MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 6, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:03 a.m., on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 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
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Greg Brower (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Richard C. McCorkle, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Chairman of the Criminal Justice Department, University of Nevada Las Vegas
Nile D. Carson, Legislative Representative, Deputy Chief (Retired), Reno Police Department, Reno, Nevada
Karla McComb, Chair, Nevada Commission on Substance Abuse, Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment
James T. Richardson, Legislative Representative, Nevada Faculty Alliance
Paul Snodgrass, Impaired Driving Coordinator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Kevin M. Quint, Legislative Representative, Nevada Substance Abuse Prevention Council
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Lyon County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Ann Holmes, Representative, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force
Lisa A. Foster, Legislative Analyst, AAA Nevada
Julie Butler, Highway Safety Coordinator, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, State of Nevada
William Parker, Representative, STOP DUI, Las Vegas, Nevada
Roll was called and Chairman Anderson determined a quorum was present. He announced the committee would begin with testimony on A.B. 146 and would then take testimony in support of A.B. 166. Chairman Anderson noted another hearing would be held to take testimony in opposition to A.B. 166.
Assembly Bill 146: Makes appropriation to University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for establishment and operation of center for analysis of crime statistics within Department of Criminal Justice at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (BDR S-918)
Assemblyman John Oceguera, the primary sponsor of the bill, informed the committee statistical analysis centers (SAC) had been established in all states except Nevada. Statistical analysis centers served as clearing houses for crime and justice data, and provided a comprehensive picture of crime and justice in areas where data was collected. Statistical analysis centers also conducted rigorous research on a range of topics of concern to state and local policymakers and criminal justice practitioners. Research was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which was authorized to provide assistance to SACs that were created and funded through state legislation. A state without a SAC was not eligible for those federal research dollars. Mr. Oceguera indicated the proposed Nevada SAC would be housed in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and would utilize the knowledge and skills of faculty and graduate students to carry out its objectives.
Mr. Oceguera continued by explaining the development and operation of the Nevada SAC would be conducted in close relationship with UNLV’s National Computing Center, providing policymakers and the general public with direct access to supercomputing resources and applications in the delivery of criminal justice related information. The proposed Nevada SAC would provide direct and immediate access to graphical charts and narrative summaries of key state and local crime and justice statistics through web-based technologies. The SAC would, using federal funds, also conduct program evaluations and statewide surveys of victimizations and attitudes towards crime legislation. Mr. Oceguera noted that A.B. 146 was important because the SAC would allow public policy to be evaluated and would also allow Nevada citizens to access data related to the criminal justice system.
Mr. Collins asked why the other 49 states had a SAC and Nevada did not. Mr. Oceguera felt that Nevada had not caught up with the other states and noted that Nevada had a Criminal History Records and Identification Bureau that was similar to a SAC. The bureau collected and disseminated state statistics on crime in Nevada which were compiled as the uniform crime report statistics, a limited annual publication. Statistical analysis centers stored the same data, but analysis of that data was a small part of what a SAC did. The Nevada SAC would collect and disseminate information on a wide range of criminal justice related subjects including, but not limited to, arrest data, court monitoring data, criminal charges and dispositions, information on probation and prisons, indications of drug abuse in the general population among high school students, drug treatment availability, and criminal justice expenditures. Mr. Oceguera pointed out that the bureau was not a research organization; it simply collected data. The proposed SAC would collect data and conduct important public policy research on criminal and crime-related subjects using federal research funds.
Mr. Oceguera introduced Richard McCorkle, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Chair of the Criminal Justice Department, University of Nevada Las Vegas. Dr. McCorkle indicated he was also the director of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program in Clark County which monitored the extent and nature of drug abuse among arrestee populations. Dr. McCorkle provided further information on the proposed SAC (Exhibit C). He stated effective criminal justice policy required current and reliable information about the extent and nature of the crime problem, as well as the impact of crime control programs and strategies. Certain information was routinely collected by state and local agencies, but there had been relatively little information sharing among agencies and organizations, and little access to information by the public. Consequently, many people were not aware that such information even existed and the information was difficult to access. Dr. McCorkle advised that, in an effort to better link crime information, the Bureau of Justice Statistics provided financial assistance to states to operate justice information centers, SACs. The mission of SACs was to contribute to sound criminal justice policy through the collection, analysis and dissemination of information related to crime and justice. Dr. McCorkle testified that SACs served as clearing houses for crime and justice data and provided a comprehensive picture of crime and justice in a particular state.
In order to provide the committee with an example of the kinds of information collected by a SAC in a particular state, Dr. McCorkle called the committee’s attention to the home page of the Justice Research and Statistics Association (www.jrsainfo.org), an organization that managed statistical analysis centers across the country, and provided technical assistance to SACs and facilitated multi-state research. Information found at that Web site included, but was not limited to, data on court convictions, probation-related issues, county jail-related issues, parole and time served data, programs and special populations, and recidivism rates. The Web site also made policy reports, completed by agencies and research organizations, available online.
Dr. McCorkle advised a second role performed by SACs was that of research, funded using federal dollars provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics research money was specifically set aside by federal statute and was only available to SACs. Dr. McCorkle stated that last year funds were provided to SACs to conduct statewide and local victimization surveys, to examine the impact of arrest and sentencing practices on domestic violence, to validate risk assessment tools and to evaluate the effectiveness of drug prevention and treatment programs. Nevada was not eligible for those funds, and did not conduct that research, because it did not have a SAC. It was Dr. McCorkle’s opinion that there was a clear need for a SAC in Nevada, even though several Nevada agencies did maintain sophisticated data bases. Dr. McCorkle advised that the Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety (DMV/PS) collected statewide uniform crime report information and the Criminal History Record Repository also maintained a database, as did the Department of Prisons, Parole and Probation, district courts, the juvenile justice system, and the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. The information collected by these agencies was fragmented and not easily accessed. By providing a central location for crime related data, a SAC in the state of Nevada would address the informational deficit by putting collected information into a shared format and create one giant dataset. A SAC would also develop procedures to regularly collect information from a network of smaller justice related agencies that do not maintain databases. Dr. McCorkle stated a SAC in Nevada would also facilitate access to and dissemination of crime and justice data.
Dr. McCorkle told the committee he had been in the criminal justice department for 11 years and his experience was that most administrators wanted to know if their programs and policies worked, but there was not enough money in the budget to conduct the research. Although a SAC in Nevada would not solve the problem, it would provide additional needed funds to provide research.
Dr. McCorkle indicated the proposed SAC would be housed in the Department of Criminal Justice at UNLV, but it would be able to take advantage of the skills and knowledge of people across the state from a variety of academic disciplines. Through the proposed SAC, the state would have a wealth of information, skill and knowledge at its beck and call. Dr. McCorkle stated UNLV had the resources and the personnel, through the national computing center, to accomplish the task of the SAC.
Dr. McCorkle concluded by requesting the committee’s strongest consideration of A.B. 146.
Chairman Anderson complimented Dr. McCorkle on his thorough presentation and handout. Chairman Anderson recalled the problems the committee encountered in the past in obtaining statistical information and analysis on a wide range of crime-related issues from various agencies. He noted a major problem among the small courts was that they did not have standardized, agreed upon information to be obtained, and he felt a SAC would solve that problem by providing uniform forms which could be utilized. Chairman Anderson asked if the new technology used by the SAC would receive the level of cooperation necessary in order to make the program a success. Dr. McCorkle indicated that cooperation from various agencies in using the new technology would be critical to the program and indicated he had previously been successful in working with the courts and agencies in Southern Nevada. Dr. McCorkle felt that any agency which was shown the capabilities of a SAC and convinced of the merits of a SAC would be willing to trust the SAC with its information.
Chairman Anderson inquired if the central repository, which was administered through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), would be affected by the SAC, or if the criminal repository would lose any funding or potential funding should the SAC be established. Dr. McCorkle advised it was common for SACs to refer people to other agencies, such as the DMV’s criminal repository, for additional information. The SAC would not have all of the data which would be collected by the criminal repository; only key parts of the criminal repository database would be collected and available through the SAC. Dr. McCorkle stated the SAC would not assume the duties of the criminal repository.
Mr. Carpenter inquired whether federal funds matched the funds that the state provided for the SAC. Dr. McCorkle indicated federal funds were not matching funds. He stated the federal government entertained themed research proposals each year and federal money could be accessed on a yearly basis to create and develop information databases based on the theme for that year.
Mrs. Koivisto asked, if the SAC was funded by the state to the extent requested and a request must be made each year to the federal government for funds, who would pay those funds if the federal government did not approve the SAC’s research proposal. Dr. McCorkle responded that the SAC must be created and the SAC’s operating budget must be funded by the state. After the SAC had been created and its operating budget had been funded by the state, the SAC was eligible for additional federal monies that could be used to subsidize the center and conduct research. Dr. McCorkle reiterated that a funding commitment from the state was required prior to accessing federal dollars.
Chairman Anderson wondered if an authorization from the state legislature would be required each session. Dr. McCorkle indicated it would. Chairman Anderson reminded the committee the question before it was a policy issue and not a money issue.
Ms. McClain inquired whether the SAC would collect information regarding the basis for an initial arrest, original charges, and any change in the charges after the arrest. Dr. McCorkle advised that the SAC would contain that kind of information along with information on final disposition and sentencing.
Chairman Anderson noted for the record that Rick Bennett was present on behalf of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) and confirmed that UNLV was prepared to host the SAC.
Nile D. Carson, Legislative Representative, Deputy Chief (Retired), Reno Police Department, told the committee he was previously a member of the Governor’s Advisory Board for the Nevada Criminal Justice Repository and remembered a request by UNLV to analyze data. Mr. Carson indicated all members of the board saw an absolute need for scientific analysis of the collected data and wholeheartedly endorsed that program. Mr. Carson indicated his only concern was that a mandate not be imposed on local agencies for additional reporting requirements. Mr. Carson felt the SAC would be a great asset as long as participation was cooperative and not mandated.
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Lyon County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), thanked Mr. Oceguera for bringing A.B. 146 forward and indicated MADD’s support for it.
Karla McComb, Chair, Nevada Commission on Substance Abuse, Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment, told the committee a statistical analysis center (SAC) was deemed a high priority by the commission when it prepared its 2000-2001 master plan. Ms. McComb indicated it was apparent during the preparation of the master plan that the data and information needed to prepare the plan was located in many different places and some of the desired data was not available without conducting extensive research. Ms. McComb indicated the lack of consolidated comprehensive current information raised a serious issue for the commission. Without data, it was extremely difficult to appreciate the extent of the substance abuse problem in Nevada, determine priorities and act to effectively meet the challenges created, or realistically measure the progress made. Because various programs relating to substance abuse were spread throughout different agencies, it was next to impossible to effectively coordinate efforts and identify potential gaps in services.
Ms. McComb advised the committee of the commission’s recommendation that a statistical analysis center (SAC) be created as a subgrantee of the commission and that the commission act as the clearinghouse for all substance abuse information and programs within the state. Ms. McComb stated the Substance Abuse Commission was housed in the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS). It was the commission’s intention to work with the Governor to find a way to make such a SAC possible without creating additional financial impact on the state budget. Ms. McComb concluded by stating the commission was strongly in support of the concept of a SAC but differed in the proposed structure.
Chairman Anderson clarified the Substance Abuse Commission’s position that the SAC be housed within the DMV&PS, rather than as a stand-alone organization. Ms. McComb indicated the structure the commission was suggesting would house the SAC within the DMV&PS under the aegis of the commission. Ms. McComb stated the commission’s recommendation for a SAC was made independent of Dr. McCorkle’s recommendation and the commission was not recommending something be created which would go beyond the Governor’s budget.
Chairman Anderson noted the recommendation by Dr. McCorkle encompassed a broad spectrum of statistical areas and was not limited to substance abuse issues and he felt that difference was responsible for the conflicting recommendations regarding the structure of the SAC. Chairman Anderson stated under the commission’s recommendation, the SAC would still need to be housed at some institution in the state with the faculty to support the analysis to be conducted.
Ms. McComb indicated the commission was opposed to A.B. 146 because of the structure of the proposed SAC. Ms. McComb reiterated the commission’s recommendation was prepared separately from Dr. McCorkle’s, which was why the commission’s recommendation for a SAC was limited in scope. Ms. McComb felt that if the SAC was located within the DMV/PS, its scope would broaden.
Jim Richardson, Legislative Representative, Nevada Faculty Alliance, registered support for A.B. 146 on behalf of the Nevada Faculty Alliance. Mr. Richardson indicated Nevada was in need of a SAC and felt strongly that the proper place for the SAC was at a university, with UNLV being the obvious choice. Mr. Richardson stated he directed the judicial studies program at the University of Nevada Reno and viewed the establishment of a SAC at UNLV as an asset to the state and students throughout the state. Mr. Richardson went on record in strong support of A.B. 146.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 146 and indicated his belief the bill should be sent to the Committee on Ways and Means. He felt the element of statistical information gathering was critical to the overall needs of the state, however, he was concerned about ensuring that the statistical analysis center would not compete for funds with the central repository.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED DO PASS A.B. 146.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MR. COLLINS AND MR. NOLAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 166.
Assembly Bill 166: Reduces concentration of alcohol that may be present in blood or breath of person while operating vehicle or vessel. (BDR 43-142)
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Assembly District 18, advised the committee the testimony which would be presented in favor of A.B. 166 would involve two deaths due to alcohol-related accidents and stated the bill was a lifesaving measure. He also provided a letter in support of A.B. 166 from Sandy Heverly, Executive Director of STOP DUI (Exhibit D).
Mr. Manendo indicated A.B. 166 was a “straight across the board” reduction in the level of blood alcohol content (BAC) to .08, which was necessary to comply with the national standard. He testified that virtually all persons experienced nearly a 50 percent decrease in driving skills by the time they reached a .08 BAC and, although the higher the BAC the more dangerous the driver, most researchers believed impairment began around .05. Mr. Manendo stated that important driving skills were affected before .08, including reaction time, tracking, attention, comprehension, vision, coordination and road test performance. He further stated the risk of a fatal crash was increased by 10 percent at the .05 level, 160 percent at the .08 level and 300 percent at Nevada’s current level of .10.
Mr. Manendo informed the committee that Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, New Zealand, Spain and Switzerland had a BAC limit of .08, while Australia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Netherlands and Norway had a BAC limit of .05. Mr. Manendo believed that 19 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had already adopted the .08 level and other states were in the process of adopting .08 legislation. He called attention to a Gallup poll sponsored by General Motors, which revealed that 72 percent of drivers support lowering the BAC level. He further called attention to a survey conducted after .08 legislation was enacted which reflected a decrease in deaths due to alcohol-related crashes in California of 19 percent, a decrease in deaths in Utah of 17 percent, a decrease in deaths in Oregon of 14 percent and a decrease in deaths in Maine of 37 percent, which averaged a 19 percent decrease in deaths after .08 legislation was enacted. Mr. Manendo felt the survey results proved that passing .08 legislation did have an impact.
Mrs. Koivisto asked Mr. Manendo if he had any information from the other states which had enacted .08 legislation relating to the decrease in driving under the influence (DUI) incidents. Mr. Manendo responded he did not have information on other states but could provide it at a later time.
Paul Snodgrass, Impaired Driving Coordinator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation, testified in favor of A.B. 166 (Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G). Mr. Snodgrass advised the committee that NHTSA’s goal was to reduce the death, injuries and costs which result from motor vehicle crashes, largely due to impaired driving. He stated a combination of effective laws and highly publicized and visible enforcement reduced impaired driving. NHTSA believed lowering the illegal per se BAC limit to .08 would save lives, reduce injuries and save substantial amounts of money in associated health care costs.
Mr. Snodgrass reminded the committee that incentive grant funds were provided by the federal government to states that adopted a .08 per se BAC law. Nevada was estimated to receive up to approximately $900,000 a year for traffic safety programs. Additionally, states that did not adopt a .08 per se BAC law by 2004 would begin losing federal highway funds.
Mr. Snodgrass gave the committee many good reasons to pass a .08 BAC law:
Mr. Snodgrass concluded by urging the committee to consider the merits of a .08 law and pass A.B. 166.
Chairman Anderson recalled from past hearings that the majority of people arrested for driving under the influence were substantially over the current .10 limit and wondered whether that still held true. Mr. Snodgrass thought the average BAC level of arrestees was about .17 and indicated the average had come down in states that had passed .08 legislation to about .15.
Mr. Gustavson indicated he was very much in support of the bill but expressed strong concern regarding the pressure by the federal government to pass the .08 law. He stated he would hate to use this law to fight the federal government, but he wondered when the state was going to take the initiative to protest pressure from the federal government to pass certain laws. Mr. Gustavson asked how much money the state would lose in highway funds if it did not pass .08 legislation.
Mr. Snodgrass indicated penalties would be effective in 2004 and after 2007 they would be permanent. He told the committee that in the past states were forced to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funds, and 8 states took that matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the federal government could not force states to set a drinking age of 21, but the U.S. Department of Transportation could withhold highway funds from states that did not have a drinking age of 21. Similarly, the federal government could not force Nevada to pass .08 legislation, but if Nevada did not pass .08 legislation by 2004 it would lose federal highway funds according to the chart in Exhibit E at page 8.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether lost funds would be reimbursed if Nevada passed .08 legislation by 2007. Mr. Snodgrass indicated penalties were recoverable if legislation was passed by 2007.
Chairman Anderson indicated his agreement with Mr. Gustavson’s position, and noted the legislation could be put off until 2003 in an effort to protest pressure by the federal government. He asked if the funds lost as penalties would be eventually returned to the state. Mr. Snodgrass indicated the money would eventually be returned to the state if .08 legislation was passed, but noted that delaying the money could in itself be a penalty even if you got it back later.
Mr. Manendo interjected that Section 163 of the Transportation Equity Act of the Twenty-First Century created incentive grants for states enacting and enforcing .08 legislation. A total of $500 million dollars had been authorized for the grant program and Nevada could still receive a portion of that money if it passed .08 legislation without incurring penalties. Mr. Manendo stated Nevada had been losing money and would continue to lose grant money that would not be reimbursed if it did not pass .08 legislation this year.
Mr. Carpenter indicated he was not convinced that lowering the BAC limit to .08 was, by itself, an effective measure. He wondered what kind of programs Nevada would be able to fund with the money it would receive when it passed .08 legislation, noting that the program was to be administered by the National Highway Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Snodgrass responded that the incentive grants could be as much as $900,000 and could be used anywhere in transportation. He indicated most states were putting the money into traffic safety and drunk driving projects, which would include enforcement, publicity, training, etc. and would be administered in the Nevada Department of Public Safety. Mr. Snodgrass noted no matching funds were required by the state.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the money could be used for treatment programs. Mr. Snodgrass felt it could be used to set up a study on treatment or treatment-related matters, but the actual cost of treatment was usually paid for by the offender. He stated the funds could be used for a driving under the influence assessment center and screening center.
Kevin M. Quint, Legislative Representative, Nevada Substance Abuse Prevention Council, noted that lowering the BAC level to .08 was a priority for the Prevention Council even before to the matter became an issue because of the potential loss of highway funds (Exhibit H). It was Mr. Quint’s opinion that it was important to pass .08 legislation now in order to send a strong message that Nevada was not tolerant toward the crime of driving under the influence (DUI). Mr. Quint felt that lowering the BAC level to .08 would eventually become a social norm just like wearing seat belts and smoking in public, but it would take time and therefore it should be done now. Mr. Quint emphasized the passage of .08 law had resulted in less crashes and deaths in other states and immediate passage of .08 legislation would reap benefits now in terms of lives not lost, injuries avoided and more. Mr. Quint urged the committee to pass A.B. 166.
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Lyon County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), felt that A.B. 166 was one of the best opportunities for the legislature to get alcohol-impaired and drunk drivers off the roads in Nevada. Ms. Stadler stated the committee’s focus should be on saving lives now, and not on losing dollars in the future. Ms. Stadler provided the committee with a chart regarding alcohol-related deaths before and after passage of .08 legislation in several other states (Exhibit I). She felt that with a minimum of ten years of experience all states were showing noteworthy reductions in alcohol-related fatalities as Nevada continued to increase.
Ms. Stadler stated that .08 legislation served as a general deterrent and would send a message to all Nevadans that impaired driving will not be tolerated. Ms. Stadler believed the growth in population was not an acceptable reason for the increase in alcohol-related fatalities in Nevada, noting that the United States population had grown while the national alcohol-related fatality rate had decreased by about 40 percent, due to .08 legislation, an increase in public awareness of the crime of DUI, and the work of DUI groups like MADD. Ms. Stadler pointed out implementation of a .08 BAC level would also bring a conviction rate to drivers with a BAC of .10 who were not currently being convicted because of the percentage of accuracy in the testing equipment.
Ms. Stadler indicated that MADD was in its tenth year of trying to pass .08 legislation and had a copy of A.B. 246 of the Sixty-Seventh Session, which also sought to lower the BAC level to .08. Ms. Stadler felt A.B. 166 should be passed now so that lives could be saved. She stated that time lost equaled lives lost and urged the committee to pass A.B. 166 to be effective in 2001.
Ann Holmes, Representative, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, also appeared as a victim of DUI, and testified in favor of A.B. 166. Ms. Holmes read a letter of acceptance received by her son, D.J. Benardis, from the University of Notre Dame (Exhibit J). D.J. had anxiously been awaiting the letter and received it just one day before being killed by an alcohol-impaired driver whose BAC level was under .10. Ms. Holmes stated there was no way for the committee to understand the depth of her sorrow or to imagine what it was like to wake up each morning and not have her son on this earth. She indicated she understood the committee’s reluctance to be forced into passing .08 legislation by the federal government, but hoped that Nevada was smart enough and compassionate enough to save lives. Ms. Holmes asked the committee for its most favorable consideration of A.B. 166. Chairman Anderson expressed his sympathy for Mr. Holmes’ loss.
Lisa A. Foster, Legislative Analyst, AAA Nevada, went on record in support of A.B. 166 and submitted a letter to that effect (Exhibit K). Ms. Foster felt public education helped to make a dent in the problem of drunk driving, and AAA would continue its efforts to educate the public on the seriousness of driving while intoxicated. Nationally, AAA supported .08 legislation.
Ms. Ohrenschall shared with the committee her experience with a drunk driver. She and her mother were crossing the street in a crosswalk when a drunk driver hit both of them, running over Ms. Ohrenschall’s head and knees and dragging her 40 feet. It took more than a year for Ms. Ohrenschall to recover. She felt the DUI problem was very serious and occurred more frequently than most people realized.
Julie Butler, Highway Safety Coordinator, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, State of Nevada, indicated the position of the Office of Traffic Safety on A.B. 166 was neutral. Ms. Butler stated that nationally motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for people ages 6 to 27 and each year approximately 41,000 lives were lost in traffic crashes, costing Americans approximately $150 billion dollars in medical and emergency room costs, property damage, and loss of wages and income. Alcohol was involved in almost 39 percent of fatal crashes in 1997, 37 percent of fatal crashes in 1999 and 31 percent of fatal crashes in 2000. The average BAC of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Nevada from 1997 to 1999 was .15. Ms. Butler believed that by enacting a .08 per se law in Nevada, when combined with Nevada’s current law for administrative license revocation, Nevada could expect to see a decrease in alcohol-related fatalities.
Ms. Butler noted if .08 legislation were enacted this year, Nevada could qualify for approximately $900,000 in incentive grant funds which was federal money that could be used for highway safety or highway construction projects and could be carried forward from year to year. Ms. Butler advised that in order to qualify for these funds in the current federal fiscal year, the .08 law would have to be enacted by July 15, 2001 and the law would have to take full effect by September 30, 2001. If, as was currently proposed, the bill was enacted on October 1, 2001, Nevada would lose out on grant funds for the current federal fiscal year, but would qualify for funds in the next federal fiscal year.
Chairman Anderson questioned Ms. Butler regarding the preferred effective date of the bill. Ms. Butler indicated that she did not have a preference but clarified that in order to qualify for funds in this federal fiscal year, the bill must be enacted by September 30, 2001. In response to Chairman Anderson’s further questions, Ms. Butler advised that an effective date of July 1 would be sufficient to qualify for funds in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Carpenter inquired whether Ms. Butler had any estimate of how many more people would be arrested for DUI if .08 legislation was passed. Ms. Butler did not have any estimates from Nevada, but advised that nationally there had not been a significant impact on the criminal justice system. Mr. Carpenter requested information from other states as to how many people had been arrested as a result of the passage of .08 legislation. Ms. Butler indicated she did not have that information with her but she could provide it at a later time. Chairman Anderson advised that information from neighboring states would be most helpful and requested Ms. Butler to provide the information in a timely fashion to Nick Anthony, the committee’s policy analyst.
William Parker, Representative, STOP DUI, Las Vegas, Nevada, felt A.B. 166 would save lives. Mr. Parker indicated the Clark County Court Program had a successful Serious Offender Program which paid for itself through restitution and suggested such a program might be implemented using federal funds obtained by passing .08 legislation. Mr. Parker believed the .08 legislation should be passed this session.
Chairman Anderson reminded witnesses before the committee to sign in on the guest list and not to repeat testimony the committee had already heard.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:57 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: