The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Jon Porter, Senate District No. 1 (Clark)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called, Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Senate Bill 346.

Sandra Mazy, acting administrator for the Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, explained that was the administrating agency for the Commission on Substance Abuse, Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment. She introduced Denise Everett, Chairman of the Nevada Drug Commission.

Ms. Everett stated S.B. 346 streamlined some of the tasks of the commission. She drew attention to new language she wanted to propose in order to prevent a conflict with Assembly Bill 181 which was also being addressed in the legislature. She explained a part of that legislation designated an internal state board, and rather than creating another board the idea was to have the drug commission act as that internal state board. The proposed language is attached as Exhibit C. Ms. Everett pointed out the new language was also more specific about the composition of the board. She explained rather than four members of the general public, she was requesting the number of general public members be increased to five and that certain qualifications were set out for each one. She further explained that language would be consistent with the proposal of an internal state board contained in A.B.181, if and when that bill passed.

Responding to a request from Chairman Anderson, Ms. Everett explained those members had always been voting members and would remain so. She reiterated the sole intent of the amendment was to make the general public representation more specific by adding people with experience in mental health and substance abuse. She reiterated the amendment would provide for five members rather than four members.

Ms. Everett explained section 4 of the bill provided for one member from the Senate and one member from the Assembly to be appointed as nonvoting members of the commission. Having those members on the commission would allow the legislature to be more familiar with the discussions of the commission, creating a link between the legislature and the commission. She also pointed out in section 1, "penal system" was being deleted, but in section 5, the director of the Department of Prisons was being added.

Chairman Anderson asked what if the director did not want to be on the commission. Ms. Everett replied he could designate somebody else. She believed having the director of the Department of Prisons made sense because treatment was being added to the prison population.

Ms. Everett proceeded to review the changes contained in S.B. 346.

Chairman Anderson questioned if S.B. 346 was contingent upon the passage of A.B. 181. Ms Everett said it was her understanding it was not contingent upon its passage, rather the language was designed in order to allow the drug commission to complete the duties rather than creating a new board if and when A.B. 181 passed.

Chairman Anderson noted currently, the drug commission made recommendations concerning potential legislation to the Governor and then the Governor decided which of his bill drafts he would allocate to the commission. He questioned if the commission intended to change that procedure and instead, come directly to the legislature with its recommendations. Ms. Everett replied yes, that was their intention.

Chairman Anderson remarked strict limits had been placed on other agencies in regard to the number of pieces of legislation they were able to request due to the shortness of the session. He cautioned Ms. Everett to keep the number of requests as low as possible. He noted during the session redundancy had become a problem when five or six bill drafts from different agencies, but all dealing with the same issue, had been presented.

Assemblywoman Leslie expressed support for the emphasis on mental health, especially the addition of a parent who had experience with the system and knew how difficult it was to get resources for their child. However, she expressed uncertainty with eliminating the average person who might have an interest in the subject. Ms. Leslie asked if the members of the general public had been actively participating.

Ms. Everett responded in the past couple of years, most of the active commission members were related in some respect to the field of substance abuse. She said the idea behind the amendment was to "expand the commission to incorporate the idea of the eternal state board and not make it so unwieldy that a decision couldn’t be made." She stated she would not object to having at least one position open to the general public who would not be required to have any obvious connection to substance abuse.

Ms. Leslie agreed with that suggestion. She then asked, in regard to the second proposed amendment, if the commission provided input relating to the direction of the bureau’s programs.

Ms. Everett replied there had always been bureau representation on the commission and there had been an open dialogue. She explained the substance abuse community in the State of Nevada was rather small which was conducive to an open dialogue. She remarked the proposed language would formalize that relationship and ensure it continued to happen.

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed concern that the representation of the general public was being deleted. He felt they were being replaced with "too much bureaucracy." He also expressed concern with the money in the fund only being given to "organizations that review and evaluate problems concerning the enforcement of drugs." He believed the money should be going directly to helping people.

Responding to the Chair’s request for clarification about the change in composition of the commission, Ms. Everett explained the change in section 1, subsection 2(b), was to broaden the education field to include people such as counselors or college instructors. She noted one of the three was required to be a licensed employee of a local school district.

Chairman Anderson and Ms. Everett engaged in a discussion in regard to the proposed language in section 1, subsection 2(d). Ms. Everett clarified it would ensure the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) was represented. She explained the members in section 5 were non-voting members, but under the proposed amendment, one BADA representative would be a voting member.

Following up on a question by Mr. Carpenter, Assemblywoman Koivisto voiced her concern that no money received by the commission would go towards treatment.

Ms. Everett replied money could still be granted to treatment programs but there were very few mechanisms in the state that allowed for review and evaluation of programs for intervention, prevention, and treatment. "We wanted to be able to look at what the impact was of where we were spending our dollars, which sometimes doesn’t get done."

Ms. Koivisto expressed confusion with the language. She still read it to mean money in the fund could only be used for review and evaluation of the programs.

Ms. Everett clarified one of the reasons for the language was, for example, the need for an assessment of adolescents. She explained currently there were no real resources to conduct a needs assessment for substance abuse issues with adolescents. The only figures available were extrapolated from the adult needs assessment. She reiterated she would not object if the committee wanted to leave in "programs for substance abuse, education, prevention, enforcement, and treatment, and organizations that review and evaluate."

Ms. Leslie agreed with that suggestion. She suggested the existing language could be retained or the word "or" could also be put in.

In order to address further Chairman Anderson’s comments about the recommendation of proposed legislation, Mary Lynn Evans, former administrator of the Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, came forward. She had been involved with the drug commission since 1991. She explained the drug commission was within the administrative part of the Office of Criminal Justice Assistance and therefore, it followed the state guidelines. Once a recommendation was received from the commission, it would still have to be approved by the Governor’s Office as well as the budget office and the Legislative Counsel Bureau before a legislator was asked to introduce it.

Responding to the Chair’s request for additional clarification, Ms. Lang referred him to section 4, subsection 6. It said the commission would "collect, evaluate and disseminate information concerning proposed legislation relating to drug abuse education, prevention, enforcement and treatment." It was not a restatement of section 4, subsection 4, but a different requirement directing the commission to collect and disseminate information about proposed legislation. Ms. Lang clarified it would not give the commission powers to propose legislation on its own.

Ms. Leslie believed the language was present so the commission would look at model legislation that had been proposed around the nation and disseminate possible ideas about what had worked in other states.

Maureen Brower, a drug commissioner, commented there had been several meetings of the commission regarding the bill. She indicated the intent was to provide a list of duties that could be accomplished and would be accountable for. The other intent was to expand the membership to include legislators in order to have legislative input about the activities of the commission according to the duties created by S.B. 346.

There were no others who wished to testify; therefore, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on the bill. He indicated his intent to hold the bill in order to clarify some of the concerns raised by committee members. He then opened the hearing on Senate Bill 449.

Chairman Anderson told the committee Senator Coffin would be unable to present the bill to the committee due to another committee obligation, but that Captain Nadeau could help answer questions from the committee.

Captain Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chief’s Association, stated he was very uncomfortable with the original language of the bill but had since worked out some of his concerns with Senator Coffin and the Senate Committee on Judiciary. While he believed the bill to be broader than before, he explained the bill was drafted primarily to apply to domestic violence issues. He explained the idea behind it was if someone applied for a concealed weapons permit and they had some type of violent conviction or a charge pending, the victim of that case, particularly in domestic violence situations, would receive some type of notification of the request for a permit.

There was no one else who wished to testify either in favor or against S.B. 449.

Mr. Collins voiced concern the bill went too far. He believed it was unreasonable to not be able to get a concealed weapons permit based on an incident that occurred possibly 20 years ago.

Chairman Anderson clarified the bill would not prevent a person from obtaining a concealed weapons permit. The goal was to be able to notify a victim of a crime that the offender was requesting a concealed weapon permit.

Following up on Mr. Collin’s concern, Chairman Anderson questioned if the bill would prevent the issuance of a concealed weapons permit. Captain Nadeau replied there were already specific parameters as far as limitations on when a permit could be issued under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 202.3657. He did not see S.B. 449 as limiting the issuance of a permit but the existing statute could.

Assemblyman Gustavson noted section 1, subsection 1 stated "charged with a crime." His concern was somebody could prevent a person from obtaining a permit by intentionally, but falsely, accusing them of a crime. He liked the bill as a whole but saw that to be a loophole.

Chairman Anderson read NRS 202.365 to the committee.

Mr. Collins wondered if the time constraint on the notification would be the same as those in issuing a permit.

Captain Nadeau said notification would be made to a victim if the crime was committed within the last 5 years. He repeated the original intent of the bill was to address domestic violence situations.

Chairman Anderson recognized notification had become somewhat of a burdensome program for the sheriff’s department but that domestic violence was a big issue and of great concern to many.

Following up on Mr. Collin’s comments, Assemblyman Brower wanted assurance that the sheriff’s office would only have to go back 5 years. He said otherwise the sheriff’s office would be burdened with looking for victims which might be virtually impossible to find.

Reviewing the statutes, Chairman Anderson noted under NRS 202.3657 there was a specific timeline given for various offenses.

Captain Nadeau repeated, "Our understanding is that it is limited to the statutory requirements under NRS 202.3657." He noted currently the language said 3 years but he was also aware of another piece of legislation which would change the 3 years to 5 years. He commented the change would allow for consistency within the statutes but as it stood at that moment it would be limited to the limitation within the current statute. "Therefore, if it’s a 21-old battery, I don’t see us going back and trying to make notification on that."

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee of the motion made by Ms. Ohrenschall.

Senator John Porter, Senate District 1, explained the concept behind the legislation was brought to him by friends from Boulder City. He explained Dan and Carol Grant had a son, William, who was killed in an automobile accident by a driver under the influence of marijuana. The man who killed their son was sentenced to probation and was given 6 months house arrest. Senator Porter told the committee S.B. 481 would make it illegal for any person who had a detectable amount of a prohibited substance in his system to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle or watercraft. The bill included a list of prohibited substances such as marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetemines, pcp, and quaaludes, but provided an exception if the person using the drugs had a valid prescription for its use. If a person had a detectable amount of any of the drugs listed in either schedule 1 or schedule II in his system, his driver’s license would be revoked. Senator Porter stated the remaining changes contained in the bill added the new crime to the existing statues. He advised the committee the legislation had changes made to it on the Senate side because there were concerns regarding the "detectable" amount of prohibited substances.

Mr. Carpenter noted there was a list of about nine drugs on page 18, but on page 31 there was a list of about 20 very scientific names. He asked for clarification in regard to the two different lists, specifically the use of the scientific names on one list.

Senator Porter remarked at the Senate hearing, he had asked the same question and suggested the names of the drugs be listed in layman’s terms but the professionals that worked the street felt it was appropriate to leave them as listed.

Carol Grant testified in support of S.B. 481. She recognized there would be a financial impact if the bill was passed but believed there were other things to consider. She acknowledged the fact that many agencies and areas were in need of money but believed it was time to start taking care of the people and victims who lived in Nevada. Mrs. Grant opined, "We seem to put a lot of the offenders before the victims." She elucidated convicted offenders were clothed, fed, given free medical attention and could even get a free education. Those people whose lives the offenders had forever changed received no assistance. Mrs. Grant said by not providing the funds needed for the bill, "We’re not only letting the criminals win the battle, we are also allowing them to win the war in the long run." She asked the committee to think about what they thought their life was worth to their families and if something happened to them when they left the building, did they believe their family would be able to financially carry on. She told the committee she and her husband had been forced to think about the future of their son’s wife and children and had been unable to put a dollar amount on what their son’s life was worth.

Mrs. Grant told the committee their son was hit by a 19-year old man at 6:30 a.m., under the influence of marijuana and driving 85 miles per hour. Their son had just dropped his daughter off at school and was on his way to work when he was hit and killed instantly. She said there was a standard measurement for driving under the influence of alcohol, but there was none for driving under the influence of drugs. She urged the committee to pass S.B. 481. "We know it’s going to cost money, but we think that the lives of the people who live in this state and their families is worth whatever investment we’re willing to give to our prison system to take care of these inmates once they are sentenced."

Daniel Grant also testified in support of S.B. 481. He opined the key words in the law were "impairment operating a motor vehicle." He declared it should not matter what the cause of the impairment was. After some research, he found the bill, compiled by the Nevada State Department of Prisons, would result in the addition of 49 inmates into the prison system at a cost of $424,000 for fiscal year 1999-2000. That, he said, that was minimal for the safety of people’s families. He pointed out the offender who killed his son was charged with felony reckless driving and misdemeanor marijuana. He was given 5 months probation, 6 months house arrest with monitoring which was extended to 2 months of intensive supervision. He was put in a rehabilitation program and had counseling on anger management and creative thinking. One month after he was through with the intensive supervision, he was again cited for reckless driving. Mr. Grant pondered what his rehabilitation cost and pointed out the programs had apparently not worked. "The residents of Nevada and the tourists deserve the safest roads that we can provide for them. I realize this amendment will not help us one bit. We will have the pain and the loss for the rest of our lives. I hope that in the passing of this that it might prevent future families from going through what Carol and I had to go through."

Jerry Mager showed a picture of his 17-year old son who was "murdered" by a driver using illegal drugs. He stated the driver was not charged with murder, illegal drug use, or DUI. He explained that was happening countless times and opined, "Not only is there no appropriate law for accountability or justice, but there is no deterrent factor in place." Mr. Mager declared that driving under the influence of drugs was deadly and thoroughly destructive and S.B. 481 would be the first important step toward decreasing that crime. He noted it would have a deterrent effect as well which would reduce deaths and injuries while holding those responsible accountable for their actions. Mr. Mager said his son was his only child. "You cannot possibly fathom the depths of the emotions that are involved when someone is so quickly, irresponsibly, and unnecessarily taken." Mr. Mager said many people believed law existed to combat the problem but he declared it did not. He concluded his testimony by stating S.B. 481 was good public policy and needed to be passed.

Illona Mager testified that with every year that passed since her son died, she found new reasons to miss him. She said it was not something that resolved itself over time. She noted the boy, her son’s best friend, that was responsible for his death admitted to using drugs for many years. After the accident, he went through all kinds of rehabilitation although she was unsure of his current status. Mrs. Mager said it was a senseless and needless way to die and it did not need to happen. She told members of the committee they had the power to make a difference with S.B. 481 and "to bring some kind of justice for the victims that don’t know they’re victims yet."

Paula Oliver showed the committee a picture of her daughter, Lauren, who was 9 years old at the time of her death. She told them the driver of the vehicle that killed her was under the influence of methamphetamines and marijuana. Ms. Oliver agreed with the Magers in that nothing could change what had already happened to their children, but the bill could make a great difference in someone else’s lives. She asked the committee to support S.B. 481 "so that some type of curtailment can come to senseless acts of murder."

Stephanie Wolff explained her 21-year old daughter, Kristine Wolff, was killed 8 1/2 years ago by a "poly-drug user." He had numerous drugs as well as alcohol in his system. She stated that person had been in and out of the prison system and, obviously, his treatment had not worked. Mrs. Wolff said not only was the child a victim, but the whole family was a victim.

Ron Wolff, Kristine Wolff’s father, told of his intention to testify in front of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee in regard to the financial concerns the bill posed. "Our children right now have paid the price for society’s follies." He implored the committee to pass the legislation. Mr. Wolff concluded his testimony noting, "A pothole is nothing compared to the loss of a child."

Angela Faber stated her husband, William Faber, was killed on February 13, 1997. She noted she did know how much it cost to house prisoners nor did she know anything about the fiscal note, but she did know what her husband’s death cost her family. She told of her husband’s accomplishments and contributions to society. Now, her family of four was living on social security. The man who killed her husband was given 6 months house arrest and 5 years probation. She noted after serving only 9 months of his probation, which included the 6 months house arrest, he was out doing the same thing. Mrs. Faber stated that man was in prison now not because he killed her husband but because he violated his probation. She expressed frustration with the fact that he was given more counseling than her family was given. She told the committee, "We need to put him in jail right away instead of waiting for him to kill someone else." Mrs. Faber opined he probably would have been in prison if it had been alcohol in his system rather than marijuana.

Brittany Faber, William Faber’s daughter, said the man that killed her father "messed up" when he was 15, 16 and 17, and yet did not go to jail. When he killed her dad, he still did not go to jail. She stated he was driving 85 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone under the influence of marijuana, but because he was not drinking he "got away with it." She believed it cost people a lot more money than it would have to put him in jail.

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, stated there was a standard for driving under the influence of alcohol which was .10 or higher, but there were no standards for controlled substances. He explained it was a difficult task to measure what substances were in the system and prove the amount at which the person was under the influence. He noted in reviewing DUI submissions, it was not unusual to find a low blood alcohol level but evidence of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetemines, and other common drugs. He reiterated with no defined level, it was difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a drug was actually what the driving was influenced by. Mr. Graham noted since the bill was heard the first time, it had been determined that it needed to be limited to a blood or urine test. He explained if hair was tested, usage could be detected from 3 or 4 weeks ago and would have no bearing on the current ability to drive. He told the committee he and Fred Hillerby were currently researching detectable levels which would indicate recent usage, according to federal standards, of the substances listed on page 18 but that would eliminate the detection of environmental contact exposure. He apologized for not having the information earlier.

Chairman Anderson questioned if the proposed amendments were shared with Senator Porter. Mr. Graham replied he had worked carefully with Senator Porter and others to develop a bill that would be a useful instrument for law enforcement and the community.

Responding to further questioning by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Graham said the amendment would result in the decrease in the fiscal note because detectable levels would be specified. By having specific detectable levels, the probability of a successful prosecution would increase.

Fred Hillerby, representing the Associated Pathologist Laboratories, explained it was brought to his attention that "detectable amounts" could stem from environmental exposure which would affect innocent citizens. He explained, of the nine drugs listed on page 18 there were eight that had a federal standard. He further explained the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) was the agency that set standards for toxicology testing of airline pilots, train engineers, and other people that by federal law were required to be tested for drugs. There was a cut-off level at which anything below that, although detectable, was considered to be a negative reading. He was expecting to receive the standards for those substances later in the day. Mr. Hillerby explained having a specific standard would be more defensible than the word "detectable."

Captain Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, said he too had been involved in the drafting of suitable language. He noted that drugs identified in the bill were the ones most commonly used and abused. He expressed approval of the proposed amendment. He mentioned Sergeant Carter and Lieutenant Stan Olsen from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department also supported S.B. 481.

Chairman Anderson pointed out driving under the influence of a controlled substance had been broached in previous sessions. He noted the legislation mirrored some of the earlier concerns but it appeared to be more specific.

Mr. Graham said he was correct. He commented the list provided in the first print of the bill was quite long but, at the urging of the sponsor, was narrowed down to specific substances that law enforcement found people abused more and showed up frequently in driving situations.

Mr. Nolan commented he recognized seven of the drugs on the list to have standards. In regard to the other two, he questioned how criteria would be established for determining whether or not a person was impaired. He also asked if the facilities responsible for conducting the tests would be provided information so they might conduct the tests in a concise fashion.

Mr. Hillerby reiterated eight of the drugs had a federally accepted standard although he was unfamiliar with the ninth one. He explained a toxicology director would be providing him with more information and yet, if a defensible standard could not be developed, he would suggest deleting it from the list. Mr. Hillerby stated once it was in statute, his assumption was the form could be modified so laboratories would know what the cut-offs were. He further stated law enforcement would know what the cut-off levels were before they proceeded with any kind of enforcement activity.

Mr. Nolan further commented the field sobriety tests were primarily established in order to make a determination on probable cause with relationship to alcohol. He noted some drugs affect the system differently and with the sobriety test an officer might not be able to determine that a person’s cognizant functions were impaired by drugs. He inquired what thought had been given to sobriety tests.

Mr. Graham relied no one was going to be pulled over unless they were driving erratically or there was evidence of some kind of impairment, such as an accident. Additional evidence would then lead to probable cause. He explained frequently when a low blood alcohol level showed up for a person driving erratically, there was something else present in his system because otherwise the low level would not justify their driving behavior. At that point, a drug screen would be conducted.

Mr. Manendo expressed great frustration with the fiscal note attached to the bill. He noted he and Mr. Gustavson had been working extremely hard to get legislation passed that would lower the blood alcohol level from .10 to .08. Because of the fiscal impact, he said the bill had been watered to such an extent that the biggest supporters of the bill were now opposed to it. He declared passing legislation without reviewing those with astronomical fiscal notes was personally offensive to him. He expressed indignation the bill had not been reviewed by the Senate Committee on Finance. He remarked it was now left to the Assembly to figure out how to pay for such a worthy cause. He noted a little extra money might have surfaced in the budget but he did not see S.B. 481 being a priority to the administration. Mr. Manendo commented the fiscal note on the ".08 legislation" was nothing close to the fiscal note for S.B. 481 and yet, he did not believe it was going to be approved by the Committee on Ways and Means. Unless the amendment reduced the fiscal note to under $100,000, he did not see the bill being successful.

Mr. Graham assured Mr. Manendo that once the amendment was received, they would review each line with the Committee on Ways and Means. He expressed uncertainty why the fiscal note was so high.

Chairman Anderson understood Mr. Manendo’s concern. He advised the committee to concentrate on public policy and noted S.B. 481 was good public policy. He recognized the committee had to be mindful of the fiscal impact but commented the committee only forwarded legislation to the Committee on Ways and Means which indicated its priorities. Chairman Anderson expressed some concern about the approaching deadlines and asked when the committee could see the proposed amendment.

Mr. Hillerby told the committee he would have the necessary information later in the day. He would forward the information to Mr. Graham upon receipt so that the amendment could be drafted as soon as possible.

Chairman Anderson stated it could be addressed in the work session scheduled for Tuesday.

David Mullin, representing the Boulder City Police Department, expressed his support for S.B. 481. He believed his position had been expressed by previous testimony and, therefore, yielded the balance of his time to the other witnesses.

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol, articulated support for the bill. He noted the committee would hear reasons or excuses not to pass the bill, but emphasized the bill was necessary in order to create a tool to convict people for driving under the influence of controlled substances.

David Schieck, President of the Nevada Attorney’s for Criminal Justice, expressed support for amendments that had been proposed. He noted much of the objectionable language had been removed and he strongly supported the insertion of actual detectable levels into the bill. He stated the lack of certain levels had been his objection to the statute. Mr. Schieck noted definite levels of impairment were needed before he could prosecute people for driving under the influence. Upon further review of the proposed amendments, he might be able to support the bill

Chairman Anderson informed Mr. Schieck the work session at which the amendment would be reviewed by the committee would not be teleconferenced. He asked him to contact Mr. Graham or Mr. Hillerby in order to be advised of the exact amendments. He said if Mr. Schieck had additional information he wanted the committee to review to forward it by April 9.

John Watkins, also representing the Nevada Attorney’s for Criminal Justice, noted he was not insensitive to those who had lost loved ones. His concern with the bill was it dealt with the use of a controlled substance and not actual impairment. He expressed surprise at some of the testimony in regard to the difficulty of prosecuting drug cases. He noted there were two types of analysis in drug testing; the quantitative and the qualitative. People were tested for the quantitative part and an amount could be determined. In regard to sobriety tests, he noted field sobriety tests did detect impairment from controlled substances as well as alcohol. Mr. Watkins stated there were also drug recognition experts available in the State of Nevada. For those reasons, he reiterated his surprise of the lack of ability to detect impairment due to the influence of controlled substances. He stated the bill would result in people being convicted of drunk driving when they were not impaired. Someone could use a substance at some point in time and not be impaired although it would still be in their system. Mr. Schieck also remarked there was statute that addressed individuals who used illicit controlled substances, NRS 453.411. He believed the bill was too broad as written but would support amendments specifying the certain amount of controlled substance to be considered an impairment for an individual.

Responding to Chairman Anderson’s request for clarification, Mr. Watkins reiterated if an individual had previously used a controlled substance, they could be found guilty of drunk driving although they were not impaired. He stated the idea behind the drunk driving statute was impairment, but the bill did not deal with impairment. It dealt with mere usage. He believed the bill would affect such a large segment of the population that the fiscal impact would be three times the current fiscal note.

There being no one else who wished to testify on the bill, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 481. He reiterated his intent to address the bill at next Tuesday’s work session when the amendment was available. He explained the committee could take action on the bill that day, but reviewing the amendment would allow the committee to ensure they were passing a solid piece of legislation.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: