MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 15, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, March 15,  1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst

        Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Bonnie Parnell, Self

      Ann McCarthy, Nevada Trial Lawyer's Association

      Bob Teuton, Clark County Juvenile Court Services

      Leonard Pugh, Washoe County Juvenile Probation Department

      Dorothy North, Governor's Drug Commission

      Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Nevada                             Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

      Kevin Quint, Nevada Association of State Substance Abuse                Programs

      Bill Lewis, Carson City Juvenile Probation

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 229:    Expands and temporarily makes mandatory                              provision regarding suspension of driver's                            license of juveniles who commit certain                              unlawful acts.

 

Dorothy North, Chairman, Commission on Substance Abuse Education Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment, appeared before the committee to support passage of A.B. 229.  She stated the drug commission strongly felt deterrents were needed to curb adolescent drug and alcohol abuse.  Mrs. North noted many children today are latch-key children, or children with no parental supervision and felt removal of the driver's license (as mandated by the proposed bill) could be the only incentive for children to avoid drugs or alcohol.  With tragic consequences accompanying teenage drug abuse, she urged passage of the bill.

 

Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, District 28, stated A.B. 229 was her bill in the 1989 Legislative Session.  She explained penalizing the teenager's driver license for alcohol and drug abuse had the most impact on teenagers and initiated the mandatory provision that a judge "shall" suspend or delay issuance of a teenager's driver's license.  Mrs. Chowning received correspondence from  hundreds of teenagers in favor of the proposed legislation.  One reason teenagers favored the bill was the rewarding of positive behavior, as they felt operating a vehicle was a privilege. Mrs. Chowning stated the bill passed unanimously in the 1989 Assembly; however, amended by the Senate, the bill became more lenient.  Mrs. Chowning understood passage of the 1989 bill did not have the positive effect they had hoped for.   She stated a bill in Oregon which mandated suspension of teenage driver's license for alcohol/drug abuse had wonderful results.  Mrs. Chowning expressed desire for lengthening the period of time involved with the suspension.  She felt younger children would know if they ever received an alcohol offense, they would not be able to receive their license until two years later.  Mrs. Chowning stated the bill was supported by juvenile probation officers.  She urged passage of the bill.

 

Chairman Spitler asked for differentiation between the 1989 bill and A.B. 229.  Mrs. Chowning replied the bill basically remained the same except for lengths of time involved, changing "may" to "shall", and temporary issuance of a driver's license.

 

Mr. Anderson expressed concern with suspending a driver's license for possession as proposed in the bill.  He cited an instance of a teenager who unknowingly was in a vehicle with alcohol. Should the vehicle be pulled over, the unknowing teenager would be in offense of possession.  Mr. Anderson stated innocent teenagers would seriously be impacted by the law.  Mrs. Chowning responded suspending or delaying issuance of a driver's license was a much less severe tragedy to happen to young people than dying due to a drunken driver.  She felt possession would not impact the teenager as much but would send a positive message and alleviate negative behavior.  Mrs. Chowning could not envision a high occurrence of unknowing teenagers in vehicles with alcohol.  She stated the preventative message sent by the proposed bill was aimed at the person using or possessing drugs/alcohol, however, if there was an innocent party involved, it could be addressed by the judge.

 

Mr. Collins questioned the language on page one changing "may" to "shall"; however on page two the language changed from "shall" to "may."  Bob Teuton clarified the second change referred to the reinstatement of original bill language after the two year sunset period had expired.   

 

Mrs. North stated the two year trial (sunset) period would be acceptable as a compromise for passage of the bill.  She felt permissiveness of the current law did not offer a fair assessment of the bill's impact as it was difficult to monitor things that did not happen. Mrs. North continued current law is scarcely used by judges because of feedback from parents as parents had to become responsible for their own children's transportation.  

 

Robert Teuton, Clark County Juvenile Court Services submitted written testimony supporting A.B. 229 (Exhibit C).  Clarifying the bill proposed a two year trial period and changed the law from being permissive to mandatory, Mr. Teuton also addressed other changes.  These changes included applicability to fourteen year olds and allowing issuance of restrictive driver's licenses.  Mr. Teuton, a previous prosecutor, experienced fifty to sixty percent of charges denied in Clark County were denied on possession due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove the person had knowledge of the presence of alcohol/drugs or the person  exercised dominative control.   He felt this addressed earlier concerns of Mr. Anderson that innocent teenagers would be affected as circumstantial possession cases were generally filtered out. With the consequences involved, Mr. Teuton pointed out the bill offered juveniles the opportunity to say no to alcohol/drugs while avoiding peer pressure.  Mr. Teuton stated the mandatory suspension of a teenager's driver's license was already in effect in Clark County; unfortunately, twenty percent of the referrals must be denied because those referred were not old enough to drive and the law was not applicable to that group.  Mr. Teuton expressed his excitement with the opportunity to educate students and anticipated the education would result in a decrease of teenagers who abused alcohol or drugs.

 

Chairman Spitler sought clarification on two charts presented by Mr. Teuton (Exhibit D).  Mr. Teuton explained the first chart summarized juveniles, at least sixteen years old, who had a license suspended by the court.  The findings showed a decrease once the mandatory law was implemented in Clark County.  He stated the second chart showed licenses prohibited for those teenagers who had not yet acquired a license.

 

Mr. Teuton, in clarifying a scenario structured by Mr. Anderson, explained an adjudicated fourteen year old found to have committed an act of possession would be able to apply for a reinstatement of a license in six months. Mr. Teuton stated unlike current law, the proposed bill offered repeated sanctions for repeated offenses.   

 

Mr. Anderson expressed concern of sunsets on certain parts of the bill but immediacy on other provisions.  Mr. Teuton gave a brief analysis of the provisions which would sunset.  

 

Mr. McGaughey asked what methods would be used to educate and increase awareness of the proposed law to children.  Mr. Teuton envisioned awareness through poster contest and classroom activities.  When the mandatory law was adopted in Clark County, schools distributed information though the public address system and driver's education courses.   Mr. McGaughey suggested the possible indication the bill insinuated by mandating judges to suspend licenses, there was no faith in judge's decisions in juvenile matters.  Mr. Teuton disagreed as he felt judges had other options. He felt although the legislative body passed a law sending the message that an issue was serious enough that mandated sentences were needed, judges could still avoid mandated laws by dismissing charges.  Mr. Teuton voiced uneasiness with current law in which children who were open and honest received a six month suspension but repeat offenders received no penalties.

 

Mr. McGaughey expressed his concern innocent children could be guilty by association, or simply by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.  He felt the younger children had little say when in a group of older teenagers due to peer pressure.  He felt an amendment should be added to  take those situations into consideration.  Mr. Teuton agreed Mr. McGaughey's concerns were a problem; however whether A.B. 229 was passed or not, it was still an offense for a minor to be in possession of alcohol.   He felt the bill might make it less likely for the problem to occur. 

 

Mr. Collins felt the bill would have little impact regardless of language change as there were no penalties involved.  He felt without penalties to deter, teenagers would continue driving with suspended licenses. 

 

Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety, testified strictly for clarification purposes.  She stated the role of her department on the suspension action regarding minors was strictly administrative and they acted only as the juvenile courts required on a court order.  Reviewing statistics throughout the year, they estimated approximately 500 young people were affected by the court ordered suspension on a yearly basis.  She felt the work load on their department would not be affected.  Mrs. Varin acknowledged the section which required young people to apply consecutively.  She stated because the language was not currently law, the suspension could run concurrently therefore the child would not see any additional length of time. Mrs. Varin also stated DMV would not submit the child to a second examination.  She stated she agreed the Department's examination on traffic laws was not an appropriate test for situations dealing with abuse.  She stated after receiving complaints,  a determination was made since suspension emanated from Chapter 62 and not Chapter 43 (driving statues) they would no longer give the written test as a reinstatement test.  As required in Section 3-9 of the proposed bill, Mrs. Varin expressed the desire of DMV  to assist in disseminating information.   She stressed the importance of education.  Mrs. Varin, addressing the restricted driver's licenses, stated her department would interpret the restricted driver's license very rigidly. For example, if bus service was available the license would not be issued.  Also, the restricted license would not be used for extra-curricular activities.

 

Mrs. Varin, answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, suggested language that specifically limited school use for school purposes only and not extra curricular activities.  As for the accessible school buses, Mrs. Varin stated existing regulations would be expanded. 

 

Leonard Pugh, Assistant Director, Washoe County Juvenile Probation Department, testified in support of the bill.  He felt the bill would serve as a strong deterrent for the younger children to the use of alcohol and drugs and would alleviate peer pressure children faced.

 

Mr. Anderson asked if police officers who might not use the law on the children because of the strong penalty involved.  Mr. Pugh agreed the possibility existed, but suggested communicating rationale behind the law would help them law enforcement agencies develop policy to prohibit officers from using leniency.  Mr. Pugh also acknowledged incidents where children were at the wrong place at the wrong time and felt input from the probation officers, district attorneys, etc., would provide protective screening for innocent youngsters.  

 

Kevin Quint, Nevada Association of State Substance Abuse Programs, Fallon, Nevada, viewed A.B. 229 as a positive deterrent to youth using alcohol and drugs.  He felt societal sanctions said drinking was not appropriate.  In his experience as a youth treatment provider, significant numbers of youth evaluated for substance abuse were caught driving with alcohol but given only minor consumption arrest.  Mr. Pugh thought the bill offered a way to gain children's attention and offer additional help for those youths with addiction problems. 

 

Mr. McGaughey stated many young children were not going to be aware of the penalties involved or consequences of their actions until they violated the law. He felt it unfair that children would be used as sacrificial cases for educating others.  Mr. Pugh felt the awareness effect would be similar to the D.U.I. laws previously mandated. 

 

Mr. Gregory commented on the validity of concerns with student notification.  Embarking on a previously mandated law in Clark County concerning automatic suspension from school for firearm violations, Mr. Gregory agreed poster contests, as done with the firearm law, had a significant effect on educating students of consequences. 

 

Bonnie Parnell, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill.  She stated as a responsible mother, she was concerned with certain issues of the bill.  Disturbing to Mrs. Parnell was enforcement could take place away from a vehicle.  She felt the message "Don't Drink and Drive" had a significant effect and students responded positively.  Mrs. Parnell stated she did not condone teenage drinking, but the sad reality was teenage drinking occurred.  Her concern with the bill was how it affected the role of the designated driver.  Mrs. Parnell called attention to scenarios where teenagers were engaging in recreational activities with alcohol present; however, children were responsible enough to think ahead of time and designated a driver(s). Mrs. Parnell stated if authorities entered the party, the non consuming teenager would be arrested for being a minor in possession and, under the proposed law, would lose his driver's license just as the teenager who had the very high blood alcohol level.  She felt this was unfair to the non consuming teenager.  Mrs. Parnell felt the bill defeated the purpose of teenagers respecting and honoring the role of the designated driver.  Mrs. Parnell felt another indirect message sent to teenagers by having the designated driver was the opportunity to say "I'm not drinking, I'm driving." Mrs. Parnell urged an amendment to remove the word "possessing." 

 

Chairman Spitler agreed the designated driver issue was important and public education had been positive.  Chairman Spitler asked if  concerns expressed by Mrs. Parnell had surfaced with the current law.  Mrs. Parnell stated there had been a number of students in Carson City affected with suspension of driver licenses.  She felt the law discriminated against those responsible teenagers who had heard the message, and in essence, saved the lives of teenagers.   Mrs. Parnell addressed her concerns with communication as she was surprised to learn of students affected by the current law as communication through the school district or other channels was not received.  Mrs. Parnell concluded  as a single mother of two teenage boys, she was relieved to know her children were conscientious enough to use a designated driver.

 

Mr. Toomin voiced his concern that the message sent by Mrs. Parnell was that of condoning teenage drinking.  Mrs. Parnell repeated she did not condone teenage drinking but accepted the fact that teenage drinking did take place and her concern was with the non consuming teenager. 

 

Mr. McGaughey felt having no distinction between alcohol consuming or non alcohol consuming teenagers when arrested for possession provided no incentive to maintain nonconsuming teenagers.  Mr. McGaughey felt the bill was a lot broader than having possession of alcohol in a vehicle and used the driver's license as a penalty regardless of where the possession took place. 

 

Chairman Spitler commented the same situation was taking place at the federal level as mandates were placed on highway funds for possession of drugs.

 

Mr. Hettrick pointed out as the law currently reads, the problem with possession exists anyway.  He felt the proposed bill did not expand the scope of the law but mandated the penalty. 

 

Ann McCarthy, Nevada Trial Lawyer's Association, testified in opposition to the bill.  As a mother, lawyer, and teacher of drug/alcohol abuse programs, she voiced several concerns with the bill.  She felt discretion should remain with the judges.  Mrs. McCarthy indicated designated drivers rarely were seen in her drug/alcohol classes as those cases were screened.  Results of a private poll conducted in her alcohol/drug classes reported three of five students had a designated driver when engaging in social activities with alcohol.  Mrs. McCarthy also felt the bill provided students the opportunity to say "no" to alcohol without succumbing to peer pressure.  She voiced concern with mandatory laws for those people who did not quite deserve the mandated penalty, yet, others received less severe sentences for more severe crimes. She felt such mandatory actions showed disrespect to the juvenile judges.

 

Mr. Hettrick sought suggestions for amending language to address possession, temporary licenses and consecutive licenses.  

 

Mr. McGaughey asked if the current law was accomplishing the expected goal.  Mrs. McCarthy felt progress was being made and thought if the law was given a little more time, significant results would be seen. 

Mr. Anderson questioned the sections which would sunset into permanent language making current law more powerful.   Mrs. McCarthy agreed the current law could become more powerful if given additional time.

 

Mr. Garner ascertained many deterrents could be used to dissuade young people from drinking but he was curious of the effect on insurance rates when young people were convicted. Mrs. Varin stated offenses for  young people were specifically deleted from information sent to the insurance companies by statute.  She explained it was a court ordered suspension. 

 

Mr. Garner offered a home arrest program could be implemented as a deterrent in dissuading young people from drinking.  Mrs. McCarthy stated home arrest actions were already at the discretion of juvenile probationary officers and most used home arrest on clients, as did judges. 

 

 

Bill Lewis, Chief Probation Officer, Carson City Juvenile Probation, reviewed statistics from his referral program entitled "Alcohol and Drug Life Skills Education Program." (Exhibit E)  Mr. Lewis stated findings found 88 percent of clients were successful.   

 

Chairman Spitler submitted a phone message from Edna Herrera of Elko, Nevada urging passage of A.B. 229 (Exhibit F).

 

Answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Lewis stated most students learned of his program through word of mouth.  His program had been in effect for over a year. 

 

With no further testimony regarding A.B. 229, Chairman Spitler closed the hearing.

 

Chairman Spitler announced a workshop session would take place in approximately two weeks taking action on bills heard in the committee thus far. 

 

With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.

 

          

            RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                   

            Carolyn J. Harry

            Committee Secretary

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Transportation

March 15, 1993

Page 1