MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 17, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:55 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2001. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 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:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. John Carpenter
Ms. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Senate Bill 288: Makes various changes to provisions concerning reckless driving so that those provisions apply to person who drives on premises to which public has access. (BDR 43-468)
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, presented S.B. 288, which:
· provided that the crime of reckless driving included driving a vehicle on any premise to which the public had access;
· increased the minimum sentence for reckless driving from 1 year to 2 years and the maximum sentence from 6 years to 15 years;
· and, revised the law and the duty to stop, give information and render reasonable assistance.
Assemblyman Gustavson objected to the enforcement of traffic laws on private property. Assemblymen Carpenter and Claborn believed a judge should retain the discretion for sentencing beyond one year, while Assemblywoman Ohrenschall believed any increase would unjustifiably limit a trial judge’s discretion in handling each case individually. Assemblyman Collins pointed out there were numerous Category B felony laws that carried 1- to 5- or 2- to 10‑year sentences. Though he thought two years was the “middle of the road,” especially considering accident fatalities, he would support S.B. 288 even with a one-year minimum sentence. Assemblyman Lee requested Mr. Graham to come forward, whereupon Chairwoman Chowning asked him to further define “on premises to which the public has access.”
Ben Graham, representing the District Attorney’s Association, stated the most common “premises” would be parking lots, or a mobile home park, but not necessarily roads or trails in rural areas. Capt. Jim Nadeau, of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, supported S.B. 288. In 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled the existing statute applied only to highways. S.B. 288 was important legislation, Mr. Nadeau assessed, for situations in which drivers willfully and wantonly put the public at risk.
Stan Olsen, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, revealed that he had been a victim of a reckless driver in a parking lot. His and another car were “totaled,” yet the police could not issue a ticket to the driver. Assemblyman Lee mentioned a “power line pole road” and asked if a person involved in an excessive speed accident could be considered in “wanton disregard?” Mr. Graham believed that type of roadway was somewhat limited to the public, but if the accident resulted in a death of another, he would seriously consider prosecution. It would be argued whether or not the public had access to it. S.B. 288 would not necessarily open that up.
Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the officers would know in which areas this would apply and why the sentencing was increased. Mr. Graham had no quarrel with reducing the sentencing to one year; he could not recall why the increase was requested. The reason for bringing forward S.B. 288 stemmed from a case in Pershing County where a heavy-duty truck, traveling at a rapid speed on the wrong side of an access road, struck and killed “some people.” The driver pled guilty but challenged the jurisdiction of the state to prosecute. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor saying a drunk driver was covered [by statute] but a reckless driver was not (Exhibit C).
Assemblyman Oceguera, concerned about the lack of a clear definition, believed parking lots should be covered but feared this would be broadly interpreted. Mr. Graham hypothesized a situation in which he and another were “going humpty dumpty over the duns and the dips,” engaged in “ultra-hazardous activities,” which, in the event of an accident, was considered under a concept of assumption of risk and contributory negligence when determining if there was criminal liability. From a discretionary standpoint, since it dealt with substantial bodily harm or death, if the committee desired to move the bill, Mr. Graham felt the penalty could be trimmed back to one year, but with the other end left more open.
Assemblyman Collins asked about the drivers in parking lots who drove willfully dangerously, would the police enforce there? Mr. Graham affirmed it must be demonstrated that the public was endangered. Assemblyman Gustavson said the 1 or 2 to 15 years was irrelevant to him, but it was incredulous to him that existing law did not cover negligent or dangerous driving which claimed a life or did substantial bodily harm. Mr. Graham wished that Mr. Gustavson had been seated on the Supreme Court when the Lee decision (Exhibit C) came down, then he related that if a kid came by his house repeatedly driving wildly, throwing dirt, hitting the ditch, running over the dog, every day, sooner or later he would call the police to come out. Without S.B. 288, that officer would say, “can’t do it.”
Assemblyman Nolan asked if S.B. 288 would apply in gated communities. The police would not be patrolling the area, Mr. Graham stated, but if there was a problem, this bill would give authority for the police to come in and enforce the law.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked how an officer would make a decision regarding “willful” or “wanton” when they were called to private property situations. Capt. Nadeau replied it was a misdemeanor in a case where there was not injury so in order for the police to enforce it, it must be committed within their presence. In the case of an accident where there was injury or death, it would be based on facts determined through the investigation of the accident.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 288, REMOVING THE INCREASED PENALTY ON LINE 16, LEAVING THE PENALTY AT 1 TO 6 YEARS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED.
Assemblyman Nolan inclined toward the 1 year but preferred to give the judge discretion for a 15 year penalty. Chairwoman Chowning reminded the committee therein lay the confusion at the hearing. The proponents of the bill did not know where that recommendation came from. Without that knowledge, she did not feel they could pass the bill out.
Assemblywoman McClain thought the “2 to 15” mirrored the driving under the influence (DUI) penalties when there was a death or substantial injury. Mr. Gustavson would support the “1 to 15.” Assemblyman Nolan wished to amend the motion to 15 years. Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if there had to be a maximum.
Mr. Graham felt the “1 to 15” might be appropriate. In viewing NRS 484.3795, which dealt with death or substantial bodily harm in a DUI charge, it was a Category B with a “2 to 20” penalty. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall agreed to the “1 to 15” because she felt the DUI penalties should be greater than those for reckless driving.
Chairwoman Chowning repeated the motion on the floor: amend and do pass S.B. 288 with line 16 reading not less than 1 year and not more than 15 years. Assemblyman Collins supported this change. Assemblywoman Smith supported the bill but voiced a concern that the intent could be better defined.
THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN GUSTAVSON AND OCEGUERA VOTED NO.
Senate Bill 524: Authorizes electronic submission and storage of documents relating to vehicle registration. (BDR 43-1222)
Mr. Mouritsen stated that S.B. 524 authorized the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to:
· establish a program for electronic submission and storage of documents related to vehicle registration,
· establish provisions regarding the acceptable type of electronic transmission, the processing fee, the criteria for determining approval of an application to participate in the program,
· accept grants and gifts from any source to maintain the program for electronic submission and storage of vehicle registration documents,
· allow any person to submit by electronic means a document required to be submitted for the issuance or renewal of a certificate of registration, ownership or title,
· waive the requirement for the signature of a natural person on certain documents submitted by electronic means
· deem the documents submitted by electronic means as original documents in administrative and judicial proceedings (Exhibit D).
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the fiscal note effect was before S.B. 524 was amended. If the department could accept donations to implement the program, she reasoned, there should not be a fiscal impact.
Carol Falk, Vehicle Program Manager, DMV&PS, believed the fiscal note showed a savings of $20,289 in the first year, realized by not printing and mailing the documents to the financial institutions. Ms. Falk requested an amendment to the implementation date of S.B. 524 from July 1, 2001, to January 1, 2003, due to issues to be considered prior to partnering with financial institutions and dealers, such as determining bonding requirements, finalizing regulations and contacts, holding public workshops and hearings, developing an audit process and providing training to business partners. With the limited information technology staff resources, DMV&PS felt that the later implementation was more reasonable, based on the amount of legislation that required changes to the computer system. Chairwoman Chowning asked if the amendment could be worded “on or before January 1, 2003.” Ms. Falk agreed to that.
Ron Fong, representing the Nevada Credit Union League, interjected that he had this discussion with Ms. Falk on the Senate side and respectfully disagreed with her amendment. The Senate committee pointed out that in Section 3 it read the department “may” establish a program. He admitted that this type program could not possibly be ready in two months but wanted to move the money and establish the process in July of 2001.
Chairwoman Chowning referred them to page 6, Section 8, and stated that the flexibility was in establishing the program, once established it was a July 1, 2001 deadline. Assemblyman Collins asked Ms. Falk if she had recommended this amendment at the original hearing. She had in the Senate Transportation Committee when it was originally heard. She admitted she had failed to mention it in the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing. Mr. Collins felt that the “may” that was already in the bill was adequate and there should be no amendment at this time. Assemblyman Carpenter believed the bill became effective on July 1 to begin the processes. It did not mandate a completion date. Assemblywoman McClain said it was permissive; the effective dates were for the commencement of the project, not the completion.
Chairwoman Falk returned to Section 3, “the department may establish a program” and on line 11, “if the department establishes the program, then the department shall adopt regulations.” She asked if that was the portion Ms. Falk felt caused the time constraint. Ms. Falk said:
As long as that is the understanding of the committee, we are comfortable with that. Historically, when we’ve had legislation and there is an implementation date, that was the guide that we used as a timeframe for when the program had to be established and was ready for implementation.
Ms. Chowning stated that would be put into the record. In fact, she said, it was odd that there was an effective date for a “permissive” program. The clock would start at July 1, 2001. But it need not be finished within a certain period of time. Mr. Fong stated that another part of S.B. 524 was a provision that allowed the DMV&PS to accept grants and donations, which he would like to see begun on July 1, 2001.
Assemblywoman McClain moved to do pass.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning stated there was a possibility they might receive the limousine bill from the Senate, which was referred to two committees but not yet received by this one. Because of the timeframe, she would recess rather than adjourn.
There were no further comments or questions. The committee recessed at 2:52 p.m. and was not reconvened due to time constraints.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: