MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-Seventh Session

      March 9, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman

      Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mr  John C. Bonaventura

      Mr. John C. Carpenter

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. Ken L. Haller

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. John B. Regan

      Mr. Scott Scherer

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Speaker of the Assembly

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Denice Miller, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office

      Ms. Sandy Heverly, Executive Director of MADD, Clark County

      Mr. Charles Collenberger, Representative of Families of      Murder Victims

      Ms. Laurel Stadler, Representative of MADD, Lyon County

 

OTHERS PRESENT (CON'D):

 

      Mr. Paul Snodgrass, National Highway Traffic Safety           Administration

      Ms. Judy Jacoboni, President of MADD, Lyon County &          Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, Washoe County

      Ms. Sharon Zadra, Representative of MADD Washoe and Lyon     Counties & Representative of Northern Nevada DUI Task      Force, Washoe County

      Ms. Melanie Rosenberg, Representative of Senator Dina Titus

      Mr. Van Heffner, President of the Nevada Restaurant          Association

      Ms. Lorraine Hunt, Governmental Affairs Chairperson of Nevada Restaurant Association

      Mr. John Watkins, Nevada Attorney for Criminal Justice

 

Following roll call, Chairman Sader began the hearing on AB 144.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 144 -

 

      Requires person convicted of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance to attend meeting on impact of his crime if meeting is available within certain distance from offender's residence.

 

Joseph Dini, Speaker of the Assembly, District 38, supported AB 144.  Speaker Dini explained AB 144 originated from his attendance at a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) meeting in Yerington.  He thereafter had a bill drafted based upon the recommendations of Ms. Sandy Heverly, Executive Director of MADD, Clark County.  He attested individuals who attended this meeting and had Drinking Under the Influence (DUI) offenses had a dramatic change in attitude.  He expressed the DUI offenders left the meeting very impressed.  He said he believed if the program was available, at low cost, it would be effective and very beneficial to the citizens of Nevada.

 

Ms. Sandy Heverly, Executive Director of MADD, Clark County, Ms. Judy Jacoboni, President of MADD, Lyon County & Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, Washoe County, and Ms. Laurel Stadler, MADD Lyon County, spoke in support of AB 144.

 

Ms. Heverly gave the historical background on the victim impact concept, and said in 1984, Clark County MADD introduced the victim reality concept in its education program.  Ms. Heverly stated, "We believe if the offenders could hear and see the horrific consequences caused to the innocent victims of this crime it would leave a lasting impression that would hopefully have a positive effect on their further drinking behavior."  The program in 1984 was presented on a relatively small scale with 2 or 3 victims sharing their stories of victimization with DUI classes consisting of 8 to 20 people, approximately twice a month.  Ms. Heverly expounded as time passed, Clark County MADD could no longer logistically meet all of the demands.  In 1989 a DUI Impact Panel was formed.  She provided the committee a copy of the card given a DUI offender who planned to attend one of the DUI Impact Panel meetings (Exhibit C).  Ms. Heverly pointed out there were currently 200 DUI Impact Panels all over the country, three of which were in Nevada.  She said anyone who appeared or helped on the panel did so on a voluntary basis.  Ms. Heverly reinforced not everyone would be reached by this program.  One DUI offender told the DUI Impact Panel they should stop whining about all the people who were killed by drunk drivers and just look at it as a means of population control. Another DUI offender suggested encountering a drunk driver was a risk faced by all who drive, and it was a part of life, if a person did not want to take the risk he should never leave home.  Ms. Heverly declared a number of victims were killed by DUI offenders while at home in areas like their front yards, backyards or living rooms.

 

Ms. Heverly established for the most part, the feedback from the DUI offenders was very positive.  She provided the committee sample statement letters written by different individuals who expressed appreciation for the program and urged the passage of AB 144 (Exhibit D).  Ms. Heverly further presented the committee with Exhibit E  regarding a random study conducted in December 1992 by the Las Vegas Municipal Court which showed the DUI Victim Impact Panel contributed significantly to the recidivism rate.  Ms. Heverly said the DUI Victim Impact Panel was open to the public and well attended by Nevada Highway Patrol Cadets, Metro officers, prosecutors, Judges, school teachers, parole and probation officers, court administrators, county commissioners, legislators and defense attorneys.  She said response from these sectors was extremely positive.

 

Ms. Jacoboni said the Washoe County Panel had processed over 2,000 offenders in its three year history.  She elaborated the DUI Victim Impact Panel was very successful in Washoe County and had only been in operation in Lyon County for one year but there also had been requests to take the program to other area schools and prisons.

 

Ms. Stadler explained Lyon County had a unique geographic problem since it was so spread out.  She pointed out the DUI Victim Impact Panel in Lyon County had to take their service around to three different localities to better serve its population.  Ms. Stadler said if AB 144 passed the Lyon County DUI Victim Impact Panel could service a larger area.

 

Mr. Scherer inquired of Ms. Heverly what the cost of the program was and how the fee was established.  Ms. Heverly replied for attendance there was a $25 fee and it was set by the court.  Mr. Scherer next asked Ms. Heverly if there were any objections if AB 144 stated the fee would be set by the court.  Ms. Heverly said there was no objection.  Mr. Scherer asked if transportation was provided to the meetings, for individuals who had revoked driver's licenses.  Ms. Heverly stated it was the individual's responsibility to get to the meetings and there had not been any problems in this area.

 

Mr. Sader questioned Ms. Heverly if the fee charged by the panel went to the panel.  Ms. Heverly answered yes ,the $25 went directly to Clark and Lyon Counties MADD.  Ms. Heverly further provided a list  of programs and services which showed how the money was utilized (Exhibit F).  Mr. Sader asked Ms. Heverly if the court ordered the fee to be paid.  Ms. Heverly did not know if the fee was court ordered or not, but the court did require a DUI offender to attend the meeting and the fee was a part of the requirement for attendance.  In response to Mr. Sader's question if there had been any problems experienced with the payment of the fee, Ms. Heverly replied the fee was paid in cash only, and if a person could not afford to pay, the fee was waived.

 

Mr. Collins stated he had attended one of the meetings and it was very emotional and beneficial.  He opined if there were no objections AB 144 should pass.

 

Mr. Regan opined if the court ordered a DUI offender to attend a DUI victim Impact Panel meeting and he failed to attend there should be a penalty for violation.  Mr. Sader explained when an individual failed to attend the panel he would be held in contempt of court so a violation already existed.

 

Mr. Petrak agreed with Mr. Collins' sentiments and felt AB 144 should become law.

 

Ms. Sharon Zadra, Representative of Northern Nevada DUI Task Force/MADD DUI Victims Impact Panels for Washoe and Lyon Counties, came forward to promote AB 144.  Ms. Zadra agreed with Ms. Heverly's, Ms. Jacoboni's and Ms. Stadler's testimony.  Ms. Zadra expressed there was not any expense to the state or county systems.  Ms. Zadra further clarified in the area of transportation frequently the DUI offender's mate or family member attended the panel with the offender and there was a double impact to hear the information from the panel and later to hear it at home.

 

Mr. Sader suggested AB 144 needed more language regarding the panel.  He stressed the importance of statutorily requiring the court administrator or chief judge to keep a record of the panel's availability within a 60 mile or less radius and a schedule of meeting times and locations.  Mr. Sader further recommended the establishment of the fee for the panel. 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 144.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 144.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 -

 

      Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide expressly for rights of victims of crime.

 

Ms. Melanie Rosenberg came forward to testify for Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District 7, in support of SJR 2.  Ms. Rosenberg supplied and read to the committee written testimony provided by Senator Titus  regarding the importance of protecting victim's rights (Exhibit G).

 

Mr. Charles Collenberger, Representative of Families of Murder Victims, testified in support of SJR 2.  Mr. Collenberger furnished the committee with written testimony which gave a brief history of the constitutional amendment movement for victim's rights and emphasized the importance of the passage of SJR 2 (Exhibit H).

 

Ms. Heverly testified on behalf of SJR 2.  She submitted written testimony and expounded the importance of protecting victims rights.  She gave an example of a drunk driving victim who was revictimized repeatedly by the justice system (Exhibit I).

 

Mr. Porter expressed concern about lines 19 and 20  of SJR 2

whether the wording,  "and to be treated by agents of the state with dignity, respect and sensitivity throughout a criminal investigation or proceeding.", became constitutionally protected.

Mr. Porter communicated the justice system was often a very slow process where delays frequently occurred.  He explained some delays were necessary while others were not.  Mr. Porter  asked Ms. Heverly if SJR 2 could create a situation where the state could be challenged because someone's constitutionally protected sensitivity was violated.  Ms. Heverly replied she understood Mr. Porter's concerns, but noted a law could be changed while it would take at least 5 years for a change to occur to the Nevada Constitution.  Mr. Heverly believed if SJR 2 was enacted it would give some semblance victim's right were uncompromisingly protected.

 

Mr. Collenberger interjected the reason for the broad language of SJR 2 was to avoid the minimum 5 years required for amendment to the constitutional language.  He mentioned SJR was modeled after California's victim rights where the entire Bill of Rights was inserted into the constitutional statute and to change it would be extremely difficult.  Even after Mr. Collenberger's explanation Mr. Porter still expressed tremendous concern about the broad language of SJR 2 since it would open the state up to the possibility of numerous lawsuits. 

 

Mr. Gibbons shared similar concerns with the language on line 20 of SJR 2 where the wording commenced "throughout  a criminal investigation or proceeding."  He believed this language posed problems for investigators.  Mr. Gibbons asked Ms. Heverly if an investigator was required to disclose all the information to the victim throughout the proceedings of a criminal investigation and would this jeopardize the accused's right to privacy.

 

Ms. Heverly clarified what the language "criminal investigation" meant from a victim's perception.  She revealed oftentimes the defense attorney did not keep the victim informed as to when the defendant was available to appear for a hearing.  Ms. Heverly further revealed, "criminal investigation" in this context did not mean prosecution had to divulge a private conversation between the defense attorney and the defendant.

 

In reply to Mr. Gibbons question, Mr. Collenberger said originally there was a statement in SJR 2 to protect the rights of the accused, but after research it was found the rights of privacy for the accused were already protected.

 

Mr. Scherer opined if the original protective language was dropped from SJR 2 it would potentially result in some unintentional consequences.  He asked Mr. Collenberger if he had any objections to the original language or whether it was the Senate who viewed it as unnecessary.

 

Mr. Collenberger said he had no objections to the language, but the last few amendments the National Victims Center promoted had dropped the language because they agreed with the Senate who viewed the language was unnecessary.  Mr. Collenberger strongly felt the accused should have all his rights but he emphasized the victim should have his rights too.

 

Mr. Carpenter strongly believed the wording in SJR 2, line 17 where it stated "when revelant" ... and " critical stages of criminal proceedings" would open the law to all types of interpretation.

 

Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Carpenter's concerns about the criminal proceedings. Mr. Anderson wanted to know if there would be an amendment to this language in SJR 2, line 17.

 

In response to Mr. Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Collenberger established in terms of the investigatory process there was no intention to have all the information disclosed.

 

In response to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Heverly interjected, at the point an offender was charged, his rights were enacted.  She believed the rights of a victim should correspondingly be activated at the same time.  Ms. Heverly said if an amendment was composed to alleviate the committee's concerns she would be agreeable to it.

 

Mr. Sader expressed there was a need for more testimony on SJR 2 before the committee processed the bill.  He thought the discussion of SJR 2 demonstrated one area the committee needed more input on was what rights were created constitutionally and what civil remedies there might be.   He further stated, would a civil action be created where all victims could sue the state for monetary damages for violation of a constitutionally protected right.  Mr. Sader said the committee needed answers concerning these legal ramifications before processing the bill. 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Collenberger if the statutes of Nevada complied with the constitutional rights proposed in the amendment presented in SJR 2 and did the statutes in fact as they now exist give the victim the right to be informed at all critical stages.  Mr. Collenberger answered presently not at all critical stages.  Mr. Sader further inquired about the language on line 18 of SJR 2 was the right to be treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity currently protected statutorily or was more language necessary.  Ms. Heverly and Mr. Collenberger both answered no, these rights were not protected statutorily.

 

Mr. Sader expanded if such rights were not presently protected constitutionally, could they submit a written amendment from their perspective to correct the situation.

 

Ms. Smith asked what recourse was available right now if a victim was not notified regarding a hearing.  Ms. Heverly answered there was no recourse at present.

 

Mr. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, testified on SJR 2.  Mr. Graham said he was a proponent of victims' rights and Clark County was historically sensitive to victims rights.  He affirmed Clark County had led the way in establishing a Victims' Rights Center and it was very proactive in this area.

 

Mr. Graham said from the questions asked of the supporters of SJR 2 by the committee the term "critical stages" presented interpretation problems.  He indicated there were 11,000 felonies cases in Clark County and before a felony case was concluded there were between 8 and 12 court appearances.  Mr. Graham emphasized many of these felonies had more than one defendant and more than one victim so those 10 or 11 court appearances under the constitutional amendment as proposed by SJR 2 required people were to be notified.  Mr. Graham stated it required more staffing than present at the Victims' Witness Center in order to keep the victims better informed.

 

Mr. Graham believed a potential civil liability was created in some cases where constitutional rights were violated, but there were possible civil remedies.  Mr. Graham said he would certainly be sensitive to a poor family who had travelled a long distance to find the hearing was held the day before or cancelled without notice.  Mr. Graham felt damages would be appropriate.  Mr. Graham said there was a potential cost created by SJR 2 of civil liability if this constitutional amendment remained in its current form.  He said if SJR 2 passed in its present form, it would be a very long, difficult process to reverse, and he expressed the sentiments of the committee. 

 

Mr. Sader requested Mr. Graham to first, put in written form what laws were constitutionally required if SJR 2 were enacted and secondly, present a written opinion as to whether Mr. Graham believed this amendment created a civil remedy or injunctive relief.

 

Mr. Sader commented on the time and effort involved with notifying people.  He expressed real concern since this was an unfunded mandate issue.  Mr. Sader revealed the legislature had enacted a number of statutes and the constitution required notice be given to people on matters such as eminent domain and zoning violations.  Mr. Sader hypothesized if the public was notified on property matters, victims should likewise be notified on matters which dealt with murder.  Mr. Graham agreed with Chairman Sader's statement.

 

Ms. Florence McClure, Citizen Committee on Victim's Rights, spoke in opposition to SJR 2.  Ms. McClure explained in the late 1970's she was on the board of National Organization of Victim's Assistance (NOVA) in Washington D.C. and served for 2 years.  At the time Ms. McClure served on NOVA's board, the movement to enact constitutional amendment in the different states started and to date over 30 states had such constitutional amendments.  She agreed there were language problems with SJR 2.  Ms. McClure stated the committee should contact Massachusetts since it was one of the first states to amend its constitution to protect victims' rights.  She urged the committee to contact NOVA in order to reconcile the language so it did not interfere with the rights of a defendant or cause huge costs to state and local governments.

 

Ms. Patricia Marr a victim provided written testimony to the committee to express her support of SJR 2 (Exhibit J).

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on SJR 2.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 246 -

 

      Revises standard for determining operation of vehicle or vessel while intoxicated.

 

Assemblyman Bill Petrak, District 18, testified as prime sponsor of AB 246.  Mr. Petrak explained AB 246 reduced the threshold for the prohibition against driving under the influence of alcohol from .10 percent to .08 percent. 

 

Mr. Petrak related an experience from 27 years ago where one afternoon his son was riding his bicycle home from school when 5 driveways away from his home a drunk driver hit and dragged him and his bicycle 100 feet on the pavement.  Mr. Petrak explained a crane had to be used to lift the van off of his son's body and he was taken to the hospital where he suffered from a double skull fracture, a punctured lung and completely abraded body.  Mr. Petrak said this had been a very traumatic experience which he had never forgotten.  Mr. Petrak explained the driver had been drinking.  The man was arrested and put in the city jail until his attorney arrived and posted bail.  Mr. Petrak declared this was the extent of the man's imprisonment, thereafter the offender jumped bond and left the state while Mr. Petrak and his family suffered 60 days of torment.

 

Mr. Petrak strongly stressed, "If a person drinks please do not drive because what I have in my pocket here is a set of car keys.  The minute I have been drinking and go out to the parking lot and take these car keys out of my pocket, these become a death weapon because I do not have the faculty or use of my mental processes to handle a vehicle properly when I go out in the middle of the street.  Do your thing, but please do not drive." 

In closing, Mr. Petrak said he felt very strongly about this legislation because there had been a terrible cost in people's lives with suffering and pain passed on to family members and friends.  Mr. Petrak encouraged the committee to pass AB 246.

 

Ms. Heverly provided the committee with written testimony Exhibit K and explained the importance of lowering the law from .10 percent to .08 percent.  Ms. Heverly discussed and supplied a report from The U.S. Dept of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Exhibit L) and also a pamphlet entitled "Every Drop Counts" (Exhibit M) to show the effects of low doses of alcohol on driving skills.  Ms. Heverly related the details of the extensive injuries to herself, her husband and four children and her mother when her family's small camper was hit by someone who had not been drinking very much. 

Mr. Paul Snodgrass, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, spoke in support of AB 246.  Mr. Snodgrass explained the purpose of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established in 1968 was to reduce death, injury, property damage and traffic crashes.  Mr. Snodgrass pointed out in 1968 there were 50,000 deaths caused by traffic accidents while today the number had been reduced to under 40,000. Mr. Snodgrass said this was a major public health issue and the U.S. Congress recently allocated more money to NHTSA because it was viewed as healthcare cost reduction.  Mr. Snodgrass asserted the U.S. Congress offered more money to states if they did certain things proven effective in the war against drunk driving and one such measure was lowering the legal per se limit from .10 to .08.  Mr. Snodgrass asked, "Why .08, was it a number just pulled out a hat."  He answered no it was the most studied issue by NHTSA. He referred to a report which was a summary of the findings given to U.S. Congress dated October 1992 which discussed the different percent levels based upon scientific and medical studies throughout the world (Exhibit N).  He emphasized the scientific and medical literature supported the fact all people were significantly impaired at the .08 level (Exhibit O).

 

Mr. Snodgrass indicated the California legislature passed a .08 per se law in 1989 and NHTSA conducted a study after this law was enacted January 1,1990 (Exhibit P).  He said the result of the .08 law in California was arrests went up slightly and alcohol related fatalities went down very significantly, 12 percent.  Mr. Snodgrass said personally he had relatives in Ireland where the level was .08.  The Irish loved to drink but when they went out they always took along a relative to be the designated driver, commonly known as the teatoddler. Mr. Snodgrass said the teatoddlers were very popular in Ireland, everyone took them out.  He noted, "We are just catching up with the rest of the world.  All the English speaking countries and the Scandavanian countries in Europe had a .08 law for 10 years and it works."  Mr. Snodgrass addressed Exhibit Q which demonstrated the effect alcohol had at different blood levels.

 

Mr. Van Heffner, President of the Nevada Restaurant Association, testified in opposition to AB 246.  He introduced Ms. Lorraine Hunt, Governmental Affairs Chairperson of Nevada Restaurant Association, to assist in the presentation.  Mr. Heffner said there were 120 casinos and motels and over 450 restaurant properties which employed over 120,000  Nevadans.  Mr. Heffner revealed he was commissioned to write a program and a book in 1985 and 1988 entitled "Serving Alcohol with Care."  Additionally, Mr. Heffner, as a graduate of Utah Medical Center in 1971, worked on every level of the alcohol and drug abuse issue.  Mr. Heffener stated the "Serving Alcohol With Care" program was taught regularly in the hospitality industry in Nevada.  Mr. Heffner provided the committee with written testimony Exhibit R in support of his arguments.

 

Ms. Hunt explained Exhibit R to the committee.

 

Mr. John Watkins, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, testified in opposition to AB 246.  Mr. Watkins said, "I am a defense attorney.  I do DUI and murder cases and nothing would please me more than to make more money.  If you lower the level to a .08 I guarantee you will make defense attorneys richer."  He proceeded to explain to the committee why the legislation would financially  benefit attorneys, how it would be detrimental to DUI offenders and to the Highway Patrol by increasing the arrest rate.

 

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified he had personally undergone the field sobriety tests administered by MADD and SADD.  In conclusion he said he was quite satisfied with the testing, and it was comforting to know Highway Patrol Officers were well trained to know whether someone was truly

inebriated.  He added in his case his blood alcohol level never rose above .04 although he had consumed enough alcohol to raise it to .08.  This led him to believe tolerance levels differed from person to person, making the tests subjective.  He closed by saying, "From my own standpoint I felt impaired, I felt I had consumed far more than I normally would, but it still wasn't at the .10 or whatever."

 

Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Snodgrass what happened in Sweden where they adopted .02, have they been able to eliminate the DUI's or fatalities.  Mr. Snodgrass replied the reports were from 1990, therefore, he did not really know, but he suggested the Scandinavian countries were ahead of the United States.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Snodgrass about page 10 of Exhibit P how the burden of proof was less for prosecution moving from a .10 to .08. Mr. Snodgrass answered the third item referred to the per se law not the .08 of presumption.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Snodgrass, "So it becomes a more technical scientific prosecution of the question as compared to the ability of the police officer to make a determination in the field.  That is what you are telling us?  That is all the movement from presumptive to per se is.  Is that correct?"  Mr. Snodgrass answered yes.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Snodgrass if there was an advantage in moving the state of Nevada from a presumptive to a per se.  Mr. Snodgrass explained, "This is where you should call on your prosecutors.  I understand you do have a .10 per se now, but there is some case law that has developed some fuzziness between per se and presumptive.  The difference isn't totally clear cut in all states, your prosecutors could address it."

 

Mr. Regan stated, "I take a exception to Mr. Snodgrass on the Scandinavians.  There are very few if no repeat drunk drivers in Scandinavia. .... Those are very poor statistics to compare to our country using Scandinavia.  There are no repeat drunk drivers in Northern Europe."

 

Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Snodgrass about Oregon and Utah which had a 10 year record of .08 on the books.  Mr. Toomin stated he did not see any information or statistics showing the .08 law alleviated any DUI problems in those states.  Mr. Snodgrass explained the largest study was done in California not in Oregon or Utah.  Mr. Snodgrass referred Mr. Toomin to the NHTSA report prepared for Congress (Exhibit N).

 

Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Snodgrass if in his reports there were statistics for the total number of accidents and total number of fatalities, not just those alcohol related.  Mr. Snodgrass stated, "The data on fatal accidents were very good but our data on non-fatal accidents is not very good.  The data that dropped 12 percent in California was based upon the good data, the actual chemical test results."

 

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Watkins how he would equate the two experiences of the person being in jail for drunk driving charges versus the victim of a drunk driving accident.  Mr. Watkins stated, "What I tried to point out is with a .08 you are going to have people that are going to be arrested that can drive safely and probably be acquitted in court.  I was not trying to somehow say or compare someone who have been injured or killed by a drunk driver with someone who was arrested.  What I tried to point out was that if you are acquitted in court you still have been punished and you should let an officer have that discretion in the field whether he feels you should be arrested.  Right now officers have that discretion because they can arrest you if they believe you are impaired in .05 up to .09 area."

 

Mr. Zane Miles, Lander County District Attorney's Office, who was not able to attend the hearing submitted written testimony in opposition to AB 246 (Exhibit S).

 

Mr. Sader said there was not enough time to finish hearing AB 246 therefore it would be continued at tommorow's meeting.  Mr. Sader said he spoke to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and AB 246 had a fiscal note of $1 million and any note of $1 million had to go through the Ways and Means Committee.

 

Mr. Petrak wanted clarification on some of the figures in the fiscal note.  Mr. Sader said it would be addressed at tommorow's meeting.

 

There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      CHANDRA PENDERLAND

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

March 9, 1993

Page: 1