MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 13, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:45 a.m., on Monday, February 13, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Nevada Legislature, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Judy Jacoboni, Victim Advocate, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Theodore J. Manos, Attorney at Law Dick Steinberg, President, Westcare Hugo Perez, youth client at Westcare Brian Patterson, youth client at Westcare Pauline Salla, Adolescent Care and Treatment Sasha Riley, Adolescent Care and Treatment Liz Breshears, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse James G. Duggan, Services Coordinator, Bridge Counseling Assoc. Chairman Humke called the meeting to order stating that the five bills to be heard today relate to juveniles and driving under the influence. Chairman Humke also acknowledged the seventh and eighth grade classes from St. Viotor's School in Las Vegas in attendance. This meeting was video televised to the Department of Transportation Room 331 in Carson City, Nevada. ASSEMBLY BILL 91 - Requires evaluation and treatment relating to abuse of alcohol or other drugs for juvenile offenders under certain circumstances. ASSEMBLY BILL 92 - Requires revocation of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who drive under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substances. ASSEMBLY BILL 94 - Requires revocation or delay in issuance of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who unlawfully purchase, consume or possess alcoholic beverage. ASSEMBLY BILL 95 - Requires finding that juvenile was driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance to be included in his driver's record for certain period. ASSEMBLY BILL 97 - Requires offender convicted of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance for first time to be placed in program of treatment under certain circumstances. Chairman Humke asked the members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to come forward as a group and present an overview of the bills before the committee. Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, MADD, began her presentation by stating they attended some of the interim committee meetings on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 71 Study. She discovered, during testimony of the interim committee, that no one was addressing the youth component of the problem of alcohol abuse. Testimony was provided by the prison systems, parole and probation, and treatment specialists about the alcohol and drug abuse among criminal offenders during the interim committee. MADD feels that unless intervention and sanctions for juvenile offenders are considered, the greatest opportunity to lessen the number of adult criminal offenders was being ignored. MADD wants to make a juvenile's first brush with the system so impactful that it will be his last. There is currently a notable lack of detection, arrest, and conviction of youthful offenders. She stated the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers a jurisdiction is doing its job when approximately one to two percent of licensed drivers are arrested for DUI in any given area. Nevada currently has a one percent arrest rate. However, with juveniles, nationally, only two of every 1,000 occasions of drinking result in an arrest on the average. Only one of every 100,000 youth drinking occasions result in any sanctions against the alcohol outlet or provider. As stated by the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, "When youth are arrested for drinking and driving violations they should be subject to the full penalty of the law. Releasing youth to their parents, like downgrading their offenses or diverting them into pre-adjudication programs, conveys the impression to the young offenders, as well as to their parents, that youthful impaired driving is not a serious offense." Ms. Stadler further explained studies have shown youth are more influenced about drinking by parental attitudes than by peer pressure. Undetected youthful offenders later become members of the drug and alcohol abusers in the adult criminal offender population. This, coupled with the "boys will be boys" attitude probably accounts for the driving under the influence (DUI) demographic profile of offenders currently in the State of Nevada. Specific statistical data was provided by Ms. Stadler, attached hereto as (Exhibit C). MADD supports zero tolerance laws for those under 21 years of age because purchase, possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal under 21 and any measurable amount of alcohol represents illegal possession. She also stated that youths, in general, are less-experienced drivers. See (Exhibit C) for more statistics regarding alcohol-related, youth accidents. Ms. Stadler informed the committee that 31 states have already implemented the zero tolerance laws for youths. Twelve states mandate that licenses are only available to youths who are enrolled in or have completed high school. In the State of Wisconsin, local ordinances authorize license suspension for 16 to 17 year olds who drop out of high school. Along with zero tolerance, MADD believes in sanctions that are stiff enough to hold up as a deterrent and a requirement for entry of the offense on the driving record of the youth which would identify adult offenders as repeat offenders. MADD does not believe there is currently any deterrent effect for our youth who are drinking and driving. All youthful offenders should be screened for drug and alcohol abuse programs. Intervention and treatment should commence at that time. Ms. Stadler feels that the privilege of driving is particularly important to our youth so the revocation of that privilege would be especially effective in modifying their behavior. Studies have shown drug and alcohol abuse is a major problem among criminal offenders. It is naive to think those offenders did not drive while under the influence. The number one killer of teenagers is drunk driving. It is not stretching to say other juvenile crimes, shootings, date rape, gangs, etc., are alcohol-related. Ms. Stadler informed the committee that during the ACR 71 Study committee MADD proposed several different Bill Draft Requests (BDR). Zero tolerance was addressed but not supported by the interim committee. Sanctions against the parents of juveniles who drive on a revoked or suspended license was addressed but not supported by the interim committee. A.B. 91, A.B. 95, A.B. 92, and A.B. 94 were all BDR's from MADD. She stated many lives have been saved by the age 21 drinking laws. MADD feels zero tolerance would add to the high statistics already in effect for saving lives since the age 21 drinking laws have been in place. MADD is not narrow in their thinking about the drinking and driving laws. They realize it is going to take many laws, sanctions, and attitudal changes before the problem is lessened. The hope of any generation lies in its youth and that is why MADD has looked into the youth drug and alcohol problems. Chairman Humke, acknowledging some students wishing to testify, asked Ms. Stadler to abate any further testimony or questions so he could address the persons located in Carson City. Pauline Salla, Residential Counselor at Adolescent Care and Treatment Center, Reno, Nevada testified in support of A.B. 91, A.B. 92, A.B. 94, and A.B. 95. She explained that Adolescent Care and Treatment Center (ACT) is a private, non-profit program offering residential care to adolescent females age 13 to 18 with substance abuse issues. They also offer day treatment program for adolescent males and females ages 13 to 18 years. There are currently 22 adolescents in the day treatment program. Participants in the program receive schooling, counseling, and family therapy. They offer an outpatient program for males and females age 13 to 21 years. Ms. Salla provided further information about their program as can be viewed in (Exhibit D) attached hereto. Ms. Salla stated they were in support of the bills hereinabove mentioned because they believe the earlier the adolescent is evaluated and assessed the earlier they can enter treatment and the likelihood of successful recovery is increased. They feel that the bills before the committee are strong steps toward lowering the numbers of juveniles who struggle with substance abuse. Sasha Riley, a resident at Adolescent Care and Treatment testified that she turned 18 years of age in March, 1993. Prior to that she was drinking and smoking pot every day. While in day treatment she continued to be a substance abuser. When she was confined to residential treatment, all she wanted to do was get out so she could continue using alcohol and drugs. She did not want to accept the help they were trying to offer her. Her main goal was to return to live with her father but she could not do that unless she was "clean". Much of her problem was because she and her father were both in denial that a problem existed. In July, 1994, she did not talk with her father for approximately six months and came to realize that she is an addict. She has been "clean" for seven months and is getting ready to graduate from the program. ACT has also helped her rebuild her relationship with her father and mother. She is very proud of herself and grateful for the help that ACT has provided her. Judy Jacoboni, President, MADD Lyon County Chapter, testified in support of A.B. 91. She stated that the goal for A.B. 91 provides for the detection and treatment of those DUI offenders under 21 who abuse alcohol or other drugs. Research indicates that novice drivers have a higher crash rate than more experienced drivers. She stated MADD's goal, in focusing on the under-21 driver was to provide treatment for those who need it so they can survive their early driving years and become more experienced drivers. She feels it is important to focus on the younger novice drivers especially in light of the fact that alcohol abuse in youth is associated with alcohol abuse later in life. She added that youths expect they will drink as adults. This expectation is directly related to their exposure to beer commercials. "The average child will see alcohol consumed 75,000 times on television before he or she is of the legal drinking age." Additional comments regarding A.B. 91 are provided in Ms. Jacoboni's prepared statement attached hereto as (Exhibit E). Although the bills before the legislature currently do not address the effect of beer commercials on our youth, policies to prevent the onset of alcohol abuse or to detect and treat alcohol abuse in adolescents and young adults might be the most effective means to curb alcohol abuse in all segments of the population. A.B. 91 provides a mechanism to detect abusers and order treatment for them. MADD supports the passage of A.B. 91. Mrs. Monaghan wondered where Ms. Jacoboni's statistical date was derived. Ms. Jacoboni stated that the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon her request, ran through the computers a 16 and 17 year old DUI conviction and possession charge and it was surprisingly low--only one in the entire state. Ms. Jacoboni stated she could get data on the amount of accidents and injuries in alcohol-related situations with youth through the Office of Traffic Safety and the Nevada Department of Transportation. Mrs. Monaghan stated she would be interested in that data and Ms. Jacoboni stated she would provide the information to the committee. Mr. Manendo, referring Ms. Jacoboni to Section 1, line 3 of A.B. 91, wherein it states ". . . with alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time of the offense was 0.18 . . .", asked if it was almost twice the legal limit and approximately how many beers would that be to get to that level? Ms. Jacoboni stated that particular section is already existing law. The 0.18 was arrived at last legislative session. MADD hoped for a lower limit and testified in that fashion last session. A rule of thumb is that a drink is about .02 in your blood stream, so on that quick rule of thumb 0.18 would be nine drinks. Mr. Sandoval stated his reading of A.B. 91 required evaluation but not treatment. Ms. Jacoboni stated they would like to see everyone who needs treatment get treatment. In the first portion of A.B. 91 the evaluation is ordered. However, it is discretionary with the judge as to whether treatment that is recommended will be ordered. In juvenile court there is no discretion. Mr. Sandoval asked if MADD would prefer the treatment be ordered. Ms. Jacoboni stated that she felt it was best to leave the discretion up to the judge as much as possible and since the 0.18 law just went into effect last session the judges may need more time to see if they are going to use that portion or not. Mr. Anderson directed the committee's attention to page three of subsection 3, beginning at line 8 of A.B. 91 it states ". . . the judge shall order the child to undergo a program of treatment as recommended by the evaluation center . . . require the treatment facility to submit monthly reports . . . further to pay any charges relating to the evaluation and treatment of the child relating to this section." Mr. Anderson felt that it was still optional for the judge to utilize his discretion. Ms. Stadler noted a fiscal note appears on A.B. 91; however, it is not so stated on the bill. She informed the committee the Department of Rehabilitation has informed them that the percentage of youths involved in this would be negligible compared to the overall picture and they have sent over a zero fiscal note on this bill. Chairman Humke stated he did not believe the fiscal note was there presently and if needed, that matter could be addressed at a future hearing in Carson City. Mr. Sandoval expressed his thoughts and inquired about the ability of the parent or child having the ability to pay for evaluation and treatment in that he would like to see some type of amendment in those circumstances where the parent or child is unable to pay then they can engage in some sort of community service to offset or compensate the state for the services rendered. Ms. Jacoboni stated they would support those amendments. Ms. Jacoboni spoke in support of A.B. 92 and read the act to the committee. The revocation period in A.B. 92 is six months rather than the current law of 90 days. She felt this is a strong deterrent for youth since having a driver's license is symbolic of their independence. A six-month revocation would deter drinking and driving for individuals who fear the loss of their license and removes convicted youthful offenders from the roads for a longer period of time. The additional component is that most juveniles do not usually have a vehicle at their sole disposal. They most often must get permission from a parent-- unike adult offenders who can get in a car and drive away at any time. Also, she feels a six-month revocation sends a message that drinking and driving is intolerable and that violations committed by juveniles will result in serious penalties. This law would limit them because it would keep them off the roads for six months. Persons under the age of 21 years account for 8% of all licensed drivers but account for 17% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes. More data relating to A.B. 92 is contained in Ms. Jacoboni's prepared statement attached hereto as (Exhibit F). Mr. Anderson asked if A.B. 92 was more directed to keeping alcohol offenders off the road or directing them to treatment programs. She stated that A.B. 92 gets them off the road because of the extended revocation period and A.B. 91 gets them treatment. Mr. Anderson asked if she felt the more important factor in youth offenders was getting them treatment or suspending their license. Ms. Jacoboni felt that treatment was necessary for those who are properly evaluated because treatment will affect them the rest of their life; the driving revocation is only for six months. Mr. Anderson noted at line 21-22, in Section 1 of the bill "Report a revocation pursuant to this section to an insurance company or its agent inquiring about the child's driving record", this would appear to conceivably be escalated for a long period of time. Ms. Jacoboni stated she too has concerns about the language in that entire section however it is her understanding that language has already been accepted in other parts of the statute and further stated that she believed the youth's driving conviction would not be reported any differently than it normally would be. Ms. Jacoboni went on to discuss A.B. 94 which provides for revocation of the driver's license of a minor child for six months and also provides for the delay in the eligibility to apply for driver's licenses for persons who do not yet possess one but are found by the juvenile court to have purchased, consumed, or possessed alcoholic beverages. The delay in eligibility lasts for six months. MADD is motivated to prevent other families from experiencing the tragic losses their members have experienced. They feel that much of the alcohol consumed by minors takes place in a vehicle. MADD supports suspension of driving privileges for youth convicted of underage drinking even when it has not occurred while driving. They advocate for a delay in obtaining driving privileges for those persons under 21 years of age for one year. This would also apply to repeated offenses. Although this is not contained in A.B. 94 as presently drafted, it is MADD's position. Currently 24 states have some type of sanction for young drivers. The suspension time varies from state to state. In Arizona, the license of a youth is suspended for two years. The judges she has spoken with agree that in Nevada it should be one year rather than six months as currently proposed. Programs to prevent drinking are necessary in our communities. Pro-drinking messages are too prevalent during our childrens' waking hours so it is of no surprise that they continue to drink alcohol and it is assaulting their decision-making. Further comments made by Ms. Jacoboni in support of passage of A.B. 94 are contained in (Exhibit G). Mr. Anderson explained, especially to the students in the audience, that A.B. 94, if passed, would mean that if they were at a party having a good time dancing downstairs and upstairs at the party somebody had alcohol and the police arrived and they arrest everybody at the house, they would be subject to a delay in obtaining their driver's license because they were at a party where alcohol was present. The message to our youth is that by being in close proximity of alcohol leads to acceptance of alcohol. Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Jacoboni if that was correct in part. Ms. Jacoboni agreed and added that currently if a police officer pulls over a car full of teenagers and notes alcohol is in possession--there is a grey area in finding who has been drinking and who is about to drink. It is believed they would only be convicted if they were holding a can or if it was detected through their blood or through their breath. Ms. Jacoboni again reiterated the legal age to drink is 21 years. Mr. Goldwater confessed that, being a "less-older" member of the committee, he grew up when MADD was prominent. He grew up feeling that there was nothing worse than drinking and driving. Yet, he feels that the laws proposed here by MADD are almost penalties on parents because then they are required to drive their kids around considering a revocation of six months to a year. He wondered if penalties to parents was something MADD had been looking at. Ms. Jacoboni acknowledged that even the responsible parent may be penalized by having to take their child's driver's license away and it may be inconvenient to the parent but it is worth it in the long run. She discussed the contract developed by Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) wherein if a child calls his parents because he is too drunk to drive home the parent will go pick up the kid with no questions asked and they will not discuss it until the next day. Mr. Manendo wished clarification using the situation of teenagers in a car and the two in the front are drinking and the two in the back are not, but there is possession of a six pack in the automobile. Would they all have to be evaluated as to whether they were drinking or not? Then there is the situation where they are at a party and alcohol is present they would still get in trouble and everybody would lose their license for six months simply by being present where alcohol was served even if they had not had anything to drink. What is the difference, if any? Ms. Stadler responded that Mr. Anderson's example of the party situation was simply showing MADD's long-term goal; however, A.B. 94 does not contain such a broad brush. She did not feel they could even discuss those persons in the proximity of alcohol being consumed, possessed, or purchased since the bill does not address that long term goal. A.B. 94 addresses those persons under the age of 18 years "purchasing, consuming, and possessing" alcoholic beverages. MADD wished the age would actually be 21 years of age. Ms. Jacoboni stated MADD has discussed this issue with Honorable Judge Charles McGee, Juvenile Judge in Washoe County, Nevada, law enforcement from Washoe County, Reno Police Department, Sparks Police Department, and Highway Patrol. The discussion was that typically what would happen is the officers would be equipped with a passive alcohol sensor which is about the size of a flashlight and they could use that as the primary screening device to determine which youth had ingested alcohol. Of course, anyone actually holding a container of alcohol would be in possession. The officer would be making the judgment call in this situation of a six pack of beer in the car as to who was in "possession" and who had "consumed". Ms. Ohrenschall stated her confusion to the language on page one, section 1, line 7, the amended language "the judge shall revoke the license of the child for 90 days". However, on page two, line 25 which is the existing law, it states "the judge is authorized at his discretion to suspend the license for six months". Why is there a smaller time period now as opposed to the six months already stated in the law. Ms. Stadler stated that the six month provision is discretionary. MADD originally intended the bill to state 21 years of age instead of 18 years of age and that the six month provision be "mandatory" rather than at the judge's "discretion." However, she believes the bill was drafted based on the interim committee studies and for some reason they separated the alcohol offenses from the controlled substance offenses and she is not sure why that occurred in the bill drafting. MADD supports having a six month provision definitely on the first page of the bill also. Ms. Stadler again noted the fiscal note that the committee should recognize. A.B. 94 would provide a net gain for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) because of the reinstatement of revocated licenses which results in a financial gain to them. Ms. Jacoboni proceeded to testify in support of the passage of A.B. 95. Her prepared testimony in support thereof is attached as (Exhibit H). A.B. 95 provides that the crime of driving under the influence remain on the juvenile's record for a period of seven years and that the juvenile's record should not be sealed for the conviction of driving under the influence. MADD believes this will make youths responsible for their actions and will address the repeated offenders in this regard. Ms. Stadler stated a fiscal note appeared on the bill but she did not understand why because A.B. 95 does not address revoked licenses so there should not be a fiscal impact. Chairman Humke stated that state and local agencies who generated those fiscal notes will testify at a later time and we will get a better understanding of their impact, if any, at that time. Ms. Jacoboni stated that MADD would not be testifying on A.B. 97 however they truly appreciate the committee hearing their testimony as a whole on the bills before them today. Mr. Dick Steinberg, President and CEO of Westcare, Nevada's largest drug and alcohol treatment program providing services for adolescents, adults, and their families began his testimony stating Westcare has three facilities in the Las Vegas area including detoxication facilities and long-term residential programs, and emergency shelters. Mr. Steinberg stated they were in support of all the bills brought before the committee today. A concern they have is regarding A.B. 91, section 3, subsection 5, wherein the judge can refer "to a private company" yet the language just prior to that states they can refer "to a state supported program." Westcare is a BADA-funded program. He was concerned with who would actually pay the bill and what the fiscal impact would be on the state. In A.B. 92 and A.B. 94 their concern is that there is no evaluation for treatment required in either of these bills as to whether the youth has a drinking problem or whether it is just a one-time deal. He felt that if all the bills pass consecutively it would be okay but if A.B. 91 does not pass then there would be a large loophole as to the evaluation of treatment. With regard to A.B. 97, Mr. Steinberg's main concern was the fiscal impact relating to who would actually pay for the treatment. The bill states "the individual would pay for treatment if needed." In his past experience of being in this business for many years he believes treatment works, it reduces recidivism in the criminal justice system, it is cost-effective, and in this component it would be wise to find a way to pay for the treatment for the individual who has no resources. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that through previous testimony the committee has brought out that finding and proposing an amendment for the person who is in a treatment program be able to pay for the program through various means. Hopefully that amendment will be coming forward not only for A.B. 97 but for several other bills as well to address the person who cannot pay 100% of the cost of the treatment but somehow pay for it as he goes along or by other means. Mr. Anderson reassured Mr. Steinberg that the committee understands the importance of treatment in relation to the many bills before this legislation. Brian Patterson, a 17 year old client at Harris Springs Ranch, having been sentenced there from Nye County testified about his experience in Rehabilitation. His parents are paying for his treatment. He was charged with possession of alcohol as a minor and believes that any minor charged with DUI should be evaluated and go through a rehabilitation program. Mr. Patterson stated the rehabilitation has helped him as long as he has been there. At 17 years of age he is married and has a child. Youth should take responsibility for their actions of putting alcohol in their cars. He believes the treatment facilities work. Mr. Batten asked him if an alcohol treatment program was in the county jail and someone was sentenced to six months in jail and went through the program there, did he believe the program would be as effective compared to the program he is in now. Mr. Patterson stated that being in a lock-down facility you have to be there whereas in the Harris Ranch you have freedom, love, and friends, and even though you are sentenced to go there you do not have the sense of a lock-down facility. Further, you are around the kind of people with the same problem as you and you are getting a lot more treatment than you would in jail. Mr. Hugo Perez, a Harris Springs resident testified that the revocation of a license means nothing to him since he has been driving a car without a license since he was 13 years old. He has also driven a car while under the influence without a license. The only thing that has stopped him from driving illegally is by going through rehabilitation and treatment. He believes rehabilitation will teach the youth not to drive under the influence and not to take drugs in the first place. He stated that he was a gang banger and the program is helping him change his ways. Mr. Manendo stressed the importance of obtaining a license for all legal purposes. Mrs. Monaghan wondered what would change in their lives when they return home and are not in the rehabilitation environment. Mr. Patterson responded that he has learned tools in how to deal with everyday life once he is released from the program. He stated he is going to school and working towards obtaining his high school diploma. Mr. Steinberg noted the distinctions in A.B. 92 and A.B. 94 between the six month revocation and 90 day license revocation based on alcohol versus drugs. He stated his concern that alcohol is considered a drug and was uncertain what message this was sending to the youth; that maybe it is okay to drink but it is worse to have a controlled substance. They believe this could be a problem in that alcohol is still the number one problem they are dealing with in all their facilities. Lastly, he discussed the various methods of treatment in relation to the types of individuals and their particular abuse problems. Chairman Humke acknowledged the third set of students visiting the committee hearing and brought to their attention the video equipment which allowed testimony from Carson City. Mr. Ted Manos, Attorney at Law in Las Vegas, and President of the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, presented testimony about A.B. 91 through A.B. 97 by pointing out some specific areas of concerns. His comments are mainly representative of the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice rather than his position as a private attorney. They have no objections to A.B. 91. Their concern regarding A.B. 92 is the six month revocation versus the 90 day suspension imposed on adults charged with the same offense. If a greater and stiffer penalty is required for an impact on juveniles, then it is up to the committee to determine that. The language of A.B. 94 is their greatest concern. The specific language in the first section of the bill mandates and places an absolute requirement on a judge to impose a 90-day driver's license suspension if a driver's license is held by any juvenile who is convicted of either possession or drinking whether or not it involves driving. He felt that Mr. Anderson's hypothesis of the individuals present at a party where alcohol is being consumed was a good example of the imposition of sanctions on those youth or their parents is entirely too restrictive. According to A.B. 94, a youth would not have to be involved in drinking and driving in order be convicted of a drinking-related charge. He felt that A.B. 94 was going too far in that regard. The juvenile court judges are very well qualified to make the proper determinations if necessary. The language should be changed to allow the discretion of the court from "shall" to "may" in line 6, page one, section 1. He believes this would still give the message to the youth of our society and still effectively create a well-drafted statute. Mr. Manos then addressed the language in A.B. 95 which imposes a seven year record once a juvenile has been found guilty of a driving offense. Mr. Manos felt this issue needed to be looked at in light of the purpose of the current juvenile statutes. The purpose of setting out separate and distinct matters for juvenile offenders was so that when the youth of our society have indiscretions they are not necessarily going to follow them for the rest of their lives. The seven year provision imposes the same standard of adults on the juvenile. The current language addresses the individual whether he is under 18 years of age or over 18 years of age yet not over 21 years and leaves it to the discretion of the judge and he believes that is how the law should remain rather than the proposed language which may result in a felony conviction on a juvenile who will then have to serve time in prison. Mr. Manos also addressed the issue of sealing the record of the juvenile as related to A.B. 95. He further stated they have no objection to the passage of A.B. 97 as proposed. Mr. Anderson asked how treatment would occur for the 19 year old addict who is a first time offender in the eyes of the adult court because his record has been sealed yet he was arrested at age 16 the first time and again at 17 but we could not get to his record on those offenses because it is sealed. Mr. Manos stated he did not believe the record should be sealed until he is 21 years of age and he believed that is how the current law reads. He further agreed that it should remain so in order for that individual to obtain treatment. Ms. Buckley stated NRS 453.3363 sets forth a modified sealing of the records so that you could consider the convictions for purposes of additional penalties down the road but that a person could honestly state he had not been convicted previously simply for the purposes of getting a job. That may be a compromise in the language and would allow the conviction to be considered for purposes of treatment or additional penalty but it would not haunt them for purposes of obtaining a job. Ms. Buckley also asked Mr. Manos to elaborate on case law regarding "constructive possession." Mr. Manos stated that if there is a party and there is alcohol and you have a bunch of juveniles in the room and the alcohol is on the table and your child is there but was not specifically drinking, technically they could be considered in possession. The language of this bill would punish the kid who has done nothing. Mr. Manos went on to state his personal experiences with drinking alcohol as youth, parental involvement, and parental perceptions of youth drinking and further stating that realistically, "our kids are going to be around drinking" and it is not appropriate to punish them inappropriately if they happen to be around it because they have friends that drink. Mr. Carpenter stated that was exactly what concerned him with this legislation and the language of "possession, consumption, and purchasing", and he can see how this could possibly clog up the system. Mr. Carpenter also asked what was really happening out there in the "real world" with relation to juveniles in court for drinking offenses. Mr. Manos stated in his experience in juvenile court, kids sometimes try to lay blame where there is none and accusations are made on innocent youth. He sees the proposed legislation problematic in that regard. He further stated that our current juvenile court system seems to be working and the discretion of the court should remain rather than mandating it through the statutes. The judge can tell what is right and what is wrong and he should be allowed that discretion. Liz Breshears, Chief, Nevada Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, testified specifically to A.B. 91. Ms. Breshears clarified that proposed legislation allows for the evaluation of a youth offender (under 21 years of age ) for .10 blood alcohol level would have to have an evaluation. The 0.18 blood alcohol level set forth in that statute applies to adults only. She also informed the committee that they were in the process of revising the fiscal note on A.B. 91 because in looking at line 8-9 which states ". . . order the offender to pay an assessment of not more than $100. . . ". There has been some debate as to whether that line did or did not apply to juveniles under the age of 21 years. The deputy attorney general has stated that it does not apply to juveniles. Therefore, it will need to be revised and the committee will receive a new fiscal note showing the approximate cost of $31,000.00. The DMV informed them that last year 314 individuals under the age of 21 years were arrested for DUI. That is 2.8%--less than 3% of the 11,000 total DUI's in a given year. Ms. Breshears stated their position is that offenders should be fiscally responsible to cover the cost of their assessment or treatment; however, they also strongly believe that if an individual does not have the finances available that it not be a barrier to treatment. As a committee, they may want to add lines 8-9 to the new section also which would allow minors to be assessed up to $100 to help cover the cost of their evaluation. Mr. Anderson questioned page three, lines 15-17 where it orders the child of at least 18 years of age to pay any charge relating to treatment or evaluation and if the child or his legal guardian does not have the financial responses . . . does that section not allow you to recover those dollars? Further discussion was held regarding this section of the proposed legislation and the need for clarification as it relates to the fiscal impact and the child versus adult laws currently in effect. Ms. Breshears noted that the judges she has spoken with are all in support of addressing the treatment of these addicts and are further looking for ways to provide access into the treatment system. She does not know why some judges are not concerned with the evaluations of offenders treatment progress or problems. Mr. Carpenter thought perhaps this was a problem to deal with on the local level and there will always be some judges that do not follow along with the statutes. Dennis Neilander clarified the concern everyone was having with A.B. 91 and stated that under section 1 of the bill you are amending the DUI statute referring to District Court jurisdiction. The District Court does not have jurisdiction over people under 18 years of age as that lies within the juvenile court. So if you go to section 3 of the bill that begins on page two and then you go to page three, specifically line 17 where it refers to payment of costs pursuant to this section, it refers to only section 3 of the bill. So section 3 catches the juveniles because that amends Chapter 62 which addresses juveniles under age 18 years. Section 1 catches those offenders that are ages 18 to 21 years because that jurisdiction is within the District Court. What is left open is you can recoup the charges under Section 3 for those up to age 18 years, but for those between the age of 18 to 21 years, that provision of the cost of treatment is somewhat left open. These sections are not in conflict with each other they are just in different courts because of the age of the offender. Ms. Breshears stated A.B. 94 affects the purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol and creates the 90-day revocation or a six month delay if the minor does not yet have a license, does not mention treatment or assessment at all although A.B. 91, if passed, would impact A.B. 92 but not impact A.B. 94. Again, as public policy, the committee may want to consider whether or not it is important to determine at the onset as early as possible if that juvenile does have a problem with drugs and allow their department to provide an assessment in that regard. Mrs. Monaghan requested clarification on the language in A.B. 91 regarding the certification of a counselor and what that involved. Ms. Breshears stated certification of a counselor is handled through an advisory board to the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. In order to become a certified substance abuse counselor there is a combination of experience plus academic background that is required. You must pass a written and oral examination before the advisory board to demonstrate competence. There are also certified substance abuse interns who are gaining experience under a certified counsel. Mrs. Monaghan asked if continued education was required. Ms. Breshears stated yes continued education was required and their license must be renewed every two years. There being no one else to testify in Carson City, Chairman Humke addressed the testimony in Las Vegas. James Duggan, Chemical Dependency Services Coordinator at Bridge Counseling Associates in Las Vegas, Nevada stated that he was a certified drug and alcohol counselor in the State of Nevada and has also been nationally certified by the Certification Commission of the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors. Mr. Duggan supports Assembly Bills 91 through 94. He added that the programs at Bridge Counseling are consistent with the same levels of care specified by the American Medical Association. He provided an overview of the Bridge Counseling Services as relates to adolescent and adult treatment and that they offer extensive outpatient together with inpatient services. Mr. Duggan believes treatment is a positive alternative to street crime and DUI. He has seen juvenile offenders enter treatment based on three bases: 1) school dysfunction and intervention; 2) family discord and intervention; or 3) through the criminal justice system. He favors the proposed legislation that requires assessment, evaluation and treatment upon entry of the criminal justice system. His concerns involve the 0.18 blood alcohol level because it seems a bit high for a youth considering their size, weight and metabolism. He added he strongly supports the evaluations being performed by certified drug and alcohol abuse counselors. This is a speciality area and consistent diagnosis and treatment should always prevail. Studies have shown that medical and health professionals are extremely reticent to make a diagnosis of chemical dependency in youth. It has to do with societal attitudes. Mr. Duggan also pointed out the unclear language regarding "private companies providing evaluations and treatment" and again, it does not clarify those companies to have certified individuals making those recommendations and he believes it should be included in those provisions. The quality of care and consistency of care is his concern. Lastly, he generally supports stiff consequences for adolescents and juveniles. He went on to discuss the denial aspect of addicts using alcohol or other chemicals. A person in treatment, if in denial, will have difficulty associating actions and consequences. Mr. Carpenter asked if there were 100 youth under 21 years of age that have been picked up for DUI, what percentage of those would have a real drinking problem versus the individual that had a little too much on one occasion. Mr. Duggan stated his experience was that easily half of those individuals would require treatment. Mr. Carpenter wondered how often they find individuals that really do not have an abuse problem. Mr. Duggan stated there was a standard diagnostic criteria for making a diagnosis of dependence or abuse. Mr. Duggan outlined several factors that play a role in making a diagnosis and that a professional is the only one that can make that diagnosis and assessment. This requires multiple visits, laboratory testing, and appropriate documentation. Mr. Carpenter asked what percentage of those persons diagnosed as having an alcohol or substance abuse addiction or dependence and go through treatment become free of the drug. Mr. Duggan stated three years of sobriety is considered to be a successful treatment. It may depend on the philosophy of the treatment facility. There is about 15 years of study on the use of acupuncture and massage from Lincoln Hospital and New York University in addition to traditional addiction therapy. Each facility is going to utilize its own methods and develop its own standards of success rates. The success rates are 70% to 90%. No further testimony coming before the committee, Chairman Humke adjourned the meeting at 11:44 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary February 13, 1995 Page