and ticketed for driving without a license three times in the 30 days leading up to the crash, the current system treated these as minor infractions. Each time he was handed a piece of paper and allowed to drive away the laws that stands did nothing to stop him. The final failure happened just 25 minutes before the fatal collision. That morning, the driver was pulled over in Saratoga Springs. A law enforcement officer ran his information and confirmed yet again that he did not have a valid license. But under our current procedures, the driver was issued a ticket and critically was allowed to get, get back behind the wheel and drive away. 25 minutes later, south of the silver city rest stop. That same driver crossed the center line and hit my husband head on. If our laws had required impoundment or mandatory no drive order for unlicensed individuals, that car would've been towed. That driver would've been off the road and my husband would be alive today. Instead, a known repeated risk was documented on paper and then released back onto our highways. We often call these accidents, but when a driver is caught unlicensed three times in one month and then kill someone 25 minutes after their last ticket, it's not an accident. It's a predictable consequence of a weak law. A ticket is not a deterrent when you hand the keys back to the offender. I urge this committee to support House Bill 1 36 to ensure that no license actually means no driving before another Utah family is destroyed by a fatal preventable tragedy. Thank you.

I do. Representative MacPherson. So one of the options at roadside is someone could come and pick the car up, how long this kind of puts law enforcement at a disadvantage. How long do they give? I mean, what if it takes 'em an hour or so? What

Yeah, I appreciate the question. The, the, the current carve out says reasonable, a reasonable amount of time. And so that leaves it to law enforcement. But also there's a section that if it would interfere with law enforcement operations, for example, if it would take an enormous amount of time. Both of those are, are already carve outs where there there's no requirement for an impoundment. I don't wanna, I don't wanna put law enforcement at a disadvantage of roadside to Those were made at their request too, for that exact reason.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, um, with the sponsor talk about, um, the piece, uh, about reintegrating into the system. I heard you say that, and I think this is in the new sub and I I missed that piece. Could you talk about what that means? Are, are we talking about, um,

the driver's license division when it comes to Yes. Um, so under the current, um, code, if you have been involved in an accident that, um, results in a fatality or I believe it's called Great Property Damage or something along those lines, um, currently, um, there is a, uh, a suspension of your license of a year. Um, and the, there are circumstances right now, this is an administrative, uh, process. And then there is a, uh, a process of appeal through that, that, again, it is also administrative, but the statute says that even without any fault, without any, uh, evidence, without any charges. Um, and, uh, DLD believes that under these, these types of circumstances that happen occasionally, where we've got a driver that would otherwise just be, um, ticketed, given an infraction, for example, for making an unprotected turn. Um, but in this case resulted in a fatality, um, that they would like to have the option of, um, having discretion on when, um, uh, a suspension is necessary, especially if there's charges for example, or fault placed, or if perhaps that suspension doesn't need to be for a full year. Um, so this, this is an adjustment that's been made after discussion with them.

And I'm sorry, what, could you tell me what lines those are? Um, I'm just trying to find that. Rachel, do you happen to know offhand?

I'm gonna, oh, I'm looking at the wrong bill. So let me go to my own bill and then tell you what lines those are. We, we just added those very recently. It Starts at line 6 0 4.

Okay. Thank you. Um, that is Mr. Chair, if I may continue on. Go ahead. Um, that is one of the issues that, um, I wanted to talk about with this bill and that being able to reintegrate into the system. I know that people who have A-A-D-P-C card or are attempting to get a DPC card, a driver privilege card, this is not something that, like getting a driver's license, there's translation into 15 different languages. And then you also have the opportunity to have, um, spoken interpretation of the test, um, in many other different refugee languages. This is not offered with DPC cards. It's only done in English. And um, it's there, it's a high bar at times, right. To go from conversational English to testing. Right. So, um, I know that it, it can be, um, difficult to get that, uh, that, um, DPC, um, and I, I am, I believe that anytime someone is pulled over without a DBC card, without, uh, a license, there is a year suspension in being able to, uh, test again. So, I mean, that is a long time, right? So I got excited 'cause I thought maybe you had, um, tried to uh, uh, fix that, that piece because it's, it's the same thing. A year is a long time for someone to try to, um, test again. Um, and this is time, my understanding this is anytime someone is pulled over. So going back to your bill, 'cause I know that's not in your bill, going back to your bill, um, there of course we're, we're looking at, um, an officer's reasonable determination to pull someone over, right? And, um, and that changes from person to person, like what is reasonable. Um, and, and there's, you know, some concern as to how to make that more regulated and I don't know if regulated is the right word, but to make it more fair and ensure that people are not being pulled over just because of the way that they look. Um, we, we know that that probably happens through anecdotal evidence, right? That, um, some of our community members are telling us that, that that feels like what's happening. Um, so it becomes very hard to get that DPC card, uh, sorry, the DPC, right? And, um, that's one of the main concerns that, that I have with this bill is that, um, there's nothing in here that helps our community members get the card. It it is only very punitive on people who are driving without a license, which I know is not good. I know that is bad, I know that, but there's nothing on the other side that helps them to get that license. Um, and with the chair's, um, permission, I do have another issue. And I suppose in there, I, I should allow you to respond, but I do have another issue I'd like to bring

These, these are really important questions and I, um, I, I would say that this bill doesn't change anything when it comes to, uh, law enforcement with their a, with their ability to, uh, engage with, um, drivers on the road. It doesn't increase or decrease or change any of their authority when it comes to pulling someone over. They do have to have a valid reason to stop someone. There's a, there's already a lot of, um, both, uh, laws on our books and case law, um, you know, surrounding that. And there's liability for them and, and, and in certain circumstances, and we're trying not to mess with any of that. But under the circumstance where they've already pulled someone over, um, and it is a valid stop, then we're determining on if they have a valid credential. And I completely understand, and, and I agree. If you have a suspended or revoked license, or if you don't have a driver's license, then every time you are driving EE essentially illegally, um, then yes, currently under the, the statute, it adds time to either your suspension, your revocation, or the time period before you can get a license. Um, I know that there was a, um, a substitute attempted on the house floor that did not pass the house floor. Um, and it's, it's really not you. You're all right. It's not really part of my bill. I'm not trying to change what credentials mean or how they work. Um, I, I really am focusing on the, uh, on what is a, a valid credential today. Um, and I will say that, that we do have about 33,000 individuals that have driver's privilege cards. Um, and I know law enforcement greatly supports them and would like to have more people having them. Um, but, but I would say, uh, uh, this bill is just not the right place for it. I would, uh, if there's other legislation, um, that could be run in this space, um, I would be supportive of that for sure. I, I know we've looked at that again in this bill as well. Um, but I just didn't have support for it. And, um, uh, right now this bill is focused on just the, the actual, um, criminal aspect of this and how to try to give more tools to law enforcement to try to prevent tragedies like Jane's family. And, and, uh, it is a growing problem that we're just trying to offer some solutions that try not to impact people, um, too much more heavily than they're already impacted today. 'cause you are right, those issues are still ongoing. They've been ongoing. They'll continue to be ongoing with or without this bill.

And I do appreciate your answer on that, um, because that is an issue that you and I had spoken about, and, um, it's the other side to this bill, and I wish that we did have the other side to, uh, to this bill so that it could be, um, balanced. Right. And I, I feel like it is imbalanced right now on lines five 17 to 5 22. It talks about, um, the fingerprint, the quick fingerprint, and that, um, it, these quick fingerprints are, um, the, it, it could be queried against, um, um, national databases and, and online five 19, it does say, or similar fingerprint database systems. Um, my question there has to do with, um, and, and you and I talked about this, what assurances do we have that this is not going to be queried against, um, secure communities, which is the ice, um, data sharing program. Uh, if, if it's okay, I'd like to ask law enforcement to come up.

We've, we've spoken about this briefly, but it is a bit of a complicated issue from my understanding. If Nate is here or perhaps he's back online, um, the, he is online. Great. The, the understanding that I've been given from, uh, law enforcement is, is that currently, um, APHIS is what we would normally check, but there's sometimes additional databases they check, which is why we made other databases. But currently the, um, the, or the current, uh, like warrant system that we're checking and the ICE databases, they're not connected. So if a warrant is returned, so if you were to do a check and a warrant came up on an individual that would return a record back, and at that point, that record may include something, like, for example, if they had charges and it included an ICE detainer, then yeah, that might be a, a method by which then, then they could notify, for example, ice. But the fingerprint itself wouldn't do it. But maybe Nate can explain that better. Okay. It's part of the presentation. Mr. Mutter,

Uh, thank you, uh, chair, uh, uh, Nate Mutter, chair of the law enforcement legislative committee. It, it, uh, Senator Kwan, it's not an easy answer. Um, I, I spoke briefly with, uh, the, the head of, or the ex-head of HSI in this area, uh, for the state of Utah, and asked him, you know, how can you do it roadside? Can you, um, identify someone, uh, here, uh, that's undocumented and perhaps here, um, illegally, uh, through the, the fingerprint system that we would use? The, the, the answer I, I guess is yes, but it's complicated. It's not an easy yes. Uh, it would have to be ran through the right databases, uh, with the right permissions, and, um, and that's just not usually the case. Um, that said, uh, I was also told the, the really the only way to, uh, to, uh, uh, identify someone with certainty is through the, um, uh, interaction with ice itself. So they, you know, an ICE agent would have to come out on scene, uh, and, and fingerprint against their system. So, long story short, yes, it can happen, uh, but it it's not that easy.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, we have seen so many things that can happen, but not easy, become easier in this nation. And I worry that not only today in this session, I worry about the years that are coming, what, what it will look like. And I wanna make sure that there are assurances that our community members who are really trying to do the right thing and get the light, the, uh, DPC, and go to work and take care of the families, that we don't continue to put up barriers, or I shouldn't say continue because we haven't done this before. We've been trying to reduce those barriers in order to, um, uh, you know, align our workforce and have people be able to, uh, be, um, um, productive members of society. We've always done this, and I just wanna, um, I wanna thank the, the sponsor because, um, he has been very thoughtful in, in this process and has really reached out, uh, to, to the minority party to make sure that, um, we feel that we're heard. Um, I do feel though that this is only one side of that issue, and this is the punitive side. So, um, and, and I appreciate your indulgence, Mr.

Go Ahead, you chair. Uh, Hillary Kilner with the Department of Public Safety. I just wanted to provide a couple some clarification on the senator's question. So, as far as driver license, uh, Senator for the DPC card, so if somebody just receives an infraction from law enforcement because they didn't have a license, that does not automatically suspend their license, it's only adding an extension if they already have an existing suspension, the only times that this would happen, it's under, um, impairment. Uh, so if they're stopped for DUI without a license, then yes, that would not allow them, uh, for a certain period of time to be able to test for the DPC. But if it's a minor infraction, um, if it's just a traffic infraction, then that would not disqualify them from testing again for A DPC. Um, also, as far as from the Bureau of Criminal Identification, we host uc J, which is our criminal database for, uh, the state of Utah that law enforcement runs criminal records through. So if they were to get their, uh, fingerprint, although it can run through the database, it would not be retained in that database. Um, so I don't know if that helps answer some of your questions. And, uh, we also just wanted to thank Representative MacPherson for working closely with DPS and, uh, some language changes and just ensuring that it can, um, be better represented. And as far as the taking unlawful with sub four, with DLD, we really appreciate that because it'll allow us to not have to make an administrative hearing decision. Uh, if somebody truly just made a wrong turn, um, that causes a fatality if I was driving with my husband or vice versa, that they no longer can drive and continue our family's dynamics moving forward just because, um, of, of an actual accident, even though it turned out in a crash that otherwise wouldn't have happened. So the taking out unlawful leaves it with reckless and making sure that it's individuals that are truly intending to break the law. Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Lori Cartwright, and I'm representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government, or mwe, G for short. Mwe G is a grassroots organization dedicated to building a more peaceful, just an ethical world through advocacy and empowerment. HB 1 36 is framed as a public safety measure, and we appreciate the sponsor's attempt at approving compliance and making our roads safer. Our concern is whether this approach will achieve that goal in a fiscally responsible and practical way. Across all of Utah. In rural communities where public transportation is limited or non-existent, a vehicle is often essential to maintaining employment and caring for family. Mandatory impoundment and increased fees may create financial hardship that makes compliance harder, not easier. When someone cannot afford to retrieve their vehicle, it can lead to job loss and deeper instability outcomes that do not improve safety. The bill also requires law enforcement agencies to have access to finger printing equipment by 2028 to comply with the quick fingerprint provisions. This creates a new administrative and potential budgetary burden for smaller and rural departments. Additionally, fingerprints are permanent biometric identifiers. Expanding biometric collection into traffic level enforcement raises important questions about proportionality and data safeguards before mandating statewide biometric collection, especially for nonviolent licensing offenses, the statute should include clear, should include clear guardrails, limits on use and retention and strong privacy protections. If the goal is greater compliance and safer roads addressing barriers to obtaining a driving privilege card may produce better outcomes in expanding penalties in biometric enforcement. For these reasons, we respectfully ask you to oppose this bill. Thank you. Thank

Hello, my name is Ryan Robinson. I am the, uh, policy director for swap the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. And, uh, we, our, our group is, uh, voted to support this bill. Uh, I'm also speaking, uh, from the experience of being the, I'm, I'm the West Valley City prosecutor, and, uh, I know the media maybe in this, uh, presentation, they referenced some of the, uh, data from, uh, West Valley City. But I have experienced, uh, prosecuting a lot of people who simply, uh, don't have a driver's license and seemingly probably didn't have an educational class in, uh, either in the United States or elsewhere. And it's, it's scary, uh, to be out there with drivers who really don't have an educational background in how to drive safely. And, uh, we're in support of, uh, this bill. Thank you.

Okay, go ahead. Mary Ann Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch, and I'm here to speak in favor of the bill. Um, I have seven grandkids all within five years of turning 16 and getting driver's license. So we've become really aware of the new rules that were way different than the rules for me when I was getting my driver's license. I just wanted to share those with you today. First of all, they have to complete a driver's education course with both classroom instruction and behind the wheel training. They have to log at least 40 hours of practice driving. At least 10 of those have to be after dark. They have to pass a driver skills test and an online traffic safety and trends exam. They have to get their parents' signature, they have to have had a learner's permit for at least six months, and they have to have been able, that they've had to reach their 16th birthday, but it doesn't end end there, actually, um, even at 16 when they have a regular driver's license, they can't drive between the hours of 12 midnight and 5:00 AM They have a passenger restriction. They cannot drive with anyone that's not an immediate family member in their car for six months after receiving their driver's license, unless there is an adult at least 21 years old in the front seat, and they can't use cell phones like none of us can. Now, there are reasons for all of these very, this very careful training of our 16 year olds. We all know that when someone gets in a car, that car becomes a lethal weapon when the driver doesn't have the proper training. And so this bill is very, it's a very prudent step to making sure that we use cars responsibly and, um, that we mitigate risk to other members of society. Thank you very much.

Yes, thank you, chair, uh, committee. Nate Mutter, chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, and, and we urged a committee support of this bill. Uh, just over probably about a year and a half ago, we worked with the, the law enforcement community, worked with Representative MacPherson on, on this bill. Uh, we definitely supported the idea of being able to impound a vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver. Um, I will tell you, as a, a patrol officer in my younger years, um, one of my biggest fears when dealing with a traffic stop, uh, of an unlicensed driver was knowing that they were probably going to drive away, even though I just stopped 'em for, uh, or I stopped 'em for a violation and learned that they didn't have a license. My biggest fear was that they would drive away and hit and kill somebody. And, and unfortunately, uh, for, for Ms. Nielsen who, who presented with Representative MacPherson, uh, that that became a reality for, for her, uh, and the loss of her husband, and for that police officer who just pulled that, uh, driver over 25 minutes before, um, had, we had the ability to impound a vehicle that could have been prevented. Um, and, uh, and so we, we adamantly support the, the ability to, uh, impound a vehicle. Now, that said, there's been a couple comments about it mandates impound and it mandates fingerprints. Uh, we also worked with Representative MacPherson on building out, uh, discretionary pieces to, to where we don't have to toe or we don't have to fingerprint. Um, and, uh, Representative MacPherson went over some of those, uh, in committee already. Um, we asked for the, that discretionary piece. He was willing to work with us on that. Um, we, we want to be reasonable when we're dealing with unlicensed drivers, but we also want the ability to, uh, you know, take the vehicle away, especially when we know we're dealing with, uh, a repeat offender. So, um, uh, definitely urge the, the committee support and, uh, uh, appreciate the, the time to comment. Thank you.

I wouldn't make a motion that, uh, we delete and title and body. Um, I'll bill 1 36, uh, Second sub, the Second sub to fourth sub, and also adopt the, uh, um, house amendment I'll, I'll bifurcate the motion. So the first motion is to delete entitlement body house bill 1 36 second sub and replace it with house bill 1 36 4 sub discussion.

that passage unanimously. Now, the second motion Is to adopt the house amendment form.

Okay. I, I would make the motion that we adopt and send out favorably, uh, fourth substitute house bill 1 36 as amended Discussion to that motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I bet you'll know what I will say here. Um, I have concerns about, um, again, the punitive nature of this. I do appreciate that officers will have the discretion, um, to make some determinations. I also appreciate the guardrails that were put into this bill, but I still have concerns about it being, um, heavy handed, especially, um, uh, on, uh, communities in, um, uh, in my district, um, which is, uh, primarily majority minority cities. Um, there's a lot of fear. There's a lot of anguish. A lot of frustration and, and some, uh, with a lot of the changes that we've seen, um, in terms of, uh, ice in different, uh, states. And the fear is that these kinds of, um, tactics will begin here, uh, in, in Salt Lake. Um, I know that in other states, and perhaps in our state as well, especially when we have counties that, or agencies that have, uh, agreements 2 87 g um, agreements, uh, that ICE does go on, uh, outings or ride alongs with, um, with police officers, um, or that there is some, a agreement that information will go back. Uh, so, uh, I, I, I have concerns that it's harder, it makes it harder for some of our, uh, people who are really trying to do the right thing, um, and get a license, um, that there's nothing in here that helps them to do that. Um, and so that this might make it harder on them. Um, and, uh, I I also think that when we're gathering fingerprint information, these personal and biometric data, we need to be very careful about how that information is protected. And it should be narrowly, narrowly defined, uh, for these, um, specific, uh, safety purposes. And I am concerned that this bill wasn't able to do that, um, enough. And so for these reasons, I'll be voting no.

Thank you. And I, I promise I will sum for less than 30 seconds, but I do wanna just share, we collected some data statewide from several agencies, and I just wanna share some of those briefly. In the nine to 12 month or to 18 month period, Clearfield PD had 14, I'm sorry, 24 car crashes from unlicensed drivers Layton City PD 262 car crashes. These are just crashes. Um, Payson PD 33 car crashes, St. George, uh, 91 car crashes. Utah Highway Patrol had 11 fatalities, including Jane's husband. Um, and, uh, and a total of 58 hit and runs, um, Weber County, um, 19 car crashes. And then West Valley City PT had 1,106 car crashes, um, in just 2024, representing over a third of all car crashes in the city just from unlicensed drivers. I'm just trying to put, um, some tools in the hands of our officers, especially in the areas where it's most needed. Appreciate your, um, consideration on this bill. Thank

Let me just say, I appreciate your efforts. I know it's not the bill that we all are anticipating, but it is a start fully support the efforts here. Have some reservations, but I think that we'll, we'll be able to work through 'em.

Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I appreciate the statistics you just mentioned, but I'd also like to know, know the demographic breakdown of who exactly was getting in those car crashes. I, I wanna support our police. I want them to have all the tools they need, but there is a lot of research that shows that our minorities are being pulled over at a higher rate than our non-minority peers. So when we think about reasonable determination, that's something that makes me cautious about just pulling over anybody. So, um, I know that all of this can be done, I know back and forth, but it just makes me a little cautious about racial profiling. So I'll be a no thank you. Okay.

House Bill 1 36, unlicensed driver amendments by Representative MacPherson. This bill was sort in transportation with a vote of 9 3 0.

Representative Cutler. Motion to circle. Thank you.

Uh, yeah, just briefly. We've had some discussion with, um, law enforcement and some of my colleagues. There's some adjustments to actually some legislation we ran last year that needed some adjustment in the code as far as moving the, uh, implementation date of some of the fingerprint scanners that had already been included, as well as, uh, making some adjustment to the, uh, compliance, uh, piece for the software vendor vendors that work with law enforcement. We've also, uh, made an adjustment. Um, currently the underlying bill enhances the penalty for driving without a license to a Class C misdemeanor, but we've decided to remove that back down to an infraction, which is what current law is under this. And then it increases the administrative, uh, testing fee. Right now it's $30. It goes to $60. That's because currently there, um, this, uh, DHHS is losing about $1.2 million right now in testing, um, on these, uh, returns. And I've asked to try to recover a portion. This will cover about 25% of their losses there, and they're looking at other ways to increase that. And, uh, finally, uh, it adds one little piece to, um, when it comes to querying the database makes it clear that APHIS is only one of many, uh, vendors that they may use, uh, for fingerprint rapid scan.

I'll waive, I'll waive on That.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So what this bill does essentially is tries to tackle the problem of unlicensed drivers in the state of Utah. And so what it does is, uh, a couple of things. Currently driving without a valid license in the state of Utah is an infraction. It keeps it as an infraction, but it provides a, a couple of additional tools to law enforcement so they can actually enforce this properly. Right now, there's a, uh, a number of issues that come up when individuals either refuse or cannot provide any form of identification, whether it is a physical ID or if they're providing some sort of, uh, personal identifying information like a social security number, a birthdate, a name, an address. And in, in many of these cases, the, uh, person driving is unable or unwilling to provide any of those. And in, when we're dealing with infractions, that tends to be from a law enforcement perspective that there is a need for them to, um, figure out what to do essentially in these circumstances. There's also been an issue of the, the grand total number of, um, active felony warrants we have in Utah. That is extremely high, and there's been a concern with law enforcement that that's population is hiding in these, um, groups. And so what we've, uh, done in this bill is we've expanded on what was added last year, providing these fingerprint scanners to many of our law enforcement agencies. This will add these to some additional, uh, agencies as well. And it will require them that if they have, uh, pulled over someone that is either in a refusal or able to, uh, to identify themselves, allows and perform what's called a rapid fingerprint scan. This does not create a record of any kind. This simply just searches the current AFIS database or other databases to see if that person is currently wanted by law enforcement. It also provides a tool set for, um, law enforcement when it comes to the vehicle itself. If they cannot confirm that they are va have a valid credential to drive on our roads, then it, uh, puts it on the impound list. And what we've done in this, uh, section is we've expanded greatly on the, uh, carve outs on impounds to essentially indicate that, um, for law enforcement, the in the importance of this is not to necessarily get the vehicle, but to get the driver off the road. So it allows, for example, if they're, um, if they can provide for any other driver with a valid credential to come and pick up the car. The car does not have to be impounded trying to get to the, uh, root cause of this problem. And then, uh, if we get down into the further sections of the bill, um, it has some language as far as, um, uh, impounding the vehicle that they can't, they can't release the impound unless they can verify the driving credential of the individual picking it up to ensure this problem doesn't continue. Um, and then finally, um, in the bottom section here, we have, um, a, currently it is already an infraction to knowingly give your vehicle to an individual to drive. If you know that they don't have a valid driving credential. This remains a, an infraction, but it sets a minimum fine of $500. And with that, I am open to questions.

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, would the sponsor yield to a question?

Thank you. I think I heard this right, that if, uh, if a person does not have a valid driver's license and they're involved in an accident or, or some sort of a vehicle, uh, violation, they could be their vehicle, could it be impounded?

That's correct, Mr. Speaker. Yeah,

Mr. Speaker, I, I rise in support of this. Uh, many of a few of you know here that over the weekend as I was on my way home to Cedar City, I was rear-ended by a vehicle. Uh, and, uh, the individual did not have any insurance. And so his vehicle got impounded. And as I was speaking with the trooper that was involved, he said, I wished, uh, you lawmakers would make a law that if they don't have a driver's license, we could impound their vehicle because we run into that regularly. So I fully support this bill. And thank you for the, to the good representative from Salt Lake County. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the sponsor yield to a few questions.

Yes, I will. Yes, Representative Dominguez,

Thank you so much. Um, does this bill take in account constituents who want to comply with the law, but face barriers doing so? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, could you clarify what you mean by want to comply? So someone who is, who does not have a license and is facing barriers with the driving privilege card, do they, um, does this bill take in account with those constituents who want to comply with the law, but face the barriers in taking the driver privilege card test?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, this bill only looks at, when it comes to, um, barriers, we we're identifying here what is the law, and if individuals want to comply with the law, then they shouldn't drive on our roads until they've got a valid credential. In this state, we do have our driver's, uh, licenses. We have temporary driver's licenses, and we have driver's privilege cards, and there's different categories of people that qualify for those different licenses. Um, but the, the, the requirements for those and how those work are, are not really a part of this bill that would be under a different category of law.

Within your bill, does it mention the driving privilege card?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. In the very first section, it identifies what valid driver error credentials are in the state of Utah, which includes the privilege card, it includes, uh, foreign licenses from foreign countries and licenses issued by any state in the United States.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, do you believe it's easy to obtain a driving privilege card?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do not know the answer to that question. I've never attempted to take a driver's privilege card test,

And I am, I'm almost done with my questions. And do you know why the driving privilege card was created?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I do not know the exact stated reason by the drafter who or by the, uh, individual who passed that bill, so I cannot speak to their mind.

Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Um, now can you also explain the need to increase impounding fees by 42% within your bill?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, this is actually a, an ongoing issue, um, that we've discussed with, uh, law enforcement with our impound, uh, yards as well. We have an ongoing problem where there is in all types of impounds, where vehicles are frequently being impounded, whether they have insurance or not, um, that are typically not of very high value. They're very low val value vehicles, and these vehicle lot fees just tend to not get paid. And, uh, the lots are then required to look for ways to recoup their, their costs. They can't keep these vehicles long term, so they try to auction 'em off, or in many cases, they end up putting them up, uh, for free actually. And in, uh, in many of these circumstances, the original owner of the vehicle will actually pick up that vehicle for free, um, after it's been sent to an auction or to a, uh, or, or, or from a giveaway site. And then the process kind of starts all over again where it gets impounded. And so we've, uh, identified ways that we can, uh, try to mitigate some of these problems by increasing some of the impound fees that haven't increased for a long time to try to tackle this issue and make sure that, uh, as impounds are happening that we're not putting these lot yards outta business.

Thank you so much. In closing, I just wanna say this bill sounds necessary and positive on paper, however, it, in execution, it does more harm than good specifically to our non-English speaking individuals who already face challenges within our state to take the driving privilege card, it, it's the lack of consideration for barriers obtaining the driving privilege card in a time of such polarization within our state, within our country. And, and stigma surrounding, sorry. Thank you. Er, and stigma surrounding, um, immigrants and low income communities. It has been harder, harder for individuals to take the driving privilege card. This bill even causes more barriers with that. Now, as a woman of color, my main concern with this bill is the continued attack already on marginalized communities. These are our brothers, our sisters people. We take communion with those who we sit at church with. Those who are like my family growing up, just trying to make it by and make ends meet. I do wanna, I do wanna acknowledge the rep from the west side and his continued work with the bill and amendments, including the good rep of the West Jordan as well, working with him specifically to our non-English speaking individuals who face challenges within our state. My point is we need to keep our neighbors safe. And whether they are US born or not, I call on the spot to vote no with me. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I rise and support the bill. We want to keep people safe. We probably shouldn't let people who don't have the proper driving credentials, operating vehicles, period. We're here because we have a problem with unlicensed drivers driving, I don't care if you wanna call it a driver. T cars driver's license, right? There is some vetting process that people should have to go through before they operate motor vehicles in the state of Utah. There should also be a, a condition in which those vehicles can be removed from the roadway if we find unlicensed drivers driving in the state of Utah. That's what the bill does, and I thank the bill sponsors patients because he is been working with law enforcement officers still have discretion in extenuating circumstances to not tow a vehicle. They still have discretion as to whether or not they're gonna make a stop. They still have discretion as to whether or not they're even gonna issue a citation once they make the stop. This does nothing to impact discretion. The other thing it does do, and I think the sponsor is it gives law enforcement additional time to get the equipment they need to carry out the duties within this bill, and also requires the vendors of the public safety software that agencies in the state of Utah that they're using, it's going to give those software developers a year to also come into compliance. Something they should have done on their own but aren't doing unless they're being explicitly told. And that's what this bill does. And I thank the sponsor.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion to adopt, uh, third substitute house bill. 1 63 or 1 36

I don't have a third substitute. I have a first substitute. Yeah, it should have just gone online. First substitute was there and when the sponsor, uh, changed it to the second sub, they had to draft it as third sub. It should be on the system now.

Yeah, I, I show it on mine, Mr. Speaker.

So it is online, but I need the physical copy here, um, before we can adopt that.

Yeah, just basically, uh, I, I, I applaud and support what this, what the sponsor's trying to do. I had a substitute online when he had the second substitute. We needed to quickly get a third substitute to make a minor change that, uh, simply gets to what the sponsor's, uh, getting to that it allows people to get the driving privilege cards, uh, that have been denied the ability to do that. And if I'm gonna ask you to withdraw that motion, I would Happily withdraw that motion, Mr. Speaker and I would return to the motion to introduce and adopt third substitute House Bill 1 36. Thank you representative. That motion is now in order. I have a copy of it. Okay. Uh, would you like to speak to this, to that motion to adopt third Six? Yes. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, we have a glitch in the system and as the sponsor has introduced this, we've tried to help people that wanted to get driver privilege cards and sometimes they're not able to do that. Uh, well-meaning though, they may be if they had a parking ticket or a speeding ticket in another state, or if they had, uh, a driver privilege card in another state for a host of reasons, it denies them the ability to get the driver privilege card here. And so we want to get as many people to comply with what the sponsor's trying to do, that we know who they are. We know that they have insurance. We know, uh, the people that are on the road. And this just gets to the fact that if they have an infraction parking ticket, speeding ticket, it doesn't prevent them from getting the driving privilege card as it does currently. This would allow them to get the driver privilege card so that they could be in the system and, uh, we know who they are and know that they have insurance. Thank you, Representative Ivory. Um, discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just speak briefly on this. So I, I did have a chance to talk over with a good, um, sponsor this, uh, substitute. Um, I, I, I will say that, so my bill is, uh, primarily focused on the current laws and on the enforcement mechanisms and the tools that law enforcement needs. Um, and this, this does specifically apply currently when you are trying to get either your license, if it's been suspended or revoked, or if you're looking for a privilege card, they look at your past driving history and if you've been continuing to violate the law, they typically add on more time to the time it's allowed for you to get your license reinstated, whether it's revoked or suspended, but also applies to driver's privilege cards. So essentially if they're continuing to drive on the road today without a privilege card, then they, every time they get pulled over, they add more time to that time that's required for them to wait before they can get the official card. So I, I, I stand by the, um, the underlying pinnings of, of my bill and what it's trying to do. Um, this is something that I think is focusing on a different area of law on the privilege card as I spoke to the previous representative. Um, but I would leave it up to the body to discuss whether or not this is, uh, an appropriate place for that, uh, policy.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. The good sponsor. His intent was to get people that are driving without permission. We have a glitch in our driver privilege card that if they have any kind of an infraction, then it suspends and, and, and lengthens the time that they can get the driver privilege card so that we know who they are. We have their id, we have their insurance. This just makes it so they can actually get the driver privilege card to do what the good sponsor wants to do in his bill and would encourage the body support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This has been a multi-year process and a very important process. And as I'm sure you're, most of you are aware, disproportionate amount in some jurisdictions of, of hit and run accidents that are later identified are from non-citizens who are driving without a driving credential in our state. Now, as a Utah citizen or a citizen of the United States, if you're driving on the roads and you don't have a driving credential, is very likely that you could be arrested, that you could be detained, or that you could be cited because you don't have a driver credential. This is trying to get at that same issue for individuals who are not from our, from our beloved country, who also do not have the training and understand the laws, maybe even understand the signs on the road. As, as one jurisdiction told us, um, that there was a disproportionate number of individuals without a driving credential who are non-citizens speeding through, um, through school zones. It's very important that people get the driving credential. That they take the test, that they learn to understand what our signs mean so that they can drive safely on our roads and keep Utah safe and keep other non-citizens safe who are driving on the roads with credentials. So in Utah right now, there are estimated to be about half a million non-citizens and only about 33,500 of them have the driving privilege card. I think a lot more will get the driving privilege card if we create statute around this that says it's really important, not just go get it if you want to, but drive on our roads if you want to and nothing's going to happen. This is very important that we have some teeth in the statute to say, if you do not have a driving privilege card, we intend to protect all the other people on the road who do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been going down pretty dramatically over time. Yet the number of those crashes that are caused by unlicensed drivers has increased fivefold in that same time period. And when we pull up some of the stats last year, we had some conversation or questions about whether or not this was a bill focused on one jurisdiction because of the, um, large number of issues in that area. And I just wanna point out a couple of pieces of information. We were able to gather from several law enforcement agencies going as far north as latent in Clearfield down to St. George Highway Patrol, um, that we had, uh, even in small like Clearfield, uh, pd, you know, in a, in a nine month period had 14 car crashes from unlicensed drivers latent with 262 car crashes. Um, St. George PD with 9 91 car crashes and almost 700 citations, um, that would've normally been issued in those circumstances. Uh, even in, uh, the University of Utah, uh, police department had a handful of unlicensed drivers that they had, uh, also dealt with with crashes. Utah Highway Patrol last year had eight fatalities and 42 hit and runs. And in the first few, I'm sorry, in 2024 and in the nine months of data collection in, um, 2025, we had three fatalities and 18 hit and runs all from unlicensed drivers. This is an issue that we tried to tackle last year, provide some tools, we weren't able to do it. And, and partly because of these lacks of tools, there continues to be an increase in car crashes and hit and runs and DUIs and in fatalities in this category. This isn't just about the inconveniences that it causes for people that have trouble following the law. There are also some valid and real concerns when it comes to safety for children in school zones, as it was mentioned, or are workers that are in construction zones or just the average everyday teenager like mine that are driving on the roads to and from work every day. There are some real concerns when you look at West Valley City Statistics and they show over 1,100 car crashes, over 34% of all car crashes caused by unlicensed drivers and 728 um, DUIs. Um, in that same category, the, these are staggering numbers and they are increasing at a fast pace and we need to provide tools to law enforcement to try to tackle this issue. And with that, I thank the body.

Uh, yeah, just briefly. We've had some discussion with, um, law enforcement and some of my colleagues. There's some adjustments to actually some legislation we ran last year that needed some adjustment in the code as far as moving the, uh, implementation date of some of the fingerprint scanners that had already been included, as well as, uh, making some adjustment to the, uh, compliance, uh, piece for the software vendor vendors that work with law enforcement. We've also, uh, made an adjustment. Um, currently the underlying bill enhances the penalty for driving without a license to a Class C misdemeanor, but we've decided to remove that back down to an infraction, which is what current law is under this. And then it increases the administrative, uh, testing fee. Right now it's $30. It goes to $60. That's because currently there, um, this, uh, DHHS is losing about $1.2 million right now in testing, um, on these, uh, returns. And I've asked to try to recover a portion. This will cover about 25% of their losses there, and they're looking at other ways to increase that. And, uh, finally, uh, it adds one little piece to, um, when it comes to querying the database makes it clear that APHIS is only one of many, uh, vendors that they may use, uh, for fingerprint rapid scan.

I'll waive, I'll waive on That.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So what this bill does essentially is tries to tackle the problem of unlicensed drivers in the state of Utah. And so what it does is, uh, a couple of things. Currently driving without a valid license in the state of Utah is an infraction. It keeps it as an infraction, but it provides a, a couple of additional tools to law enforcement so they can actually enforce this properly. Right now, there's a, uh, a number of issues that come up when individuals either refuse or cannot provide any form of identification, whether it is a physical ID or if they're providing some sort of, uh, personal identifying information like a social security number, a birthdate, a name, an address. And in, in many of these cases, the, uh, person driving is unable or unwilling to provide any of those. And in, when we're dealing with infractions, that tends to be from a law enforcement perspective that there is a need for them to, um, figure out what to do essentially in these circumstances. There's also been an issue of the, the grand total number of, um, active felony warrants we have in Utah. That is extremely high, and there's been a concern with law enforcement that that's population is hiding in these, um, groups. And so what we've, uh, done in this bill is we've expanded on what was added last year, providing these fingerprint scanners to many of our law enforcement agencies. This will add these to some additional, uh, agencies as well. And it will require them that if they have, uh, pulled over someone that is either in a refusal or able to, uh, to identify themselves, allows and perform what's called a rapid fingerprint scan. This does not create a record of any kind. This simply just searches the current AFIS database or other databases to see if that person is currently wanted by law enforcement. It also provides a tool set for, um, law enforcement when it comes to the vehicle itself. If they cannot confirm that they are va have a valid credential to drive on our roads, then it, uh, puts it on the impound list. And what we've done in this, uh, section is we've expanded greatly on the, uh, carve outs on impounds to essentially indicate that, um, for law enforcement, the in the importance of this is not to necessarily get the vehicle, but to get the driver off the road. So it allows, for example, if they're, um, if they can provide for any other driver with a valid credential to come and pick up the car. The car does not have to be impounded trying to get to the, uh, root cause of this problem. And then, uh, if we get down into the further sections of the bill, um, it has some language as far as, um, uh, impounding the vehicle that they can't, they can't release the impound unless they can verify the driving credential of the individual picking it up to ensure this problem doesn't continue. Um, and then finally, um, in the bottom section here, we have, um, a, currently it is already an infraction to knowingly give your vehicle to an individual to drive. If you know that they don't have a valid driving credential. This remains a, an infraction, but it sets a minimum fine of $500. And with that, I am open to questions.

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, would the sponsor yield to a question?

Thank you. I think I heard this right, that if, uh, if a person does not have a valid driver's license and they're involved in an accident or, or some sort of a vehicle, uh, violation, they could be their vehicle, could it be impounded?

That's correct, Mr. Speaker. Yeah,

Mr. Speaker, I, I rise in support of this. Uh, many of a few of you know here that over the weekend as I was on my way home to Cedar City, I was rear-ended by a vehicle. Uh, and, uh, the individual did not have any insurance. And so his vehicle got impounded. And as I was speaking with the trooper that was involved, he said, I wished, uh, you lawmakers would make a law that if they don't have a driver's license, we could impound their vehicle because we run into that regularly. So I fully support this bill. And thank you for the, to the good representative from Salt Lake County. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the sponsor yield to a few questions.

Yes, I will. Yes, Representative Dominguez,

Thank you so much. Um, does this bill take in account constituents who want to comply with the law, but face barriers doing so? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, could you clarify what you mean by want to comply? So someone who is, who does not have a license and is facing barriers with the driving privilege card, do they, um, does this bill take in account with those constituents who want to comply with the law, but face the barriers in taking the driver privilege card test?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, this bill only looks at, when it comes to, um, barriers, we we're identifying here what is the law, and if individuals want to comply with the law, then they shouldn't drive on our roads until they've got a valid credential. In this state, we do have our driver's, uh, licenses. We have temporary driver's licenses, and we have driver's privilege cards, and there's different categories of people that qualify for those different licenses. Um, but the, the, the requirements for those and how those work are, are not really a part of this bill that would be under a different category of law.

Within your bill, does it mention the driving privilege card?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. In the very first section, it identifies what valid driver error credentials are in the state of Utah, which includes the privilege card, it includes, uh, foreign licenses from foreign countries and licenses issued by any state in the United States.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, do you believe it's easy to obtain a driving privilege card?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do not know the answer to that question. I've never attempted to take a driver's privilege card test, And I am, I'm almost done with my questions.

And do you know why the driving privilege card was created?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I do not know the exact stated reason by the drafter who or by the, uh, individual who passed that bill, so I cannot speak to their mind.

Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Um, now can you also explain the need to increase impounding fees by 42% within your bill?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, this is actually a, an ongoing issue, um, that we've discussed with, uh, law enforcement with our impound, uh, yards as well. We have an ongoing problem where there is in all types of impounds, where vehicles are frequently being impounded, whether they have insurance or not, um, that are typically not of very high value. They're very low val value vehicles, and these vehicle lot fees just tend to not get paid. And, uh, the lots are then required to look for ways to recoup their, their costs. They can't keep these vehicles long term, so they try to auction 'em off, or in many cases, they end up putting them up, uh, for free actually. And in, uh, in many of these circumstances, the original owner of the vehicle will actually pick up that vehicle for free, um, after it's been sent to an auction or to a, uh, or, or, or from a giveaway site. And then the process kind of starts all over again where it gets impounded. And so we've, uh, identified ways that we can, uh, try to mitigate some of these problems by increasing some of the impound fees that haven't increased for a long time to try to tackle this issue and make sure that, uh, as impounds are happening that we're not putting these lot yards outta business.

Thank you so much. In closing, I just wanna say this bill sounds necessary and positive on paper, however, it, in execution, it does more harm than good specifically to our non-English speaking individuals who already face challenges within our state to take the driving privilege card, it, it's the lack of consideration for barriers obtaining the driving privilege card in a time of such polarization within our state, within our country. And, and stigma surrounding, sorry. Thank you. Er, and stigma surrounding, um, immigrants and low income communities. It has been harder, harder for individuals to take the driving privilege card. This bill even causes more barriers with that. Now, as a woman of color, my main concern with this bill is the continued attack already on marginalized communities. These are our brothers, our sisters people. We take communion with those who we sit at church with. Those who are like my family growing up, just trying to make it by and make ends meet. I do wanna, I do wanna acknowledge the rep from the west side and his continued work with the bill and amendments, including the good rep of the West Jordan as well, working with him specifically to our non-English speaking individuals who face challenges within our state. My point is we need to keep our neighbors safe. And whether they are US born or not, I call on the spot to vote no with me. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I rise and support the bill. We want to keep people safe. We probably shouldn't let people who don't have the proper driving credentials, operating vehicles, period. We're here because we have a problem with unlicensed drivers driving, I don't care if you wanna call it a driver. T cars driver's license, right? There is some vetting process that people should have to go through before they operate motor vehicles in the state of Utah. There should also be a, a condition in which those vehicles can be removed from the roadway if we find unlicensed drivers driving in the state of Utah. That's what the bill does, and I thank the bill sponsors patients because he is been working with law enforcement officers still have discretion in extenuating circumstances to not tow a vehicle. They still have discretion as to whether or not they're gonna make a stop. They still have discretion as to whether or not they're even gonna issue a citation once they make the stop. This does nothing to impact discretion. The other thing it does do, and I think the sponsor is it gives law enforcement additional time to get the equipment they need to carry out the duties within this bill, and also requires the vendors of the public safety software that agencies in the state of Utah that they're using, it's going to give those software developers a year to also come into compliance. Something they should have done on their own but aren't doing unless they're being explicitly told. And that's what this bill does. And I thank the sponsor.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion to adopt, uh, third substitute house bill. 1 63 or 1 36

Third? Third substitute

I don't have a third substitute. I have a first substitute. Yeah, it should have just gone online. First substitute was there and when the sponsor, uh, changed it to the second sub, they had to draft it as third sub. It should be on the system now.

Yeah, I, I show it on mine, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. I would withdraw that motion and move circle Mr. Speaker.

Yeah, just basically, uh, I, I, I applaud and support what this, what the sponsor's trying to do. I had a substitute online when he had the second substitute. We needed to quickly get a third substitute to make a minor change that, uh, simply gets to what the sponsor's, uh, getting to that it allows people to get the driving privilege cards, uh, that have been denied the ability to do that. And if I'm gonna ask you to withdraw that motion, I would Happily withdraw that motion, Mr. Speaker and I would return to the motion to introduce and adopt third substitute House Bill 1 36.

Six? Yes. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, we have a glitch in the system and as the sponsor has introduced this, we've tried to help people that wanted to get driver privilege cards and sometimes they're not able to do that. Uh, well-meaning though, they may be if they had a parking ticket or a speeding ticket in another state, or if they had, uh, a driver privilege card in another state for a host of reasons, it denies them the ability to get the driver privilege card here. And so we want to get as many people to comply with what the sponsor's trying to do, that we know who they are. We know that they have insurance. We know, uh, the people that are on the road. And this just gets to the fact that if they have an infraction parking ticket, speeding ticket, it doesn't prevent them from getting the driving privilege card as it does currently. This would allow them to get the driver privilege card so that they could be in the system and, uh, we know who they are and know that they have insurance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just speak briefly on this. So I, I did have a chance to talk over with a good, um, sponsor this, uh, substitute. Um, I, I, I will say that, so my bill is, uh, primarily focused on the current laws and on the enforcement mechanisms and the tools that law enforcement needs. Um, and this, this does specifically apply currently when you are trying to get either your license, if it's been suspended or revoked, or if you're looking for a privilege card, they look at your past driving history and if you've been continuing to violate the law, they typically add on more time to the time it's allowed for you to get your license reinstated, whether it's revoked or suspended, but also applies to driver's privilege cards. So essentially if they're continuing to drive on the road today without a privilege card, then they, every time they get pulled over, they add more time to that time that's required for them to wait before they can get the official card. So I, I, I stand by the, um, the underlying pinnings of, of my bill and what it's trying to do. Um, this is something that I think is focusing on a different area of law on the privilege card as I spoke to the previous representative. Um, but I would leave it up to the body to discuss whether or not this is, uh, an appropriate place for that, uh, policy.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. The good sponsor. His intent was to get people that are driving without permission. We have a glitch in our driver privilege card that if they have any kind of an infraction, then it suspends and, and, and lengthens the time that they can get the driver privilege card so that we know who they are. We have their id, we have their insurance. This just makes it so they can actually get the driver privilege card to do what the good sponsor wants to do in his bill and would encourage the body support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This has been a multi-year process and a very important process. And as I'm sure you're, most of you are aware, disproportionate amount in some jurisdictions of, of hit and run accidents that are later identified are from non-citizens who are driving without a driving credential in our state. Now, as a Utah citizen or a citizen of the United States, if you're driving on the roads and you don't have a driving credential, is very likely that you could be arrested, that you could be detained, or that you could be cited because you don't have a driver credential. This is trying to get at that same issue for individuals who are not from our, from our beloved country, who also do not have the training and understand the laws, maybe even understand the signs on the road. As, as one jurisdiction told us, um, that there was a disproportionate number of individuals without a driving credential who are non-citizens speeding through, um, through school zones. It's very important that people get the driving credential. That they take the test, that they learn to understand what our signs mean so that they can drive safely on our roads and keep Utah safe and keep other non-citizens safe who are driving on the roads with credentials. So in Utah right now, there are estimated to be about half a million non-citizens and only about 33,500 of them have the driving privilege card. I think a lot more will get the driving privilege card if we create statute around this that says it's really important, not just go get it if you want to, but drive on our roads if you want to and nothing's going to happen. This is very important that we have some teeth in the statute to say, if you do not have a driving privilege card, we intend to protect all the other people on the road who do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been going down pretty dramatically over time. Yet the number of those crashes that are caused by unlicensed drivers has increased fivefold in that same time period. And when we pull up some of the stats last year, we had some conversation or questions about whether or not this was a bill focused on one jurisdiction because of the, um, large number of issues in that area. And I just wanna point out a couple of pieces of information. We were able to gather from several law enforcement agencies going as far north as latent in Clearfield down to St. George Highway Patrol, um, that we had, uh, even in small like Clearfield, uh, pd, you know, in a, in a nine month period had 14 car crashes from unlicensed drivers latent with 262 car crashes. Um, St. George PD with 9 91 car crashes and almost 700 citations, um, that would've normally been issued in those circumstances. Uh, even in, uh, the University of Utah, uh, police department had a handful of unlicensed drivers that they had, uh, also dealt with with crashes. Utah Highway Patrol last year had eight fatalities and 42 hit and runs. And in the first few, I'm sorry, in 2024 and in the nine months of data collection in, um, 2025, we had three fatalities and 18 hit and runs all from unlicensed drivers. This is an issue that we tried to tackle last year, provide some tools, we weren't able to do it. And, and partly because of these lacks of tools, there continues to be an increase in car crashes and hit and runs and DUIs and in fatalities in this category. This isn't just about the inconveniences that it causes for people that have trouble following the law. There are also some valid and real concerns when it comes to safety for children in school zones, as it was mentioned, or are workers that are in construction zones or just the average everyday teenager like mine that are driving on the roads to and from work every day. There are some real concerns when you look at West Valley City Statistics and they show over 1,100 car crashes, over 34% of all car crashes caused by unlicensed drivers and 728 um, DUIs. Um, in that same category, the, these are staggering numbers and they are increasing at a fast pace and we need to provide tools to law enforcement to try to tackle this issue. And with that, I thank the body.

Six? Yes. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, we have a glitch in the system and as the sponsor has introduced this, we've tried to help people that wanted to get driver privilege cards and sometimes they're not able to do that. Uh, well-meaning though, they may be if they had a parking ticket or a speeding ticket in another state, or if they had, uh, a driver privilege card in another state for a host of reasons, it denies them the ability to get the driver privilege card here. And so we want to get as many people to comply with what the sponsor's trying to do, that we know who they are. We know that they have insurance. We know, uh, the people that are on the road. And this just gets to the fact that if they have an infraction parking ticket, speeding ticket, it doesn't prevent them from getting the driving privilege card as it does currently. This would allow them to get the driver privilege card so that they could be in the system and, uh, we know who they are and know that they have insurance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just speak briefly on this. So I, I did have a chance to talk over with a good, um, sponsor this, uh, substitute. Um, I, I, I will say that, so my bill is, uh, primarily focused on the current laws and on the enforcement mechanisms and the tools that law enforcement needs. Um, and this, this does specifically apply currently when you are trying to get either your license, if it's been suspended or revoked, or if you're looking for a privilege card, they look at your past driving history and if you've been continuing to violate the law, they typically add on more time to the time it's allowed for you to get your license reinstated, whether it's revoked or suspended, but also applies to driver's privilege cards. So essentially if they're continuing to drive on the road today without a privilege card, then they, every time they get pulled over, they add more time to that time that's required for them to wait before they can get the official card. So I, I, I stand by the, um, the underlying pinnings of, of my bill and what it's trying to do. Um, this is something that I think is focusing on a different area of law on the privilege card as I spoke to the previous representative. Um, but I would leave it up to the body to discuss whether or not this is, uh, an appropriate place for that, uh, policy.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. The good sponsor. His intent was to get people that are driving without permission. We have a glitch in our driver privilege card that if they have any kind of an infraction, then it suspends and, and, and lengthens the time that they can get the driver privilege card so that we know who they are. We have their id, we have their insurance. This just makes it so they can actually get the driver privilege card to do what the good sponsor wants to do in his bill and would encourage the body support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This has been a multi-year process and a very important process. And as I'm sure you're, most of you are aware, disproportionate amount in some jurisdictions of, of hit and run accidents that are later identified are from non-citizens who are driving without a driving credential in our state. Now, as a Utah citizen or a citizen of the United States, if you're driving on the roads and you don't have a driving credential, is very likely that you could be arrested, that you could be detained, or that you could be cited because you don't have a driver credential. This is trying to get at that same issue for individuals who are not from our, from our beloved country, who also do not have the training and understand the laws, maybe even understand the signs on the road. As, as one jurisdiction told us, um, that there was a disproportionate number of individuals without a driving credential who are non-citizens speeding through, um, through school zones. It's very important that people get the driving credential. That they take the test, that they learn to understand what our signs mean so that they can drive safely on our roads and keep Utah safe and keep other non-citizens safe who are driving on the roads with credentials. So in Utah right now, there are estimated to be about half a million non-citizens and only about 33,500 of them have the driving privilege card. I think a lot more will get the driving privilege card if we create statute around this that says it's really important, not just go get it if you want to, but drive on our roads if you want to and nothing's going to happen. This is very important that we have some teeth in the statute to say, if you do not have a driving privilege card, we intend to protect all the other people on the road who do. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker I called previous

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been going down pretty dramatically over time. Yet the number of those crashes that are caused by unlicensed drivers has increased fivefold in that same time period. And when we pull up some of the stats last year, we had some conversation or questions about whether or not this was a bill focused on one jurisdiction because of the, um, large number of issues in that area. And I just wanna point out a couple of pieces of information. We were able to gather from several law enforcement agencies going as far north as latent in Clearfield down to St. George Highway Patrol, um, that we had, uh, even in small like Clearfield, uh, pd, you know, in a, in a nine month period had 14 car crashes from unlicensed drivers latent with 262 car crashes. Um, St. George PD with 9 91 car crashes and almost 700 citations, um, that would've normally been issued in those circumstances. Uh, even in, uh, the University of Utah, uh, police department had a handful of unlicensed drivers that they had, uh, also dealt with with crashes. Utah Highway Patrol last year had eight fatalities and 42 hit and runs. And in the first few, I'm sorry, in 2024 and in the nine months of data collection in, um, 2025, we had three fatalities and 18 hit and runs all from unlicensed drivers. This is an issue that we tried to tackle last year, provide some tools, we weren't able to do it. And, and partly because of these lacks of tools, there continues to be an increase in car crashes and hit and runs and DUIs and in fatalities in this category. This isn't just about the inconveniences that it causes for people that have trouble following the law. There are also some valid and real concerns when it comes to safety for children in school zones, as it was mentioned, or are workers that are in construction zones or just the average everyday teenager like mine that are driving on the roads to and from work every day. There are some real concerns when you look at West Valley City Statistics and they show over 1,100 car crashes, over 34% of all car crashes caused by unlicensed drivers and 728 um, DUIs. Um, in that same category, the, these are staggering numbers and they are increasing at a fast pace and we need to provide tools to law enforcement to try to tackle this issue. And with that, I thank the body.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This has been a multi-year process and a very important process. And as I'm sure you're, most of you are aware, disproportionate amount in some jurisdictions of, of hit and run accidents that are later identified are from non-citizens who are driving without a driving credential in our state. Now, as a Utah citizen or a citizen of the United States, if you're driving on the roads and you don't have a driving credential, is very likely that you could be arrested, that you could be detained, or that you could be cited because you don't have a driver credential. This is trying to get at that same issue for individuals who are not from our, from our beloved country, who also do not have the training and understand the laws, maybe even understand the signs on the road. As, as one jurisdiction told us, um, that there was a disproportionate number of individuals without a driving credential who are non-citizens speeding through, um, through school zones. It's very important that people get the driving credential. That they take the test, that they learn to understand what our signs mean so that they can drive safely on our roads and keep Utah safe and keep other non-citizens safe who are driving on the roads with credentials. So in Utah right now, there are estimated to be about half a million non-citizens and only about 33,500 of them have the driving privilege card. I think a lot more will get the driving privilege card if we create statute around this that says it's really important, not just go get it if you want to, but drive on our roads if you want to and nothing's going to happen. This is very important that we have some teeth in the statute to say, if you do not have a driving privilege card, we intend to protect all the other people on the road who do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been going down pretty dramatically over time. Yet the number of those crashes that are caused by unlicensed drivers has increased fivefold in that same time period. And when we pull up some of the stats last year, we had some conversation or questions about whether or not this was a bill focused on one jurisdiction because of the, um, large number of issues in that area. And I just wanna point out a couple of pieces of information. We were able to gather from several law enforcement agencies going as far north as latent in Clearfield down to St. George Highway Patrol, um, that we had, uh, even in small like Clearfield, uh, pd, you know, in a, in a nine month period had 14 car crashes from unlicensed drivers latent with 262 car crashes. Um, St. George PD with 9 91 car crashes and almost 700 citations, um, that would've normally been issued in those circumstances. Uh, even in, uh, the University of Utah, uh, police department had a handful of unlicensed drivers that they had, uh, also dealt with with crashes. Utah Highway Patrol last year had eight fatalities and 42 hit and runs. And in the first few, I'm sorry, in 2024 and in the nine months of data collection in, um, 2025, we had three fatalities and 18 hit and runs all from unlicensed drivers. This is an issue that we tried to tackle last year, provide some tools, we weren't able to do it. And, and partly because of these lacks of tools, there continues to be an increase in car crashes and hit and runs and DUIs and in fatalities in this category. This isn't just about the inconveniences that it causes for people that have trouble following the law. There are also some valid and real concerns when it comes to safety for children in school zones, as it was mentioned, or are workers that are in construction zones or just the average everyday teenager like mine that are driving on the roads to and from work every day. There are some real concerns when you look at West Valley City Statistics and they show over 1,100 car crashes, over 34% of all car crashes caused by unlicensed drivers and 728 um, DUIs. Um, in that same category, the, these are staggering numbers and they are increasing at a fast pace and we need to provide tools to law enforcement to try to tackle this issue. And with that, I thank the body.

an unlicensed driver pol was pulled over three times in one month for driving without a license. In every circumstance, he was given a citation and he continued to drive without li a license because law enforcement has the discretion as to whether or not to impin a pound a car for a driver who is not licensed. The last, his last time being pulled over, he was also cited and allowed to continue to drive away. 25 minutes later, he crossed the center divider and collided head first into Jane's husband who was killed. Jane is one of more than two dozen. Jane is just one more than two dozen fatalities on Utah roads since 2024 and among thousands of car crashes every year. And so the purpose of fourth substitute house bill 1 36 is to make it so that unlicensed drivers when they're pulled over. And if you look through the criteria of what law enforcement has to go through in lines 1 0 7 through one 16, um, you, you can see that this, uh, that law enforcement has to do due diligence as to whether or not the person has been issued a driver's license. And if they go through that process and find that this person was not licensed, that they take the individ, that they impound the, the vehicle of the driver. That is the purpose of the bill. Um, and I am with that Mr. President. I am happy to, uh, accept questions if there are any from the body.

I'm being told there's a fifth sub online, but I don't think I want the fifth sub. Lemme just double check. I apologize. Sorry. I just wanna make sure that we don't miss, Uh, Senator Escamilla. I

Question for the sponsor if He yields. Um, will you yield Senator?

Yes. It will give me enough time to figure out if we want the fifth sub.

Thank you Mr. President Prote. Um, just as we are looking into the current fourth substitute, just to be clear mm-hmm. Um, there is a portion of a, uh, in the bill in it changes or increases the rate for the towing as a fine. Mm-hmm. Can you explain a little bit more the policy, why we're increasing that and where is that money going to?

Thank you. We, we use fines for lots of purposes, but the primary def the primary purpose of a fine in the criminal justice system is to try and discourage behavior. And the primary objective in raising this fee is an effort to, again, discourage that behavior.

Senator Escamilla follow up? Yeah, Follow up question, Mr. President Prote. So just to be clear, we're increasing it to from $425 to $600, and where will that administrator pound fee go to? He wants to know where the Senator McKay, she wants to know where the increased fee will go to

Thank you to DHHS for reinstatement. I'm, I'm sorry. He said to DHHS for reinstatement DHHS. Just to clarify, Mr. President Prote Department of Health and Human Services Yes. And for reinstatement, can, can you expand on what that means?

Senator McKay? Thank you. So when a person's driver's license is revoked or suspended, they do testing to, it includes drug testing, et cetera, to make sure that the person can qualify for a driver's license again. And that is the purpose of that additional fee, and that's what it would go towards.

Okay. Thank you Mr. President Prote for that answer. I, I'm shocked that it will cost $600 to do that and I, I'm trying to figure out where that 425 to $600 per fee comes from. And just one follow up question about fees Mr.

in lines 3 42, it says, $187 of the administrative impound fee says under subsection seven, eight, um, nine A shall be deposited into the Department of Public Safety restricted account. Can you explain to me where that fee comes from?

Senator McKay? Hang on just a moment. Let me, I'm, I'm phoning a friend for the policy analyst to get that question For you. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, just give me, uh, maybe what we do is why don't we do a motion to circle really quickly. Lemme get an answer Mr. President Proti. And, and then I can come back and answer that question for the bottom All. Alright, we have a

Thank you. Senator Esee asked a great question about, about fine increases and so I, uh, reached out. I phoned a friend and now have better answers for her questions. Um, the total fee, uh, is $600. Now from 425, it's, uh, there was a $60 administrative fee, which is a $30 increase and that was at the request of Department of, uh, health and Human Services. Um, $29 goes to the DMV. There's no charge, no change in the fee there. $187 to DPS and $40 of that increase is DP S's request to fund additional troopers for DUI enforcement. $20 goes to the brain and spinal cord fund and there's no change there. So that is the rest of the, that is the summary of the fine increases and their directions. Senator, Excuse me.

Thank you Mr. President for that answer and to the, to the sponsor for getting those details follow up question if possible.

So, um, is this current version of the bill still eliminates the ability for an individual that gets this fine in place to pursue getting a driving privilege or driver's license?

There is nothing in this bill that, sorry, president, go ahead. Let me step on you. There is nothing in this bill that has any limitations on a driver privilege card, Uh, Mr. President, Senator, the bill states and I'm that they can, if they get this fine that they won't be able to actually get for a year applied to get a driver's license or a driving privilege.

Okay. According to DPS, the answer is it does not delay. That, uh, does not delay that the implementation or the ability to get a driver's privilege card as a result of receiving this fine Mr. President, Unless you can find language otherwise, but that's their interpretation.

Okay. And just to be clear, it's both driver's license or driving privilege card. So what I'm talking about driving privileges is in general Mr. President of any, because we control as state driving privileges. So you're, just to be clear, nothing in this bill says that the person cannot after receiving this citation and fine to go and actually apply to get the driver's license or driving privilege.

Correct. That language was in an earlier sub and is not now.

Okay. Thank you Mr. President.

You President. I promised I would be fast. I move that forced substitute house bill 1 36 unlicensed driver amendments pass.

Thank you. I have a motion. Do you wanna sign encircle a bill? I need a motion to encircle house Bill. 5 93. Actually I think it's a fourth substitute of house Bill. Uh, 5 93.

Um, I think it's, excuse me, 5 97. I think that's the second time I've done that since yesterday. So I, uh, is the third substitute house bill 3 37. Uh, nicotine product amendment tax amendments. Is that the bill? Yes, That's correct, but that's

Uh, thank you Mr. President. What we need to do is I need to move this to the fifth

Mr. Speaker, I move that we refuse to concur with the Senate amendment And ask the Senate to receive from its amendments. Yes, Mr. Speaker?

Just very quickly, the Senate committee hearing, we presented on a fifth substitute, as did the good Senator presented on a fifth substitute and they failed to adopt it. So, uh, we'd like to send it back because that is necessary.

Conference committee report. Mr. Speaker, the Joint Conference Committee comprises of Senator Vickers McKay Johnson and pitcher and representative representatives McPherson Cutler and Matthew recommends for substitute house Bill 1 36 be replaced and favorably recommends fifth substitute House bill 1 36, unlicensed driver amendments with amendments respectfully, Senator McKay and Representative MacPherson Representative MacPherson To adopt the conference committee report.

Uh, yes. So this uh, uh, fifth substitute was the one that we had materially talked about here in the house and on the Senate committee and on the senate floor, but just never got adopted. The Amendment Amendment itself just simply was a technical change. Uh, renaming the name of a database that the Driver's license division uses. Uh, we currently have the wrong name for it, so this was just a, a simple name correction.