MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 1, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order by Chairman Jan Evans at 1:49 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Jan Evans, Chairman

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Vice Chairman

      Ms. Kathy M. Augustine

      Ms. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. Dean A. Heller

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Larry Spitler, Assembly District 41

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Kerry Carroll Davis, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41; Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Clayton Mills; Lawrence Semenza, Nevada Trail Lawyers Association; John Cummings, Nevada State Education Association; Bobbie Gang, Nevada Woman's Lobby; Darrell Rasner, State Health Division; Keith Ashworth and Donald Fabbi, Nevada Power Company; Stan Warren and Curtis Risley, Sierra Pacific Power Company; Terry Page, Public Service Commission; Jim Dodson, Nevada Department of Transportation.

 

Mrs. Evans opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 444.

 

AB 444      Creates presumption of knowing use of controlled substance under certain circumstances.

 

Larry Spitler, Assembly District 41, testified in support of AB 444 which was introduced to curtail drug problems in Southern Nevada.  He explained there had been several drug related murders in his district, and he became involved in helping the police address this issue.  This bill would simplify the procedure of determining if a person was under the influence of drugs.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked how it was determined if a person had a metabolite in their body.  Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, explained a chemical analysis of the person's blood was done to determine the type of substance.  Capt. Oaks noted there had to be probable cause the person was under the influence before a blood test was given.  Usually the test was run for a particular type of substance.

 

Mr. Toomin inquired if the police department would have probable cause to stop an individual and test him if they suspected him of being under the influence.  Capt. Oaks responded yes and described the current policy.  Mr. Toomin asked what this bill would do to change that procedure.  Capt. Oaks stated the police department was not very successful in getting cases prosecuted because the issue focused on the quantitative limit.  This bill presumes the person knowingly used the controlled substance.

 

Ms. Smith wondered if she was taking a prescription drug, what her fate would be if she was pulled over by an officer.  Capt. Oaks maintained something had to give rise to suspicion.  An individual had the right to take a controlled substance which was prescribed without fear of criminal sanctions.

 

Mrs. Evans wanted to know if a blood test could be used to determine what controlled substance produced the chemical compound.  Capt. Oaks believed a chemist could identify a particular substance as a metabolite.

 

Mr. Petrak inquired who assumed responsibility for the cost of the tests.  Capt. Oaks said there was no assessment against the individual unless convicted.

 

Mrs. Smith asked if an arrest would take place first before the test was administered.  Capt. Oaks said no, an officer would try to determine the cause of the problem first.

 

Clayton Mills testified on behalf of himself in opposition to AB 444.  He did not believe more power should be given to law enforcement to put people behind bars.

 

Lawrence Semenza, Attorney, spoke in opposition to AB 444.  This bill would place the burden of proof on the defendant.  The law in Nevada as interpreted by the Nevada State Supreme Court did not look favorably upon any type of presumption in criminal cases.  Several examples of impermissible presumptions were discussed.  This bill was solely an evidentiary rule, it would set a precedent of having the defendant prove his innocence.

 

Mr. Toomin asked if this bill would pass constitutional muster.  Mr. Semenza responded in his opinion, if it was well argued and if the question was brought before the District Court or Nevada Supreme Court, he believed the court would strike down this provision.

 

In response to questions from Mr. Petrak, Mr. Semenza explained this bill was directed toward certain individuals to give law enforcement an opportunity to deal with drug issues.  This was a prosecutors bill, it would make it easier for the prosecutor to go into court.

 

Mrs. Evans asked for a subcommittee report.  Mr. Williams indicated the subcommittee could not support the measure due to the constitutionality question and because the burden of proof was shifted to the defendant.  Mr. Gibbons added it became a strict liability issue.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 444.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT (ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).

 

Mrs. Evans opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 63.

 

ACR 63      Urges owners of private swimming pools to provide fences or other barriers to entry.

 

John Cummings, Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association, testified in support of ACR 63.  Mr. Cummings explained this resolution was introduced as a means of making people aware and potentially saving the life of a child.

 

Mrs. Evans asked about the laws and ordinances which regulated residential swimming pools.  Mr. Cummings responded in Clark County the yard must be enclosed by a fence.

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked if the intent was to have the pool or the yard enclosed.  Mr. Cummings replied the resolution was not intended to mandate a particular height or type of barrier but to make people aware a barrier needed to be sufficient enough to keep small children out of danger.

 

Mr. Toomin briefly commented on the Clark County ordinance and asked what other regulations were necessary.  Mr. Cummings said if residents recognized the need to make their pool more secure, they should do everything necessary in that regard.  Mr. Toomin indicated the focus should be to get the media involved.

 

Mrs. Evans noted there were seventeen counties in Nevada, and each local government jurisdiction had there own rules.  The suggestion was made to urge the local board of health to take appropriate measure to enhance public awareness.  Mr. Williams agreed the local health districts only enforced what was established at the county level.

 

Bobby Gang spoke in support of ACR 63 on behalf of herself and the Nevada Women's Lobby.  Ms. Gang discussed her own experience and expressed her concern that people were not always aware of the dangers involved.  She suggested the resolution be amended to urge the media to enhance public awareness of pool safety.

 

Darrell Rasner, Nevada Division of Health, presented his prepared testimony in support of ACR 63 (EXHIBIT C).  He suggested the use of the term "health authority" which was all inclusive.

 

Mrs. Evans closed the hearing on ACR 63 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 400.

 

SB 400      Prohibits certain activities near overhead line carrying high voltage.

 

Keith Ashworth testified in support of this measure on behalf of Nevada Power Company and indicated everyone was in agreement and there had been no opposition to the bill.

 

Donald Fabbi, Manager of Safety Services, Nevada Power Company, testified this was worker safety legislation which would greatly assist in the prevention of accidents (EXHIBIT D).

 

Mrs. Evans asked what type of accidents occurred which necessitated this type of legislation.  Mr. Fabbi noted the bill was asking that the utility company be given notice of activity near the lines which would allow them the opportunity to provide assistance.  This bill was patterned after OSHA regulations.

 

Ms. Smith asked if the utility company would charge a fee if they determined supervision or assistance was required.  Mr. Fabbi responded a fee would be imposed depending on the nature of the work.

 

Discussion ensued regarding fees and financial responsibility.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked for an example of a situation where the civil penalties might be imposed.  Mr. Ashworth explained if the utility was not notified first and a problem occurred as a result of the activity, then the person who caused the damage would be held responsible.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked about the intent of Section 6.  Mr. Ashworth said if a violation occurred, the person causing the violation would be required to pay damages. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding reasonableness.

 

Mr. Toomin wanted to know if a contractor called, and the utility company sent someone out to supervise, would the contractor be charged.  Mr. Fabbi reiterated the contractor would not be charged in all cases.  Mr. Toomin asked if that was left to the discretion of the utility company.  Mr. Ashworth clarified if the utility company told the contractor to go ahead with the work and a problem occurred, the utility company would accept responsibility.  Mr. Toomin wanted to know if the utility company arbitrarily made the decision to send someone out and charge the contractor.  Mr. Ashworth said it would depend on the work involved.  Mr. Toomin asked why there was a fiscal note on the bill.  Mr. Ashworth thought there might be a fiscal impact to local government but it would be minimal.

 

Mrs. Evans inquired about public awareness, and Mr. Ashworth indicated if the bill passed it would be incumbent on the utilities to do a media campaign.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked for clarification regarding the necessity of the bill.  Mr. Fabbi said the focus of the bill was on worker safety.

 

Stan Warren and Curtis Risley, Sierra Pacific Power Company, spoke in support of SB 400.  Some of the issues previously discussed were addressed (EXHIBIT E).  Mr. Risley noted the purpose of the bill was to prevent injury to the worker and explained how the costs would be determined. 

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if Section 6 made this a strict liability issue.  Mr. Risley thought it was a negligence per se standard.  Mr. Gibbons called attention to lines 12 and 13 on page 3.  Mr. Risley said the language identified was directed toward the contractor.  Mr. Gibbons felt this needed to be clarified.

 

Ms. Smith asked about the decision to provide this service for a fee versus free of charge as a matter of public safety.  Mr. Risley noted most contractors would have an economic interest in the work they performed and the fee should be paid by the person receiving the benefit.

 

In response to questions from Mr. Toomin, Mr. Risley stated they had no fatalities and no claims were paid out last year.

 

Terry Page, Public Service Commission, spoke in support of the bill and called attention to the provision which allowed the PSC to determine penalties.

 

Jim Dodson, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified in opposition to SB 400 and voiced the following concerns:

 

1)    Many utility lines were located on state owned property,

2)    There was increased liability with regard to granting      permits for over-height vehicles,

3)    There was already infringement on the 10 ft. zone.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the state had limited liability.  Mr. Dodson responded yes.

 

Mrs. Evans referred the bill to a subcommittee for further discussion.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      CONNIE CAMPBELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services

June 1, 1993

Page: 1