MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
March 20, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Maurice Washington (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Ronna Hubbard, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Firefighters Association
John Holmes, Concerned Citizen
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Bill Driscoll, Fire Chief, Central Lyon County Fire Department
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Legislative Representative, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Michael E. Hood, Chief, Colonel, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
John J. Kadlic, Attorney
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Arthur Mallory, District Attorney Churchill County, and Vice President, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Lyon County Chapter
Jimmy Holmes, Lobbyist, Vice Chairman, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force
Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 257.
SENATE BILL 257: Revises provisions relating to special license plates indicating employment as current or former professional fire fighter. (BDR 43-505)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, said she was in favor of S.B. 257, and she had also spoken briefly to Senator Jacobsen regarding his concerns for this bill. Senator Wiener then introduced Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, and Ronna Hubbard, and asked for their testimonies.
Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, spoke in favor of S.B. 257. He said the members of the Nevada State Firefighters’ Association had asked if there could be some additional provisions to S.B. 257.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. McAllister, “Would these provisions allow the volunteer firefighters to use the same firefighters license plate?” Mr. McAllister answered, “No, not the same professional fire fighters license plate.” Mr. McAllister said there had been amendments presented to the committee asking the volunteer firefighters to create their own license plate which would allow them to distribute their own additional funds wherever they would like to designate them. He said this also would create a line item in the State Fire Marshal Division‘s budget to allow the volunteer firefighters to create a fund for their training conference which they hold yearly.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. McAllister why they would want to do that. Mr. McAllister stated he believes the volunteer firefighters do not have the money to provide for their training because they do not have a secure funding source. Chairman O’Donnell stated, “Personally, we should give the license plates to the volunteer firefighters because they are volunteers who give up their heart, soul and their lives to fight fires.” Chairman O’Donnell also responded the volunteer firefighters should not have to pay extra monies.
Ronna Hubbard, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Firefighters Association, commented on Chairman O’Donnell’s earlier statement and distributed proposed amendments (Exhibit C) for S.B. 257. She explained the Nevada State Firefighters Association’s problem is there is not a secure source of funds for training volunteer firefighters. She said she believed the volunteer firefighter’s heart and soul are into fighting fires to the point they are willing to pay the extra money.
Chairman O’Donnell commented he does not know how much money would be generated from these measures, but there are two members of the Senate Committee on Finance on the transportation committee who have a very soft heart when it comes to volunteer firefighters. Ms. Hubbard responded she has been a firefighter for 23 years, and she is willing to pay the extra money so the volunteer firefighters could receive their training because there are some fire departments in this state that do not receive any training. Ms. Hubbard iterated there is a yearly Nevada State Fire Fighters Association Annual Training Conference that has been in effect for 65 years for all firefighters. There are other classes held throughout the year the volunteer firefighters had received a grant toward, but the Nevada State Firefighters Association would like to see them get a secured source to be able to continue these classes. She also stated there are videoconferences viewed throughout the state for the Nevada firefighters who are not able to travel to the classes.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if there were any other remarks on S.B. 257.
John Holmes, Concerned Citizen, testified against S.B. 257, and passed out proposed amendments (Exhibit D) for S.B. 257. Mr. Holmes stated he had worked 15 years with the Jacks Valley Volunteer Fire Department and he was one of the original members, and he is currently a member of the board of directors of the Firefighters Memorial. Mr. Holmes said he reviewed the bill and there are a lot of good points in S.B. 257. He suggested there should be some language changes to improve the bill. Mr. Holmes commented he had not seen the previously distributed amendments and he said he believed that his amendments might overlap. He summarized his proposed amendments from page 2, lines 11 through 22. Mr. Holmes said he strongly believes whether or not a firefighter is paid, he should be considered as a professional fire fighter.
Mr. Holmes stated:
If a doctor goes to a clinic for the poor and donates his time, this does not make him less than a professional. If lawyers frequently do pro bono work for people who cannot afford their services, this does not make them less than professional.
Mr. Holmes commented further, “Status comes from years of experience and training of formal education, in order to reach this point.” He said he believed a professional firefighter should be able to receive a Nevada firefighters license plate. Mr. Holmes noted he would not like to see this bill excluding the volunteer firefighters. He summed up his comments and he said there are some very good aspects in this bill such as the funding of the burn center, and he would encourage the bill’s broad use if possible, given the criteria of the minimum of 10 years service or let it be under the recommendation of the chief of the fire department.
Mr. McAllister commented, “For number one, the “Nevada Firefighters” license plate was developed 4 years ago, and approved by the Senate and the Assembly, then passed as a law.” He mentioned that no one had complained during the 1997 Legislative Session regarding these measures. Mr. McAllister stated the Professional Fire Fighter’s of Nevada recognized this problem and they have tried to correct it through the current legislation. He conveyed that he had spoken to Senator Jacobsen in the meeting on March 6, 2001, about his concerns regarding S.B. 257. Mr. McAllister reiterated that the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada has done everything that they possibly could to address these concerns. He said Senator Jacobsen had mentioned earlier that there was a need for funding for the volunteer firefighters training and there are volunteers scouted throughout the state who need some funds. Mr. McAllister said he believed by having two separate license plates this would allow the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada to distribute monies to whomever they choose, and this would allow the volunteer firefighters to distribute their funds to whomever they choose. He said he does not believe these measures would be offensive. Mr. McAllister stressed that only the individuals who have worked and sacrificed, as a professional fire fighter in the state of Nevada should be the only ones to receive the Nevada firefighters license plates.
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified that the Division of Forestry does support the legislative intent of S.B. 257. Mr. Robinson stated the “Nevada firefighters” license plate is a subject of pride for a lot of the Nevada Firefighters, and it is an attractive license plate, and also is a way for people in this profession to recognize each other across the state. He handed out proposed amendments (Exhibit E). Mr. Robinson stated:
One of our concerns as the committee members know there are several hundred state and federal firefighters out there, who may not be members of the Nevada Fire Chiefs Association or whose employees may not be members of the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada.
Mr. Robinson pointed out his proposed amendment for page 2, line 8, which would basically add, “state or federal organization within the state which would include organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the Nevada Division of Forestry.” And then on page 2, after line 23, paragraph (d), language stating, “A letter from the chief officer of a state or federal firefighter agency certifying the current applicants former employment as a professional fire fighter,” should be added. He summed up saying these are our suggestions.
Chairman O’Donnell asked for clarification of the language deleted under section 1, paragraph 8, subsection (b).
Mr. McAllister commented that the Nevada State Firefighters Association does not have a problem with the amendment given by Mr. Robinson, as long as the individual who signs the letter meets the specified criteria.
Chairman O’Donnell asked for additional comments and testimonies.
Bill Driscoll, Fire Chief, Central Lyon County Fire Department, stated he had been a fire chief in the state of Nevada for approximately 20 years. He mentioned the organizations in which he had served there were both professional and volunteer firefighters. Mr. Driscoll said he would like to suggest to the transportation committee “a firefighter is a firefighter because they are fighting fires to serve the public in the same way,” and in his opinion they deserve the same recognition. He acknowledged the controls that have to be put into place so the appropriate people would receive the recognition. He reiterated making a difference in career or volunteer firefighters is just wrong.
Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 257 and opened the hearing on S.B. 288.
SENATE BILL 288: Makes various changes to provisions concerning reckless driving and duties of driver after accident so that those provisions apply to person who drives on premises to which public has access. (BDR 43-468)
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Legislative Representative, Clark County District, Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, stated from time to time there had been some changes on this legislation. He commented:
In the past there was not a compelling reason to bring reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident into the statutory scheme. However, a few years ago a case was provided to the transportation committee where a truck driver, on a (BLM) road in Pershing County, was driving on the wrong side of the road at an extreme rate of speed. The driver collided with another vehicle killing the other driver, then he later pleaded to a felony of reckless driving. He explained how this case was appealed. The Supreme Court had ruled that the reckless driving statute does not apply to this case because it was an extensively public road this was because of the way the statutory scheme was structured.
Mr. Graham implied this compelling case is the reason why he was here today asking the committee to consider adding; “not only the reckless driving statute,” but “leaving the scene of the accident violation,” too for this type of roadway or premise. He expounded that Colonel Hood had investigated this case and asked Mr. Hood to give his testimony.
Michael E. Hood, Chief, Colonel, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, came forth to testify on S.B. 288.
Colonel Hood, stated that several years ago the Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP) had gone before the transportation committee to change this same issue involving the “driving under the influence” (DUI), statute and the issues turned out successfully. He stated, “This statute is needed for reckless driving and the Nevada Highway Patrol Division’s hands are tied and there is nothing they could do, we cannot prosecute these people when we believe they are at fault.”
Chairman O’Donnell replied, “So, you are telling me that this is an expansion of some statute, that we have already passed in terms of DUI, ‘reckless driving or if this is reckless driving leaving the scene of an accident.’” Colonel Hood expounded, ”There is some authority presently with the DUI statute on a road that has access to the public in which NHP could enforce.” Colonel Hood commented in the case that Mr. Graham had described and the NHP investigated, “If this person were drunk, we would have had the authority to prosecute that person. But, because that person was not drunk and his was a driving reckless plea, we had no authority to prosecute.” Colonel Hood noted, “The Nevada Highway Patrol Division is asking for authority to include within their jurisdiction or all jurisdictions for police officers across the state, the authority to enforce this law on roads to which the public has access.
Chairman O’Donnell described an incident that occurred in 1995 or 1997 relating to his office assistant who was leaving a bar in the Las Vegas area, was walking behind the vehicle of a lady who had just left the bar minutes before him, she reversed her vehicle, hitting him, he ended up on top of the rear trunk of her vehicle, where he had smashed his head into the rear window, and the window broke. Chairman O’Donnell noted the driver had stopped her car quickly and his office assistant had rolled off of the trunk of the vehicle, then she drove away. He said because she was not drunk the law could not prosecute her.
Colonel Hood stated what the NHP is presently asking for: “If in that same scenario, you illustrated where someone was driving recklessly, then struck a pedestrian, the NHP would have the authority to prosecute.” Chairman O’Donnell replied, “Would this be a civil matter today?” Colonel Hood said, “Yes.”
Mr. Graham responded:
We have asked the committee to add “the leaving of the scene” provision because if a person is located in a rural area and a driver runs him off the road, if this person is killed, there would not be a need to have an police official immediately present, but if this person becomes injured he or she would like to believe the driver would stop to see if the injured person is alright and render assistance.
Senator Care responded, “Obviously the committee would like to address the most egregious case that might occur, and there will be other consequences.” He commented these other locations might include parking garages, parking lots, hotels, et cetera, not for the purposes of prosecution. He claimed either one of these areas might be included, as well. Senator Care questioned the definition of “public highway,” if it meant a road that is not owned by the state. Colonel Hood responded, “Yes, it would address parking lots and this is the reason why NHP is asking for egregious violations of law with DUI reckless driving. He iterated the Nevada Highway Patrol Division is not asking for the common “fail to yield” violation and it has to be egregious. Colonel Hood conveyed the definition for the “public highways” would be defined in the statutes, which includes width, et cetera.
John J. Kadlic, Attorney, testified in support of S.B. 28. Mr. Kadlic presented for the record several copied pages from the “997 Pacific Reporter, 2d Series” (Exhibit F), he then stated:
Chapter 484 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) does define “highway” and the definition says; “the entire width between the boundary lines of every way dedicated to a public authority when any part of the way is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic, whether or not the public authority is maintaining the way.”
Mr. Kadlic explained this problem arose in these cases, where the public authority is defined as, “Public Authority” means or the department of transportation or the local authority having jurisdiction to enact laws or ordinances or adopt regulations relating to traffic over a highway.” He stated in this particular instance the roadway that is in question is a beautiful four-lane roadway from the mine site to Limmerick Canyon Road, where it connects to Limmerick Canyon Road and then Lovelock. Mr. Kadlic said the problem was it had never been dedicated to a public authority, therefore the laws does not apply to this area. He remarked throughout the state in every county including Clark County and Washoe County there are roads used frequently by the public, that have never been dedicated to a public authority. Therefore, Chapter 484 of NRS does not apply except for the driving under the influence law which speaks in terms of the highway or the roadway where the public has access. Also, if driving under the influence of drugs this would be even a broader matter, this is on or off the highways.
Senator Care asked Colonel Hood whether this problem was different within the western parts of the states or if the state of Nevada would be the first to pass these measures. Colonel Hood stated, “I quite honestly do not know, and I am not an attorney, but, I would have to discuss this matter with Mr. Graham to clarify the definition.” He stressed the state of Nevada has a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Colonel Hood maintained the state of Nevada does need to be able to prosecute these egregious cases on these types of roads, even if it would be the road that a person uses to go into a parking lot. He said he strongly believed this law would return, if not passed over the next 4 years. Colonel Hood described the Safeway Food and Drug store parking lot on U.S. Highway 395, (2035 North Carson St., Carson City) and said there is a road before a shopper could drive into a parking space. He said he believed this bill would cover that road but he is not sure if this bill would cover the parking spaces.
Chairman O’Donnell responded there is a solution to this problem, but it is very far-reaching. When you are dealing with a person’s private property, would they be liable as a property owner, civilly, or criminally, because this incident happened on their property?
Colonel Hood said the only measure the NHP has requested is to include the roads which have access to a private property, not necessarily the private property but if there is a public road that has access to a private property.
Senator O’Donnell pointed out there is not a definition for “highway.” He drew attention to an area in Las Vegas.
He said there is a street named Home Depot Drive that is on private property and the minute you make a turn and cross the 5-foot sidewalk easement, you are on private property. However, this street is designed just like a roadway, it then fans out into all the parking spaces.
Senator O’Donnell asked Colonel Hood, “How would you define this area?”
Mr. Graham replied that the committee was opening and expanding measures just like it has done for the DUI laws.
Senator Care acknowledged how he represented a client who was in a wreck in a parking lot, and what he had discovered was just a “pure negligence standard.” He stated the way he understands this bill, if in the same parking lot mentioned, if someone had been injured or killed this law would take effect, this is how he understands it. Mr. Kadlic stated this has nothing to do with civilly, and if someone is civilly liable, they are civilly liable. This is strict criminal authority to prosecute a person criminally.
Senator O’Donnell replied, “Ok, I am driving into The Home Depot and I am in the right-hand lane and the person to the left of me decides he wants to park on my right side, then they cut in front of me and clip my front fender, and no one gets hurt. Would this be constituted to be reckless driving?” Mr. Graham answered “probably not,” because reckless driving takes a willful intent to endanger the lives and property of another: it is a fairly high-level degree of recklessness. He remarked the Legislature has taken the position, and he believes the authorities would agree with this issue, speed by itself does not constitute recklessness.
Senator O’Donnell gave another example; he said it is 2:00 a.m. at the Albertson’s Food and Drug store parking lot in Reno, where there are some young people who would just like to see what a “donut” looks like, then they start making tight “donut” turns with their vehicles in the parking lot. He asked, “Is this reckless driving?” Mr. Graham said he would argue it is not.
Colonel Hood quoted, “I think we would have to go back to the definition of reckless driving; “willful or wanton disregard, and we would have to prove that issue.” He said he does know at the present time, the NHP cannot prosecute the worst cases with deaths involved and the legislators really need to address this matter.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated she was present today primarily to listen to all the given testimonies and to see if S.B. 288 was what the Nevada Concerned Citizens believed it would be. She commented that the Nevada Concerned Citizens had taken a position in support of this legislation. Ms. Lusk claimed the Nevada Concerned Citizens’ concerns were based on several accidents that had taken place on private property, where a call was made to the police department to come out to report the accident. She said she believes this issue leaves a person without protection or no way to verify what had really occurred. She drew attention to measures that had not been discussed in the bill on page 2, line 33 the provisions that increase the penalty from a minimum of 1 year in prison to 2 years with a maximum term changed to not more than 15 years, she indicated this was a significant policy change. Ms. Lusk pointed out that the transportation committee should consider the extension of the duty of a driver in a vehicle who was involved in an accident to report the accidents that occur on the public access.
Senator O’Donnell quoted two views. “I think a Category B felony is a 15 year or $5000 fine in prison, and what the bill drafter did was maintain the consistency of a Category B felony.” The other view, “I am not so sure it would help in a situation where a person would cross in front of me, and damage my fender, and I still would not be able to get a police report.” He stated he does not believe at that point the police under this law would not be able to give a report of the accident. Senator O’Donnell said this law is strictly for reckless driving. Ms. Lusk agreed and pointed out the first portion deals with surrendering your driver’s license to a police officer at the scene, which has lead her to believe that perhaps this measure would have this affect. She commented this might be a point in terms of policy of what to do with these measures.
Senator O’Donnell clarified the intent of the bill will stop the willful and egregious behavior of a reckless driver in a parking lot or on a private road. He said the transportation committee had addressed this issue in the Seventieth Legislative Session. Senator O’Donnell commented, “Even if you took down the license plate number that hit you, you could not find out who that person was,” because the law is strict and could not give this information out. He explained the Nevada District Attorney’s Association had to get an exemption last year in order to get a person’s name if they were involved in an accident because they could not go after the person for compensation. Senator O’Donnell confirmed there are a lot of problems with accidents in parking lots.
Mr. Graham stated the way he understood S.B. 288, on page 1, line 11, “The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident on a highway or on premises to which the public has access resulting in injury to or death or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall.” He said he believed this might create a duty even in a minor accident, although, this may not create the duty to stop and leave the drivers name and number of a person involved in an accident in a parking lot.
Senator O’Donnell asked if the police department would be required to take an accident report, at that time. Mr. Graham replied that the next testifier would be able to answer.
Arthur Mallory, District Attorney, Churchill County, and Vice President, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, stated there are not any parking garages in Churchill County, but, there is a very large fairground with a large parking lot, and there have been numerous situations where people were unfortunately driving in a reckless manner and endangering small children and others who might have come into the fairgrounds for rodeos and other events. Mr. Mallory expounded that the Churchill County District Attorney’s Office was unable to charge these people because they did not meet the requirements of the reckless driving statute. He iterated this was a concern that had been expressed to him by the Churchill County sheriff’s department and the local police department. Otherwise, he said he would agree to the professional testimonies presented to the committee earlier in the meeting.
Senator Care gave an example; if two people are involved in an accident on private property and one of the owners of a vehicle says, “I will not provide you with the information then drives off.” He asked, “Would this accident become a hit and run under this bill?” Senator Care added secondly, if the police officer does not arrive at the scene, what would happen under those circumstances?
Mr. Graham iterated this situation would be processed as though it was a parking lot accident and eventually a police officer will knock at their door with a citation reading “leaving the scene of an accident.”
Mr. Mallory answered Senator Care’s question and said there are some jurisdictions in California, to his understanding, that when there is a fender bender, because of the lack of resources given to the police department they will not respond. He elucidated there is a state law in California asking that the fender bender accidents exchange information.
Senator O’Donnell questioned who is to determine whether an accident in a parking lot was reckless or not. He said he could relate to the exchanging of information and making this requirement a law that a person would have to exchange information when there is an accident in a parking lot. Senator O’Donnell stated the technical parts of this bill are not correct.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, stated the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office supports S.B. 288. Captain Nadeau testified he would like to address a couple of questions. For example, number one, on a public highway, if you are involved in an accident, a driver has the duty to stop and render aid and assistance and exchange information, but a driver does not necessarily have to make a report. He mentioned there is a monetary threshold as to when a report must be filed and he said he believed this monetary threshold is set up by the statute as $1,000 presently. Captain Nadeau stated the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office does respond to private property accidents, but the workload on many other agencies are just overburdened and they are unable to respond to private property accidents. He reiterated the drivers still have a duty, particularly under this bill, to exchange information.
Senator O’Donnell asked Captain Nadeau, “What section are you reading from?” Captain Nadeau pointed out page 2, under paragraph (b), “Give such information and upon request manually surrender the license to any police officer at the scene of the accident or who is investigating the accident . . . ” He added, on page 2, line 2, information should be exchanged with the driver, occupant of, “or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the accident.” Captain Nadeau said in other words, it is incumbent on the drivers to exchange information and if the vehicle has been left unattended then the person would still be obligated to leave the information.
Senator Shaffer asked if a statement of intent should accompany this bill. Mr. Graham responded the section that is of concerns is the Category B felony that says it only covers “death of or substantial bodily harm” and he noted this section would narrow the intent some and should be read in conjunction so that other questions and concerns are addressed.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said he concurred with Captain Nadeau. He stated the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is in support of this bill. Lieutenant Olsen explained that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department does not have many of the roads that are sometimes the problem in the rural areas of Las Vegas, but they do have resident officers who are faced with the same problems in such cases.
Senator O’Donnell asked if he had been in a vehicle accident, where a driver clips his vehicle, and at the same time calls the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, what would the people in the communication department tell him? Lieutenant Olsen responded to Senator O’Donnell that it probably would be best if he described a personal experience that occurred. He noted that he was parked in a parking lot, inside a restaurant, when someone careened through the parking lot then smashed into one vehicle hard enough to break its axle, then threw that vehicle into his vehicle and tore off the rear end of his vehicle. He said this happened on private property and he called the police department. Lieutenant Olsen stated the police department determined the driver did leave the roadway out of control, or reckless. He mentioned if it had been strictly in the parking lot they could not prosecute. Lieutenant Olsen confirmed his vehicle was towed, as well as the other vehicle parked next to his vehicle.
Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Lyon County Chapter, testified on behalf of S.B. 288. Ms. Stadler stated what had brought this bill to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s attention is page 2, section 3, subsection 2, with the increased penalties for the felony reckless cause of death or substantial bodily harm. She said in the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers’ experiences in some DUI cases that are not prosecuted, as such, for one reason or another but are prosecuted as reckless driving, she quoted, “We believe that the higher penalty is definitely appropriate for the crime of reckless driving that has caused death or substantial bodily harm . . . So, we are in support of the bill for these reasons.”
Jimmy Holmes, Lobbyist, Vice Chairman, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, testified in favor of S.B. 288. Mr. Holmes stated the Northern Nevada DUI Task Force is concerned about the penalties in this bill. He said he believed the penalties are totally inadequate for a felony reckless driving resulting in death, but the task force does support the notion of the 2 years’ to 15 years’ penalty. Mr. Holmes said he could relate to this bill because he and his wife had experienced their son’s death due to a person convicted of reckless driving. He stated that his son’s accident happened 5 years ago. The individual ended up with a minimum of 16 months as far as his sentencing was concerned, the maximum was 48 months, but in essence, through some efforts of he and his wife, friends and family, they were able to put the driver into prison for 24 months rather than the minimum of 16 months. Mr. Holmes said, “When you stop and think about it even 2 years is inadequate, and why should you be able to recklessly drive a vehicle down one of our highways and kill somebody, then get off with a light sentence?” He said, “When you stop and think about a 3000-pound automobile careening down the highway at 60 mph, if any of you [committee members] would like to go in front of a gun versus 3000 pounds at 60 mph, I suggest you should give this some consideration because it is deadly.”
Senator O’Donnell responded that it seemed like the Legislature had changed these laws years ago and passed the category B felony versus category C felony. He commented he does not know why this legislation did not change. Mr. Holmes commented, “I wish it had and I hope that you do.”
Senator O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 288.
There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joan Moseid,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: