MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 16, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:06 a.m., April 16, 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

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Ms. Stephanie Smith           (absent/excused)

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Carlos E. Brandenburg, Ph.D., Director of Forensic          Services, Nevada Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental            Retardation

      Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal         Division

      Mr. Bradford Bodeau, Intern for Senator Diana M. Glomb

      Mr. Thomas Tate, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on            Tourism

      Mr. John Sarb, Administrator, Nevada Division of Child and       Family Services

      Captain Enrico N. Togneri, Commander, Forensic Science         Division, Washoe County Sheriff's Office

 

 

After roll call, Chairman Sader called the meeting to order.

 

 

 

Assembly Bill No. 469         Ratifies technical corrections                                 made to NRS and Statutes of Nevada                                    1991.                       

 

Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, introduced the 1993 legislative session's ratification bill, A.B. 469.  He presented a legislative overview of the bill.  He advised the committee ratification bills insured the integrity of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which were in themselves not law, but the codified version of permanent general laws.  He noted the bills contained in the statutes of Nevada were the official law.

 

To present a clearer picture of the ratification bill process,  Mr. Malkiewich apprised the committee of the means by which the bill was drafted.  After session, the Legislative Counsel Bureau printed the Nevada Revised Statutes.  Some of the bills passed during the legislative session contained inconsistencies.  The Legislative Counsel Bureau would attempt to ascertain the legislative intent of these bills and print the Nevada Revised Statutes.  A ratification bill would be passed during the following session to ratify what had been printed in the Nevada Revised Statutes.  Once the bill had passed, the codified version of the Nevada Revised Statutes would reflect what the statute of Nevada had provided.

 

Mr. Malkiewich stated the ratification bill was an extremely technical bill.  He provided an example.  If there were two provisions in separate bills which amended the same section, and were not adequately reconciled during session, a conflict notice would be sent to the committee to adopt an amendment which would incorporate the changes from the one bill to another.  The second bill would reflect the changes of both bills.  Ratification bills would do this after the fact.

 

To further codify the ratification process, Mr. Malkiewich maintained reading sections of bills might become misleading as the brackets and underscores reviewed during the session did not reflect the changes in the ratification bill which were the substantive changes made during the previous session contained in the underlining bills being amended.  He added, the technical changes were required to be referred to in the notes of the ratification bill which explained the changes.  An example of this would be an amended provision where the new material had mistakenly not been italicized.  When a new bill was presented and the  section had been previously amended, an attempt would be made to resolve the conflict.  Not seeing the italicized material in the changes, the provision would often be omitted in the second bill.  The ratification bill showed this as existing language in the section as it should have been in the previous year.   

 

Mr. Scherer was assigned to assist in the ratification bill process and would report back to the committee.

 

Mr. Tom Tate, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Tourism, testified in favor of the passage of A.B. 469.  He addressed his  concerns toward the clarity of the provisions contained in the bill, under Section 43, page 68, lines 5 through 20, subsections (c), (d) (1) (2) and (3).  Mr. Tate had conferred with executive directors of the Reno/Sparks and Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authorities.  He requested clarification of the aforementioned sections.  As Mr. Tate read the provisions, the language appeared to pledge room taxes for any purposes the city desired.  He alleged the language was not consistent with the law in respect to room tax revenues. 

 

In reply, Mr. Malkiewich stated he would need to research the bills to respond to Mr. Tate's concern.  As the notes indicated, three bills of the 66th Session amended NRS 268.095:  A.B. 112 was the Clark County Tax Bill for the construction of roads;  A.B. 303 was the general business tax bill; and A.B. 574.  He stated A.B. 574 failed to reflect the earlier amendments contained in A.B. 303 which were effective July 1 and resolved the technical error.  A.B. 303 amendments had been incorporated into A.B. 574.  The italicized language was the language added by A.B. 574.  He noted there should not be any difference between the italicized language added which was the change made by A.B. 574.

 

Mr. Sader suggested any issues of substantive concern should be addressed to Mr. Scherer.  He suggested substantive concerns might best be dealt with in a separate bill as these were not presumed to be policy issues. 

 

Dr. Carlos Brandenburg, Director, Lakes Crossing Center, testified on behalf of the Nevada Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation.  He noted his concern related to NRS 178.455 addressed in A.B. 469, page 3, Section 5, line 15.  He was under the impression the provision was a technical correction to a bill which had been passed during the previous session and permitted municipal judges and justices of the peace to refer individuals to Lakes Crossing for evaluations of competency to stand trial.  He noted the probability of a fiscal impact as municipal court justices or justices of the peace might send offenders to Lakes Crossing and appoint sanity commissions.

 

Dr. Brandenburg addressed the phrase "unless the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor" contained in A.B. 469, page 3, Section 5, lines 22 through 23.  He noted Lakes Crossing admitted gross misdemeanor offenders from municipal courts and justices of the peace.  There were three to four times as many misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenders as felony offenders.  He alleged the intent of the language required clarification.  As Dr. Brandenburg understood, only district court judges could impanel sanity commissions.  He asserted removing the word "district" from A.B. 469 might potentially cause problems for Lakes Crossing.  If the phrase "unless the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor" were to be removed, he asked what procedures would be in place for those individuals charged with misdemeanors.  He contended, other than NRS 174.15 and NRS 425, there were no procedures for evaluations for competency after incompetency determinations had been made. 

 

Mr. Malkiewich indicated the technical error contained in A.B. 469 was with the original language, except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a sanity commission must be impaneled. Subsection 4 had not been added.  The remaining language which had been amended into the bill had been taken from another bill which had not passed.  The reference to subsection 4 pertained to misdemeanor cases and an exception for misdemeanor cases.  He maintained this was why the reference had been changed to a misdemeanor.  Mr. Malkiewich stated, if this was not the intent of the provision, he would obtain more detailed analysis of the actions.  This provision was one which they assumed the intent would have been unlike other bills where there were simply two amendments to the same section which did not reflect each other.  He contended this was simply one provision where the section did not work.  He assured the committee he would obtain a detailed analysis of the section.

 

Mr. Scherer would review the previous sections discussed and ascertain whether the current law accurately reflected the intent or if the issues required addressing.

 

There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 469.  He opened the hearing on S.B. 79.

 

 

 

SENATE BILL NO. 79                  Eliminates requirement that                                 adoptive parents of child with                                 special needs have limited                                   financial resources to receive                                     financial assistance.           

 

Assemblyman Anderson introduced S.B. 79 to the Judiciary Committee.

 

Mr. Bradford Bodeau, Intern for Senator Diana Glomb, stated Senator Glomb had been chairwoman for the interim S.B. 611 study committee.  He read Senator Glomb's testimony before the Judiciary Committee members, Exhibit C.

 

Mr. John Sarb, Administrator, Nevada Division of Child and Family Services, testified in support of S.B. 79.  He stated, by combining the two subsidy programs, it would make it easier to find placements for special needs adoptions.  He noted the number of special needs children requiring care.  The adoption subsidy program had been an effective way to find placements for these children.  The agency was anticipating federal legislation which would accomplish, or mandate, the same provisions for the state.  It was anticipated the provisions would become federal law in the ensuing year. 

 

Mr. Toomin addressed his concern toward the unscrupulous adoptive parents who adopted special needs children for monetary gain.  In reply, Mr. Sarb noted in subsidy adoptions, monetary gain would not be the motive behind adopting special needs children as foster care was subsidized at a rate of approximately $302 per month which was 57 percent of the average cost of child care.  This would not be a productive motive in these cases.

 

Mr. Toomin asked what criteria was used to select prospective adoptive parents.  In reply, Mr. Sarb stated it depended on the special needs of the children.  The department might require prospective parents of children with specific handicapped conditions to obtain training which dealt with the specific handicaps.  In cases of minority children adoptions, the preferences were for same-race adoptions although, he noted, this was not mandatory.  There had been 23 transracial adoptions within the past two years.  In adoptions across racial lines, the department required the adoptive parents to understand the cultures of the children.

 

In reply to Mr. Anderson's concern, Mr. Sarb stated the agency considered the income of the prospective adoptive parents.  These prospective parents might be ruled out for subsidy adoptions based on their income.  He maintained the real test was not the income of the prospective adoptive parents, but the incurred costs to care for the children.  He noted there were a number of families with moderate incomes who failed the means tests.  Adoption of special needs children meant significant lifestyle changes.  For example, in two-income families, one parent would have to quit work to care for the special needs child.  Prospective adoptive parents simply could not adopt unless the state could offer funds to offset lost income.  Mr. Sarb contended this was the intent of S.B. 79. 

 

In reply to Mr. Haller's concern, Mr. Sarb noted the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services administered the statute.  There were four prospective adoption agencies within the state:  the state Division of Child and Family Services, Jewish Family Services, Catholic Community Services and the Latter Day Saints Social Services. 

 

Mr. Sarb informed the committee of the fiscal note to S.B. 79.  The first year would entail $54,360 and the second year was projected to be $59,796.  He maintained the revenues for S.B. 79 would come from the foster care account.  The department would accrue funds from the foster care account and augment the adoption subsidy line item account.  He noted funding had not been addressed in the Governor's budget.  According to Mr. Sarb, the Senate Finance Committee had indicated they would address this matter.  The Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee would conduct the modification. 

 

To augment the discussion, Chairman Sader surmised Senator Raggio would have placed S.B. 79 in the Finance Committee until the budget was readied for processing.  Mr. Sarb added, in discussing with Senator Raggio where the division would find $54,000, he clarified the funding would come from the department's budget account no. 3229, the foster care account. 

Chairman Sader suggested the Assembly Judiciary Committee pass S.B. 79.  He would discuss the issues with Mr. Arberry.  He assured the committee, if the issues were not settled on both sides, the bill would be referred to the Ways and Means Committee.  If there continued to be debate on the issues, Mr. Sader noted it would not be a question of substance.  They might have to consider altering budgets which required policy decisions. 

 

Chairman Sader understood the record to reflect S.B. 79 had not been heard in the Senate Finance Committee but had been referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.  Mr. Sarb corrected S.B. 79 had been heard before the Senate Finance Committee.  

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

Mr. Anderson was assigned to handle S.B. 79 on the Assembly Floor.

 

      ******

 

 

Chairman Sader informed the committee no action would be taken on A.B. 469 at this time.

 

 

      ******

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 363         Allows admission into evidence                                     affidavit of certain laboratory                                    directors to prove results of test                                 conducted at medical laboratory.

 

Chairman Sader requested committee action on A.B. 363 which would allow admission into evidence an affidavit of certain laboratory directors to prove the results of tests conducted.  He noted previous testimony necessitated an amendment to the bill.  There had been no opposition from committee members. Chairman Sader stated the following language would be added to A.B. 363, Section 1, page 1, line 8, subsequent to subsection (b), "the evidentiary foundation upon which the results of the test are based, including the description of the test, the personnel involved and the controls employed in conducting the test."

 

Mr. Porter addressed his concern toward the proposed provision and asserted the affidavit should have foundational support for the proper procedures to ascertain whether or not the tests had been conducted.  He alleged the language in the proposed provision was loose.  He believed the courts would sufficiently interpret the language as the provisions were contained in the evidence code.

 

Chairman Sader informed the committee this amendment to A.B. 363 would be Amendment Number 226.

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

 

Mr. Scherer relayed his concern with the language contained in A.B. 363 which pertained to the affidavits admissible to prove the cases as addressed in subsections (a), (b), and the proposed subsection (c).  He asked if an additional section or subsection 3 to the bill might better address the concerns.  He noted the language stated "the affidavit must contain" as opposed to "it's admissible to prove."  Mr. Porter interjected and maintained this was what he alluded to.

 

Chairman Sader clarified the issues and stated the new language would not be contained in subsection (b) but would be addressed in a separate subsection and would specify affidavits must contain the alluded information.

 

As the maker of the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 363, Mr. Porter accepted the language alluded to as an understanding of his motion.  Mr. Petrak, as the second to the motion, also concurred with the prevailing language.

 

Chairman Sader noted the motion would be to amend A.B. 363 with the language specified in the amendment.  The language would be contained as a separate section and would specify the added language must be contained in the affidavit. 

 

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

      ******

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 393         Permits imposition of sentence                                without presence of defendant                                 under certain circumstances.

 

Chairman Sader requested committee consideration of the proposed amendment to A.B. 393, Exhibit D which was a rewrite of the language contained in Section 1, subsection 2, (b), lines 10 through 16.  He clarified the phrase "absence himself before sentencing" which meant defendants were actually incarcerated in other jurisdictions.  The amendment would delete the term "voluntarily absents himself" and would insert the phrase "incarcerated in another jurisdiction".  The amended language would also contain additional language relating to concurrent sentencing.  

 

Chairman Sader delivered the suggested provision to A.B. 393, Section 1, subsection 2, (b), lines 10 through 16, "If the defendant was present at the trial through the time he pleads guilty or is found guilty but at the time of sentencing is incarcerated in another jurisdiction, he may waive his right to be present at the sentencing proceedings, and may agree to be sentenced in the State of Nevada to a term of imprisonment in absentia, only if the term is to run concurrent and is to expire on or before the completion of the sentence in the other jurisdiction."  He claimed a waiver form would be required to contain this information in order to be consistent with the statute. 

 

Mr. Porter requested further interpretation of A.B. 393.  In response, Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, District Attorney's Association, noted the bill had been initiated by the Attorney General's Office although the significance of the bill affected the counties.  Mr. Porter directed his concern toward the last paragraph.  He queried if the bill would restrict courts if they wanted to sentence to terms longer than the inmates were serving in other jurisdictions.  Mr. Graham stated he was apprehensive with the language and contended defendants should not be bound but should have the opportunity for sentence resolution.  Mr. Graham suggested wording the language to provide more flexibility and not bind the courts in this way. 

 

Mr. Sader suggested, to resolve the issues addressed in reference to A.B. 393, insert a period after the word "absentia" and remove the last clause.  Mr. Graham concurred with the suggestion and agreed the alteration would be beneficial.  If there were problems with the language, the issues would be resolved in the Senate committee.

 

Mr. Porter alleged the problem with A.B. 393 lay with the constitutionality of the language.  He believed inmates should be present for their sentencings.  The state would not want to extradite inmates from other states to complete sentencing in Nevada for short periods of time.  He maintained the state might be obligated to extradite inmates in cases where there were sentences remaining. 

 

Chairman Sader pointed out the dialogue between Mr. Porter and Mr. Graham indicated it would be more advantageous to place a period after the term "in absentia" and delete the last clause as it further restricted the courts and restricted the ability to obtain waivers.  It would not be in the defendant's best interest.  Mr. Graham concurred.  Mr. Sader maintained it was a questionable practice to extradite defendants with concurrent prison sentences from other states.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked, by creating the waiver, would another issue be created as to the mitigation of the sentencing which could be appealed.  In response, Mr. Graham noted, if jurisdictions were to use the Nevada convictions as enhancements for crimes committed elsewhere, defendants might be able to challenge those convictions.  If the cases could not be resolved, he could not justify spending taxpayers dollars to bring the defendants back to Nevada as the defendants would be serving little time.  In summation, Mr. Graham stated in some cases the extradition costs did not merit the short sentencing time in Nevada. 

 

In reply to Mr. Anderson's concern, Mr. Graham stated other written plea agreements had been enacted during the previous legislative session which had created expectations with the defendants.  He explained, if the courts rejected what the defense attorneys, prosecutors and defendants anticipated, the defendants could withdraw their pleas.  Frequently, when defendants desired the options, the alternatives were put into those agreements.  This was not done in absence of council with the other states.  Mr. Graham stated he hesitated directing the legislature to mandate the constitutionality of the statute as it was the responsibility of the District Attorney's Office to do so.

 

Mr. Scherer noted sentencing was a critical stage and defendants had the right to be represented by counsel. The committee members were not addressing individuals who could not afford counsel nor entitled to counsel.  Mr. Graham added defendants frequently had counsel appointed.  Mr. Scherer addressed the testimony presented which pertained to the statutory right to address the courts during sentencing and the need to include additional language.  Mr. Graham responded by stating the waivers would be included in the written waivers.  He was satisfied the proposed language corrected Mr. Scherer's concern. 

Chairman Sader clarified the proposed change to A.B. 393 which would insert a period before the word "only."  The last two lines would be deleted. 

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

 

Lengthy discussion on the proposed amendments to A.B. 393 ensued.

     

Mr. Porter informed the committee he would be voting against the motion to amend and do pass as he believed it would create problems in the future.  He surmised writs might be filed.  He estimated 90 percent of the cases would entail public defenders and track attorneys who would never meet or have communication with their clients.  He contended, for the most part, the defendants would be poor, would have committed burglaries in one state, crossed the state line, and committed another crime in another state.  He predicted multi-jurisdictional issues.  States would attempt to unload financial burdens off to one another.  Mr. Porter strongly believed defendants should face their accusers and sentencers, and appear before the judges to be sentenced for the offenses committed.  He argued this was a critical stage in the criminal process.  He maintained he would vote against sentencing "in absencia." 

 

Mr. Anderson alleged he would vote against the motion on A.B. 393.  He was concerned with the sentencing aspects as crime victims' concerns were with reaching a point of culmination.  He contended the victims wanted to see justice knowing the defendants appeared before the sentencing judges and paid for the crimes committed. 

 

Mr. Petrak stated he would vote against the motion to amend A.B. 393 as he also strongly believed it was justified defendants should appear before the courts for the wrongs they had committed.

 

Chairman Sader addressed the committee members and maintained they were losing track of the context in which the intent of A.B. 393 arose.  He elaborated on the significance of the bill.  The paradigm was with defendants in other jurisdictions who desired to waive their rights and return to Nevada.  A vote against the proposed amendment to A.B. 393 would connote they concurred defendants did not object to waiving their rights, nor utilizing the Nevada taxpayers' money to extradite defendants back before the sentencing judges and return them to the other states where they had been incarcerated.  He added there were strange actions taken in the criminal justice system which stemmed from the constitutional rights afforded to individuals.  This was a situation where defendants wanted to waive their rights.

 

Mr. Porter contended to phrase the issues in the context of constitutional rights in dollars and cents was misleading to the committee.

 

Chairman Sader called for a roll call vote on the proposed amendments to A.B. 393.  He declared the motion on the floor was amend and do pass. 

 

      THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN   ANDERSON, PETRAK AND PORTER VOTED AGAINST.  ASSEMBLYMAN       CARPENTER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)   

 

Mr. Gibbons was assigned to handle A.B. 393 on the Assembly Floor.

 

      ******

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 389         Makes various changes related to                                  procedures for determining                                     percentage of alcohol in person's                                  blood, urine or breath.

 

Chairman Sader requested committee consideration on A.B. 389 which had been heard previously.  He informed the committee A.B. 389 related to DUI blood and breath test determinations.  He noted the bill had not been considered during the initial hearing because the trial lawyers desired testimony be presented by Mr. John Watkins, the DUI defense lawyer in Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Watkins supplied written testimony in the form of a cover letter and a copy of a journal published for the defense bar on DUI matters entitled "Law and Science DWI Journal", Exhibit E.  His premise was these types of laws were unconstitutional.  Chairman Sader noted since Mr. Watkins had raised the issue, further discussion on the bill was required before action on the bill ensued.

 

Mr. Sader noted other DUI statutes were in place which expressed the per se crime and addressed the quantity of blood alcohol concentration.  The statute had been passed during the 1989 legislative session which also quantified the amount of breath alcohol concentration for purposes of breath testing.  He noted most of the statutes which referenced alcohol quantities alluded to blood alcohol concentration.  A.B. 389 addressed both blood and breath alcohol concentrations.  Mr. Sader noted Mr. Watkins raised the question as to whether the conversions from blood to breath alcohol concentration could be ascertained scientifically.  As he understood, several states had passed the law and it was federally mandated. 

 

Captain Enrico N. Togneri, Commander, Forensic Science Division, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, responded to the issues Mr. Watkins alluded to in his correspondence.  He submitted copies of material to substantiate the Washoe County Sheriff's Office's defense, Exhibit F.

 

Captain Togneri referenced the general provisions contained in the Nevada Revised Statutes, "Traffic laws, General Provisions,"  Exhibit F.  He referred to NRS 484.0135, enacted in 1989, and defined alcohol levels in 210 liters of breath.

 

Captain Togneri referenced "The Technology of Breath-Alcohol Analysis," Exhibit F, published by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.  He alluded to the 2,100/1 ratio and the different debates which ensued over the years.

 

Captain Togneri addressed the report published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, titled "Alcohol Limits for Drivers: A Report on the Effects of Alcohol and Expected institutional Responses to New Limits, Report to Congress February 1991," Exhibit F.  He stated the report had been prepared in response to Section 9003, Public Law 100-690, dated November 18, 1988, Drug Abuse Act of 1988.  The report recommended all states use a breath measurement to establish alcohol impairment.

 

Captain Togneri denigrated several misconceptions in Mr. Watkins' dispute.  He noted Mr. Watkins' position was based on a non-peer review journal.  He contended the article contained in the "DWI Journal" did not contain studies relating alcohol impairment to breath alcohol levels.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had conducted a study which revealed, out of 30 studies performed, 23 of those studies had been done by breath tests alone, rather than by blood tests.  He alleged there had been supportive testimonies presented by all facets of the scientific community upholding the 2,100/1 ratio.  He added the ratio was variable at times and the availability did not impact the true impairment level of alcohol consumption.  The accuracy of breath tests had been proven in tests.  The results had been shown extensively by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration.  Studies had proven breath alcohol concentration levels were as accurate in measuring alcohol impairment as blood tests were. 

 

As Captain Togneri understood, the only Supreme Court action which challenged the 2,100/1 ratio was the New Jersey Supreme Court.  After extensive testimony had been heard from alcohol experts from Sweden, Germany and the United States, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the 2,100/ 1 ratio and acknowledged the use of breath testing for DUI alcohol concentration as accurate. 

 

Captain Togneri noted the changes made in A.B. 389 would not affect the issues Mr. Watkins brought up which were addressed in NRS 484.0135, Exhibit F. 

 

Mr. Sader stated the committee had previously codified the conversion question.  He alleged, if the issues addressed were the case, the constitutionality of the bill was substantiated.  Mr. Sader noted, if the argument of constitutionality was raised, it would pertain to the statute.  Captain Togneri replied the constitutional argument Mr. Watkins referred to pertained to NRS 484.0135  as it defined the level of impairment.  The amendment to A.B. 389 only cleaned up the language. 

 

In response to Mr. Collins' inquiry, Captain Togneri stated, based on previous legislation which enacted testing for intoxication, regulations in the state mandated two breath tests.  He added there was only one draw on blood testing, per individual, although blood samples could entail many tests.  In certain DUI cases, three blood samples could be taken in felony DUI cases. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

Mr. Petrak was assigned to handle A.B. 389 on the Assembly Floor.

 

 

      ******

 

 

Chairman Sader opened the hearing for discussion of committee business.  He addressed the status of bills to date.  155 bills had come before the committee which was average for the volume.  This was one fourth of the total volume of the bills which had gone through the Assembly.  76 bills had been processed either by do pass motions, amend and do pass, or rereferred.  He noted the committee had killed 38 bills and there were another 41 pending in committee.  49 percent of the bills which had come into the committee had been passed.  25 percent had been killed and another 26 percent were pending; this included the bills scheduled for the following week.

 

Chairman Sader noted the Judiciary Committee was hearing all bills within a week to ten days of the time they were referred.  He noted the bills pending were either bills in subcommittee, bills which had been asked to be held for witnesses for later hearings, or bills which had been heard but not acted upon.  There were a number of bills in the drawer which Chairman Sader considered killed but had not been indefinitely postponed.  The Judiciary Committee had not indefinitely postponed the remaining 38 bills but had indefinitely postponed more than 20 of these bills.  The other bills were in the drawer and would not be heard.

 

Mr. Toomin, Chairman of the Vicious Dog Bill Subcommittee, noted the bill had been redrafted and paralleled the South Carolina vicious dog bill.  Each subcommittee member had reviewed the South Carolina bill and concurred the South Carolina bill was not satisfactory and would not address the needs of the constituents in Nevada.  An amendment had been drafted with suggested language submitted by canine groups and an attorney.  The subcommittee intended to submit the amendment for a full hearing as opposed to a subcommittee hearing. 

 

Chairman Sader reiterated the vicious dog bill subcommittee preferred to revise the draft and conduct another hearing as the language had been drastically changed.  Mr. Haller stated he personally preferred the vicious dog bill be considered in subcommittee rather than before the committee as he noted there were different situations which pertained to rural dogs as opposed to urban dogs.  In reply, Chairman Sader noted if there were enough votes from the committee to kill the bill, it might be considered. 

 

Chairman Sader requested the subcommittee members contact him within a week if there were problems, as bills would be submitted by 4/22/93. 

                       

Chairman Sader addressed the five fee bills.  He reiterated A.B. 50 raised court filing fees for various purposes.  He informed the proponents of the bill of his desire the Nevada Association of Counties bill be heard in the Government Affairs Committee before the Judiciary Committee voted on the fee bills so they would be cognizant of the filing fees.  The Nevada Association of Counties had requested the Judiciary Committee withhold action as they had the omnibus bill which would raise county fees in various areas other than court filing fees.  Chairman Sader noted action must be a coordinated effort.

 

 

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing at 9:25 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY

 

 

 

                                                      

      Jessie A. Caple         

                                      Committee Secretary

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

April 16, 1993

Page: 1