MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
March 23, 1993
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Lori L. Brown
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ernest E. Adler, Carson City, Capitol District
Assemblywoman Myrna T. Williams, Clark County, District 10
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst
Terri Jo Wittenberg, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Judge Robey B. Willis, Justice of the Peace, Carson City
Judge Edward Johnson, Justice of the Peace, Dayton
Patrick B. Walsh, Attorney, Carson City
Noel S. Waters, District Attorney, Carson City
Judy Jacoboni, President, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), Lyon County Chapter
Garth Dull, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Kimberly Bennion, Nevada Division of the California State Automobile Association (CSAA)
Brian C. Harris, Legal Counsel, Governor's Office
Brian E. Doran, Court Administrator, Sparks Municipal Court, City of Sparks
Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing with a work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 29.
S.B. 29: Expands certain definitions for purposes of sale and registration of motor vehicles.
Chairman O'Donnell distributed an amendment to the committee for their review. He said the amendment corrected the language in the bill which made it incongruent. He said there had also been a request to exempt long-term lessors from the bill.
Senator James said:
I looked at this bill and what it appears to me to do is to, by changing the definition of new vehicle requires someone who wants to sell a new vehicle to be a new vehicle dealer and have a franchise and all these other requirements in the statute. And so somebody who functions now as an auto broker wouldn't be able to sell new vehicles any longer in the State of Nevada. Is that how the committee understands it?
Chairman O'Donnell said:
Basically that's true. If you are going to purchase a vehicle from a dealership in Nevada and then re-sell it as a new vehicle in the State of Nevada, this particular law will prohibit that. If you're going to buy a new car you have to buy it from a dealership.
Senator James said:
Yes, you couldn't even sell it as a used vehicle because it would be statutorily defined as a new vehicle until it has 2500 miles on it. Is that right?
Chairman O'Donnell said:
No, the correction that you made, I believe, takes care of that little problem.
Senator James said:
No, I agree with my amendment. I think that was right to accomplish what this bill was accomplishing. I was just pointing out, in the prior hearing, that the language of the bill, as written, was enigmatic. It needed to be fixed. Now I'm talking about whether or not this is a good piece of legislation. My question is whether or not there isn't some kind of a compromise that could be reached where auto brokers could still be able to function in Nevada if they were licensed and had the ability to be bonded and then sell new vehicles that they purchase on a broker basis, instead of putting them out of business. That's my question.
Chairman O'Donnell said:
Well, I don't know if there is a compromise.
Senator James said:
I want to just add this, Mr. Chairman. Let me just add this. I understand the argument that the dealerships have a substantial investment and they purchase these franchises and they invest in equipment and the plant and everything to sell the vehicles and [they are] an important part of the economy. So I understand that. I also recognize their difficulty with someone who then goes to California or wherever and then tries to underprice that vehicle and bring it back to Nevada. But my own philosophical point of view is that I'm not sure whether government ought to be the one to say that we now outlaw that other business. Unless there is a consumer protection reason for it and I think our job as legislators is to find out if there's a way to protect the public from some unscrupulous auto broker or one that wouldn't pass along the warranty information or whatever and then let the market work out where people would go to buy their cars; whether to a dealer or to one of these brokers and they can have price competition and then the consumers would benefit from that. That's my belief how the free market ought to work. I'm not sure whether this legislation really would promote that.
Chairman O'Donnell said:
Well, I think there is a consumer issue here. The Ford Motor Company has stated that the liability now will shift. Essentially, they're going to take a hands-off and no responsibility if something ever happened to the vehicle because of the fact the individual was not notified about a defect in the car. The manufacturer is not going to stand liable anymore. The liability now will rest on the auto broker. The problem is, the auto broker does not have the finance wherewithal to substantiate a claim or to resolve a claim, if made, due to a defect and the inability to be notified. So there is a sense of consumer liability out there. If we don't do something then that consumer may be harmed.
Senator Brown said she did agree with Senator James on this issue. She added, as a consumer protection bill, S.B. 29 was the wrong bill. She said a consumer bill should say that a broker has to transfer all warranties and notices of defects. She said the bill does not do that. She said it just tries to put the brokers out of business. She said, that in terms of competition, the dealers did offer something very different from the brokers.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. 35 AND DO PASS S.B. 29.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS BROWN, JACOBSEN AND JAMES VOTED NO. SENATOR NEAL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Donnell closed the work session and opened the hearing on S.B. 191.
S.B. 191: Provides that imprisonment is not mandatory for driving without driver's license after expiration of period of suspension, revocation or restriction of license.
Judge Robey B. Willis, Justice of the Peace, Carson City, testified in favor of S.B. 191. Judge Willis said this was an administrative bill and not a driving under the influence (DUI) bill. He added, the original language stopped short in the existing law and was ambiguous on the issue. He said after the mandatory revocation period has expired it should be up to the judge to impose jail time or not.
Judge Willis said sometimes the court sees a person who has had their driver's license revoked for a period of time and that period may have expired a long time ago and that person is caught driving without a valid driver's license. He said he thinks this person should be fined for driving without a valid driver's license, but they should not be given mandatory jail time for the offense.
Judge Edward Johnson, Justice of the Peace, Dayton, testified in favor of S.B. 191. Judge Johnson said he has seen a lot of these types of violation over the years. He said he would like to see the violation changed to driving without a valid driver's license, the same as it would be if they were driving after a suspended license had expired.
Senator Brown asked if there was a reason why those individuals would not have their license reinstated.
Judge Willis said he did not know of any reason why they would not have their license reinstated. He said that was why he felt this was an administrative matter and not something the courts should have to put people in jail for, because they did not go down and get their license.
Judge Johnson said even when these people go in and get their license reinstated the court still must sentence them to a period in jail and then the DMV revokes their license again.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if this would apply to a first-time offender only.
Judge Willis said it would not matter if it was a first or second offense.
Patrick B. Walsh, Attorney, Carson City, spoke in favor of S.B. 191. Mr. Walsh said he does a lot a traffic and DUI law and he said S.B. 191 was an excellent bill. He said there are many people who are not real good at taking care of details and because of this they end up in jail. He said the DUI laws were sufficiently punitive and to then put these people in jail because they did not get their driver's license reinstated was not necessary.
Senator Neal asked if this would affect automobile insurance.
Mr. Walsh said this would not affect the insurance since once a person's license is revoked, they have to file an SR-22 for 3 years. He said if a person fails to file the SR-22, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) will suspend the license. He said this was just for people who had their license revoked for a DUI or refusing to submit to a chemical test for DUI.
Noel S. Waters, District Attorney, Carson City, testified in favor of S.B. 191. Mr. Waters said the important thing to emphasize is, all the bill does is remove the mandatory provisions and leaves it discretionary. He said, in his experience, people just assume their license is suspended for a period of time and when the period is passed, their driver's license is okay to use again.
Judy Jacoboni, President, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, stated that MADD supported S.B. 191. She said originally they had opposed it, but after further investigation, they had decided the bill was not a DUI bill but an administrative bill as had been testified to earlier in the hearing.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 191 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 57.
A.B. 57: Clarifies procedure for obtaining involuntary samples of blood from certain persons suspected of driving under influence of controlled substance or alcohol.
There was no one at the hearing to testify on A.B. 57.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 57 and opened the hearing on A.B. 92.
A.B. 92: Provides that driving while under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance is punishable as felony if committed within 7 years after release from prison after serving any part of sentence imposed for certain offenses.
Mr. Waters testified he was in favor of A.B. 92. Mr. Waters said he was testifying on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys Association. He said the bill simply provides that once an individual has been sentenced for a DUI-related offense and is released, any subsequent violation of the DUI law within 7 years is deemed to be a felony. He said once a person has worked themselves up to a felony DUI status, and doing that would require two misdemeanor DUI's and third felony DUI within 7 years, they should remain in a felony status within 7 years after the first felony sentence is imposed.
Senator Hickey asked about the fiscal note on A.B. 92. He asked if this was cost-effective and also asked how many people this would affect.
Mr. Waters said that in his jurisdiction in Carson City, which represents about 4 percent of the criminal cases statewide, he probably gets 10 or 11 cases per year. He said these people have already been to prison for a DUI and have come out and they have gotten a subsequent DUI and most of them have been well within the 7 year window from the first offense. But he said, there were some which were not within 7 years of the first offense and the bill would address those people.
Senator Hickey asked what the real benefit was and said that maybe there was a better way to deal with them, rather than putting them in prison. He said he did not think this was cost-effective.
Mr. Waters said this bill would address the problem of the people who are "just not learning."
Senator Hickey asked if there was a better idea.
Mr. Waters said there may well be a better idea, but he said he believes rehabilitative programs are personal to an individual. He continued, an individual who is motivated to stop their pattern of behavior can do so and if they do not, all the rehabilitation in the world is not going to change that.
Senator Hickey said he would be more in favor of taking the person's car away from him than putting him in a prison.
Mr. Waters said this bill addresses the aggravated offenders who have been sentenced as felony DUI offenders.
Senator Hickey said we have to release people from prison if the legislature passes more laws which put more people in prison.
Mr. Waters said the chronic DUI offender is a mess and endangers the lives and property of people every time he gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk.
Ms. Jacoboni stated MADD was in favor of A.B. 92. She said she shared Senator Hickey's concern about large numbers of DUI offenders being put back in prison. She did point out, however, that for some offenders this is the only time in their adult lives that they are not driving. She said this closes a loophole where the 7 year window stops the clock from ticking. She said this was a loophole and it needed to be closed.
Ms. Jacoboni said many felony DUI offenders do not stay in prison very long. She added, that the average time served is less than 90 days per 1 year of sentence. She said this was just for DUI offenders and just for felony DUI offenders.
Ms. Jacoboni said the woman who killed her daughter was a first-time offender and was sentenced to 20 years in June 1990, less time served from the month of April when the fatal crash occurred. She added, the woman was released, under house-arrest, in January of this year.
Mr. Walsh said he was opposed to A.B. 92. Mr. Walsh said alcoholism is an illness and is not voluntary. He said this person may get two DUI's and then gets another. He said this person then goes to prison. Then 5 years after his release and maybe 8 years after his first offense gets another DUI. He will go to prison under this bill. He said this person may have done nothing wrong since his prison term. He said it did not make sense to do it this way. He added, A.B. 92 was purely punitive and offers no "carrot at the end the end of the stick, just the stick."
Senator Brown asked if the habitual criminal statue would apply to DUI offenders.
Mr. Walsh said he thought it did as long as they had more than one felony DUI conviction.
Chairman O'Donnell said the bill did not have a fiscal note attached and that there should be one. He said he would request a fiscal note.
Assemblywoman Myrna T. Williams, Clark County, District 10, testified in favor of A.B. 92. Mrs. Williams said the bill came as a result of a meeting with families of motor victims, in particular, victims of DUI offenders.
Mrs. Williams said that in many of these families who had lost a family member, the perpetrator was not a first-time offender.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 92 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 24.
A.J.R. 24: Urges Congress to allow each state to determine sanctions upon driving privilege of drug offenders.
Chairman O'Donnell gave some background information
on A.J.R. 24 (Exhibit C).
Garth Dull, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified as to the importance of this resolution. Mr. Dull said this resolution had to be passed by April 1, 1993, or Nevada will be sanctioned for approximately 5 percent of the state's federal highway funds for 2 years effective October 1, 1993. He said this would be approximately $5 million a year for 2 years and then it would go to 10 percent, per year, for the remainder of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
Mr. Dull said a subsequent law can be passed at any time. He added, this resolution just gives the state enough time to examine the merits of the law.
Senator Brown said she understood the resolution to mean that unless the state passes the resolution which states it does not want a law that revokes all driver's licenses for any drug-related offense, the state will lose highway funds.
Mr. Dull said that was correct; if the state does not enact a law, the state must pass a resolution that the state is in opposition to such a law.
Chairman O'Donnell read from Exhibit C.
Mr. Dull said the resolution merely means the state is opposed to enacting or enforcing a law that would revoke a driver's license for any drug conviction. He said this would not prevent the state from enacting such a law at a later date.
Senator Hickey said he has had a bill drafted which changes the teenage driver's license age from 16 to 18 years of age. He asked if this resolution would be affected by the bill.
Mr. Dull said he did not think it would have any effect.
Senator Brown asked if there were current laws which would contradict this resolution.
Mr. Dull said there were none because this resolution addresses all drug violations and said a person would not have to be driving to lose his driver's license.
Senator Nevin said this was important to point out; a person could be walking down the street and lose his driver's license.
He said driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is already covered under the DUI statutes. He said the state should have a right to determine when a driver's license should be revoked and not the government.
Senator James said this was probably the most unmitigated interference by federal government, with state power, that he had seen in his experience is this session of the legislature. He said the government is telling the state, "Either you adopt a law like we say it should be in your state, regardless of the fact this is a federal system of government, or you lose all the money we might give to you." He said this was away from the highway and people may not even be driving.
Senator James said this law forces the state to pass a resolution the state may not even agree with and maybe the legislature would want to revoke driver's licenses under some circumstances.
Chairman O'Donell asked if Mr. Dull thought the state would really lose money if this resolution was not passed.
Mr. Dull said he has been told there is no discretion in the law and the money would be taken away from Nevada if the state does not pass this resolution by April 1, 1993.
Kimberly Bennion, Nevada Division of the California State Automobile Association (CSAA), said her organization strongly supported A.J.R. 24. She said this is the appropriate way to address the federal legislation. She said CSAA has always believed one's driving privileges should be directly tied to driving offenses and driving activities.
Senator James asked if the resolution could be amended to say that the state opposes having legislation imposed on our state by congress and therefore we oppose adopting the laws that are mandated.
Mr. Dull said this legislation has been passed by several other states and has been examined by several different entities, as to the appropriateness of it. He said any change in it would have to be examined closely.
Ms. Bennion said CSAA in California is proposing another version which was proposed by the Highways Users Association and she would be happy to get a copy of it for the committee to review.
Chairman O'Donnell said this resolution is very poorly worded and he did not like it.
Senator Nevin said this would not preclude the legislature from passing a law.
Senator Hickey suggested a letter from Chairman O'Donnell, stating the committee's position, accompany the resolution.
Brian C. Harris, Legal Counsel, Governor's Office, said he could clarify some points. He said five states have already passed this same type of resolution and three states have imposed or suggested legislation enforcing a suspension.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 24.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 24 AND PLACE IT ON THE GENERAL FILE FOR THE FOLLOWING DAY. (MARCH 24, 1993)
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 191.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 190.
S.B. 190: Provides that imposition of fine is discretionary under certain circumstances for driving without insurance.
Judge Johnson said his court gets a number of people who do not have insurance and cannot afford insurance. He said he tries to encourage them to get insurance by suspending part of the fine and then they must bring in proof of insurance monthly or maybe quarterly and some judges do this for up to 1 year.
Senator Ernest E. Adler, Carson City, Capitol District, spoke in favor of S.B. 190. Senator Adler said if judges have to enforce the law as it is written, they have to impose a fine and then the person cannot buy insurance or the judge can waive some of the fine and require the person to show proof of insurance to the court for a period of time.
The committee discussed the bill.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 190.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Terri Jo Wittenberg,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Transportation
March 23, 1993
Page 1