COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION



FISCAL NOTE



L.R. No.: 2582-01

Bill No.: SB 820

Subject: Drunk Driving/Boating; Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; Motor Vehicles; Highway Patrol

Type: Original

Date: February 19, 2004




FISCAL SUMMARY



ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND
FUND AFFECTED FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Total Estimated

Net Effect on

General Revenue

Fund

$0 $0 $0



ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Highway ($2,716)
Total Estimated

Net Effect on Other

State Funds

($2,716) $0 $0



Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.

This fiscal note contains 4 pages.











ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Total Estimated

Net Effect on All

Federal Funds

$0 $0 $0



ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Local Government $0 $0 $0




FISCAL ANALYSIS



ASSUMPTION



Officials from the Department of Public Safety - divisions of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Missouri State Water Patrol, Office of State Public Defender and the Jefferson City Police Department each assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.



In response to a similar proposal from last year, officials from the Columbia Police Department and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department each assumed the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on their respective agencies.



Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on the courts.



Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services assume the proposed legislation would have no fiscal impact on prosecutors.





ASSUMPTION (continued)



Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume the proposal requires law enforcement officers to provide additional information relative to admissibility of the results of a chemical test that is completed in order to determine probable cause of a charge of driving while intoxicated. This information will be required to be included on the alcohol influence report (AIR) form that is submitted to the Department of Revenue for alcohol related driving violations. This will require several modifications to the AIR form.



The new information that the officer must provide an individual requested to complete a chemical test to determine probable cause of driving while intoxicated must be included in the AIR form. The DOR currently has 79,000 forms in current stock with a monthly usage of 5,400. Assuming this usage rate, there will be 35,800 forms that will require document destruction at the end of August 2004. DOR estimates the form destruction costs to be $716. Since the new form will require a special mailing to all law enforcement agencies prior to the effective date of the legislation, the Department of Revenue will incur approximately $2,000 in postage costs in FY 05. DOR estimates the total cost of the proposal to be $2,716 in FY 05.





FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 2005

(10 Mo.)

FY 2006 FY 2007
HIGHWAY FUND
Costs - Department of Revenue
Form destruction ($716) $0 $0
Postage ($2,000) $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON HIGHWAY FUND



($2,716)


$0


$0




FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 2005

(10 Mo.)

FY 2006 FY 2007
$0 $0 $0



FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business



No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.



DESCRIPTION



The proposed legislation would require law enforcement officers, prior to administering a portable chemical test, to inform the person: (1) why the officer is requesting the person to submit to the test; (2) that the test is admissible to establish probable cause to arrest and as exculpatory evidence, but that the test in not admissible as evidence of a blood alcohol content; and (3) that if the test establishes probable cause for an arrest, the person will be required to submit to another test authorized by Section 577.020, RSMo, or have his or her license revoked.



This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.



SOURCES OF INFORMATION



Office of State Courts Administrator

Department of Revenue

Department of Public Safety

- Missouri State Water Patrol

- Missouri State Highway Patrol

Office of Prosecution Services

Office of State Public Defender

Jefferson City Police Department

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

Columbia Police Department



NOT RESPONDING: Greene County Sheriff, Kansas City Police Department, Jackson County Sheriff, St. Louis County Police Department.









Mickey Wilson, CPA

Director

February 19, 2004