MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
April 15, 1993
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:40 p.m., on Thursday, April 15, 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:
Assemblyman William A. Petrak, Clark County District 18
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst
Terri Jo Wittenberg, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nile D. Carson, Jr., Deputy Chief, Administrative Services,
City of Reno Police Department
Frank Barker, Captain, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Sandy Heverly, Executive Director/Chapter Administrator, Clark County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD)
Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD)
Tuesday Lynch, Coordinator, Northern Nevada Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Task Force, Victim Impact Panel
Sandra Scott, Chief, Court Counseling, Las Vegas Municipal Court, City of Las Vegas
Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 56.
A.B. 56: Increases penalty, under certain circumstances, for failing or refusing to stop vehicle when signaled by peace officer.
Nile D. Carson, Jr., Deputy Chief, Administrative Services,
City of Reno Police Department, testified in favor of A.B. 56. Mr. Carson offered an amendment (Exhibit C) to the bill. He said when someone does not stop for the police and the police chase them, there are then two vehicles going through the community at rather high speeds. He added, during the past 6 months, the Reno Police Department has had 14 such incidents. He said that out of those 14 incidents, six of them have ended in accidents and two of those six were interventions, where the police car purposely struck the vehicle in order to bring it to a halt. He said, luckily, there were no serious injuries in any of these accidents, however, in all cases there were serious property damage results.
Chairman O'Donnell said the amendment is saying that the person behind the wheel is presumed to be the registered owner.
Mr. Carson said that was correct. He said it allows the owner to say "no I wasn't" the driver.
Chairman O'Donnell said it does not "allow" the owner to say that, it "forces" him to prove that he was not the driver. He asked why they needed that "rebuttable presumption."
Mr. Carson said that right now if an individual eludes arrest, the officer has to be able to identify and name the individual before he can pull off (the chase) and go for a warrant.
Senator Nevin asked if these pursuit vehicles would be marked or unmarked with a "Kojack" light on the dash.
Mr. Carson said the bill is intended to affect those vehicles described in the law.
Senator Nevin said his wife's biggest fear is, when she is going around in the rural areas, that an unmarked car will try to pull her over. He said she would not stop, but she would drive to the nearest police station.
Mr. Carson said it would be extremely difficult to prove an attempt to elude, when they drive to a police station.
Senator Hickey explained an incident, that happened to his wife and daughter, where an unmarked vehicle attempted to pull them over. He said she decided to drive into a shopping center where there would be lots people. He then explained, five cruiser cars closed in and the officers drew their guns on these two women. He said there was no legitimate apology from the department.
Mr. Carson said he could not comment on another department's procedures and performance. Mr. Carson continued, the one saving grace is the police office does not make the final call. The facts go before a magistrate who makes the final call.
Senator Hickey said the common citizen does not usually admonish the police department. He said he has trouble with a system that allows citizens to be harassed because of poor police work.
Chairman O'Donnell said the bill was attempting to solve the problem of high speed chases. He said with this bill these high speed chases need not occur, it there is another way to catch the perpetrator.
Mr. Carson said he could not have said it any better himself.
Chairman O'Donnell asked, if there were an individual who was believed to have committed a crime and was involved in high speed chase, what other means would the police have to find out who the registered owner was and find out who was driving the vehicle. He asked if that was why they were asking for the "rebuttable presumption."
Mr. Carson said in most instances where the registered owner was not driving the vehicle, the owner is more than happy to tell the police who was. He added, when the owner was driving the vehicle it becomes much more difficult to get a statement from him or her.
Chairman O'Donnell said this bill is trying to balance the rights of the individual with the fact that the police do not want to chase people at high speeds through the communities.
Mr. Carson agreed and said too many people get hurt that way.
Senator Neal asked what the ordinary citizen is supposed to do. He added, there are some areas where he would not stop and that the police officer would just have to chase him into the next town where other people would be present.
Senator James said he also had a problem with the "rebuttable presumption." He said looking at the statutes, this was something Nevada almost never does. He added, this essentially asks to presume an element of the crime. He asked if that had been constitutionally tested. He asked if it is permissible to say a person is guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent.
Mr. Carson said he understood that New Jersey, which has the same law, has not had any problems with the law.
Senator James said this bill presumes guilt and the consequence would be a pre-trial seizure of property.
Mr. Carson said this would still allow an individual to defend themselves at a later time and under quieter circumstances.
Senator Brown asked if this statute was being used for unmarked cars.
Mr. Carson said his unmarked cars are discouraged from making traffic stops except in aggravated or emergency circumstances.
Senator Brown said she did not think this would apply to an unmarked car.
Senator Neal said he had recently seen a person pulled over in Goldfield by an unmarked car. The senator said he would not have stopped for that vehicle outside of the town.
Senator Brown said she was talking about a person who flees from an unmarked car.
Senator James said if the statue did not apply to an unmarked vehicle, then the statute is written very loosely. He added, "readily identifiable" should be defined somewhere in the statutes.
Senator Brown suggested that the bill be amended to define "readily identifiable" as not including the unmarked vehicles. She said she also had a question about the "rebuttable presumption." She asked if her car was involved in a chase while she is in Carson City, would she be arrested.
Mr. Carson said a judge would look at all the facts before issuing an arrest warrant.
Senator Hickey asked, if the owner is determined to have had nothing to do with the action, would he still have to pay all of the fees involved.
Mr. Carson said, even in the event the car is stolen, the registered owner or his/her insurance company is responsible for the towing and storage fees.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if Mr. Carson had presented the amendment to the Assembly Committee on Transportation.
Mr. Carson said he had not, because he was not aware of the successes in the eastern part of the country. He added, that when he did find out, he spoke with the chairman of the Assembly Committee on Transportation to tell him about it.
Senator Jacobsen related a story about a time he was pulled over by a highway patrolman who was parked by the side of the road.
Frank Barker, Captain, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, spoke in favor of A.B. 56. Captain Barker said the original bill that went before the Assembly Committee on Transportation merely asked for an increased penalty for failing to stop. He continued, that as it has been amended, it separates the penalty, when a person causes serious bodily injury or death, from the "reckless driving" statute and puts it into the "failure to yield" statute. He added, even with the change, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department still supports the bill.
Mr. Barker said the purpose of the bill is to reduce the number of vehicle pursuits and to make fleeing a more serious crime than the crime from which the driver was fleeing.
Captain Barker presented several "vehicular pursuit reports" (Exhibit D) for the committee's review. Captain Barker reviewed these reports.
Senator Hickey asked if there was any control of an officer now, who is pursuing someone.
Captain Barker said the officer would be in constant contact with dispatch. He added, the officer would have to advise the speed, the conditions and why he is in pursuit.
Senator Hickey asked if that system had kept down their accident rates.
Captain Barker said that system was intended to keep down the accident rates.
Senator Nevin said if the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department allowed unmarked cars to do pursuits.
Captain Barker said the policy requires that if the pursuit is instituted by a plain vehicle, as soon as practical, a marked vehicle will lead the pursuit.
Senator Nevin said that is the same policy the City of Reno has. He added, these unmarked cars are "nakid" out there, due to the fact they have no lights or identification on the vehicles.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 56 and opened the hearing on A.B. 144.
A.B. 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.
Assemblyman William A. Petrak, Clark County District 18, testified on behalf of A.B. 144. Assemblyman Petrak told the committee about an incident that had happened 27 years ago. He explained, his 7 year old son was run down and drug along the street about 100 feet by a person who had been drinking. He said the person who was arrested spent the night in jail and that was the extent of his time in jail. He said his son was in the hospital for 44 days, and came out of it, but did require plastic surgery.
Assemblyman Petrak said that anything that can be done to encourage those people, who are convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), to attend a meeting that will show them that even though they did not hurt anybody, they can hurt people while driving while drunk.
Assemblyman Petrak said these meetings bring out people who have been terribly affected by people who had been drinking while driving. He added, he felt it was a great value to those who attended the meeting.
Chairman O'Donnell said he was very sorry to hear about Mr. Petrak's son and he said he would not want to see that kind of thing happen to anyone.
Assemblyman Petrak said that even though this had happened 27 years ago, the family still has "flashbacks."
Senator Brown asked if he had received any "feedback" from anyone who had been through one of these meetings.
Assemblyman Petrak deferred the question to Ms. Heverly because she is the one who conducts the meetings.
Senator Nevin said the language in the bill which exempts anyone who is more than 60 miles from a meeting, would exempt many of those in the rural areas from these meetings.
Senator Jacobsen asked if this program was more worthwhile than having these offenders do community service work.
Assemblyman Petrak said that community service was a good requirement, but that they should also be required to attend these victim-impact meetings. He said it was much like requiring our high school students to visit the emergency wards of their local hospital.
Senator James said he had been to one of these victim-impact meetings. He said it was an amazing experience. He added, the stories these victims told were heartrending. He said that as he turned around to look at the faces of those who were in attendance, most were "riveted." He said there were a few people who tried to be inattentive at the beginning, but by the middle of the presentation, these same people were "riveted." He said if these panels can get one person to understand the consequences of this behavior and what it does to people, then that is a life that is saved.
Senator James also referred to a letter (Exhibit E) from Judge Nancy C. Oestlerle, Justice Court, Las Vegas Township.
Sandy Heverly, Executive Director/Chapter Administrator, Clark County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), testified from a prepared statement (Exhibit F) in favor of A.B. 144.
Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), spoke in favor of A.B. 144. Ms. Stadler offered an amendment (Exhibit G) for the committee's review. Ms. Stadler discussed the amendment.
Senator Jacobsen asked if anyone had complained about paying the $25 fee.
Ms. Stadler said they had not received any complaints and the judges in Lyon county have not any problem with the fee. She added, the fee is lower than many of the other charges a person incurs, having to do with their DUI arrest.
Tuesday Lynch, Coordinator, Northern Nevada Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Task Force, Victim Impact Panel, said her organization was in favor of A.B. 144.
Sandra Scott, Chief, Court Counseling, Las Vegas Municipal Court, City of Las Vegas, stated she was in favor of A.B. 144. She said her court had been participating in the victim-impact panel since its inception and she said they fully support the panel.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 144.
Chairman O'Donnell then drew attention to two bill draft requests (BDRs) requiring committee introduction. He passed out copies of the BDRs for review and proceeded to reach each BDR by number and summary.
BDR 35-1970: Revises requirement for designation of highway as a scenic route.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 35-1970.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
BDR 58-1972: Authorize common carriers to transport various items to certain charitable organizations for free or reduced rates.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 58-1972.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 144.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Terri Jo Wittenberg,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Transportation
April 15, 1993
Page 1