MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 23, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:30 a.m., on Thursday, February 23, 1995, Vice Chairman Sandoval presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Mrs. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Thomas Batten - excused Chairman David E. Humke - excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Jim Hawke,Office of Traffic Safety and Office of Administrative Hearings Judy Jacoboni, Lyon County Chapter/MADD Major Dan Hammack/Nevada Highway Patrol Mr. Eric Cooper/Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Mr. Greg Harwell/Nevada AAA Ms. Dorothy North, Chairman/Commission on Substance Abuse Education Mr. Joseph Guild/State Farm Insurance Mr. Brendan Trainor, Chairman/Washoe County Libertarian Party Mr. Robert Bayer, Director/Nevada Department of Prisons Dr. Jeannette Sanders/Department of Prisons Mr. Gordon Waldaias/DMV & PS/Post Lt. Phil Galeoto/ Reno Police Department Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association Mr. Dennis De Bacco, Manager/Criminal History Records Repository The Honorable Brent Adams/Department 6, Second Judicial District Court The Honorable Charles McGee/Department 2, Second Judicial District Court Mr. Ben Graham/Clark County District Attorney's Office Mr. John Morrow, Administrative Deputy/Washoe County Public Defender ASSEMBLY BILL 96 - Provides for deferred prosecution of certain persons accused of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. Mr. Jim Hawke, Chief of the Special Services Division of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained he was primarily representing the Office of Traffic Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Speaking in opposition to A. B. 96, he noted Nevada had a very good set of DUI laws on the books and opined that this was one case where Nevada had appropriately exercised the powers of government. In addition, the state now received $250,000 per year for the 4/10 program which local law enforcement people use for DUI checkpoints, low manpower checkpoints and post training on alcohol awareness. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised that if DUI laws were rolled back they would be at risk of losing that funding. Judy Jacoboni, Lyon County Chapter President/Mothers Against Drunk Driving, stated results of the statute would be the decriminalization of the crime of DUI and urged committee opposition to A.B. 96. She noted treatment and alcohol education were valuable tools but should be in addition to punishment and sanctions, not take the place of same. See (Exhibit C) for further clarification concerning MADD's opposition to A.B. 96. Major Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol, stated the Division voiced opposition to A.B. 96 which would decriminalize DUI violations. He noted the Division was not opposed to treatment but it should not supplant the criminal system of enhanced penalties. Mr. Eric Cooper, representing Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association and the Washoe County Sheriff's Department, expressed opposition to A.B. 96. He noted for the first time in many years there had been a significant decrease in the number of DUI related deaths and injuries in Nevada as a result of being tough on DUIs. To change that now would be a mistake. He advocated strengthening penalty laws and plugging in treatment in addition to the criminal conviction so that offenders receive treatment. Mr. Greg Harwell, representing AAA, also was in opposition to A.B. 96 and expressed special concern that lack of conviction forced all good drivers to pay for bad drivers who were driving drunk, especially with repeat offenders. Ms. Dorothy North, Chairman/Commission on Substance Abuse Education, expressed opposition unless A.B. 96 was amended. She advocated treatment be made part of the penalty by having an assessment done on the first DUI, giving one opportunity to do treatment but not take the DUI off of the record. Mr. Joseph Guild, representing State Farm Insurance, also stated opposition to A.B. 96 saying statutes which mask the true nature of a driver's record was a concern to the insurance industry. Mr. Anderson brought to the committee's attention a recommendation from the A.C.R. 71 study committee (recommendation No. 10) dealing with the problem of stipulated facts. See (Exhibit D). A memorandum from Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, to Chairman Anderson concerning fiscal impact of bills is submitted as (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLY BILL 84 - Expands circumstances under which certain criminal offenders may elect treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs before sentencing. Since there was no testimony on A.B. 84 Mr. Sandoval closed the hearing on the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 85 - Revises provisions governing placement of criminal offenders in programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol and drugs before sentencing. Since there was no testimony on A.B. 85 Mr. Sandoval closed the hearing on the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 89 - Eliminates mandatory minimum penalty for unlawful use of certain controlled substances. Mr. Brendan Trainor, Chairman/Washoe County Libertarian Party, speaking in support of A.B. 89, maintained mandatory minimums had done much more harm than good. He voiced support of any bill that would act to strike down mandatory minimum sentencing and leave sentencing up to the judges in each particular case. (Exhibits F and G) were submitted by Mr. Trainor concerning criminal justice. ASSEMBLY BILL 98 - Establishes within department of prisons position of coordinator of programs for treatment of offenders who abuse alcohol or drugs. Mr. Robert Bayer, Director/Nevada Department of Prisons, speaking in support of A.B. 98, asserted the position of coordinator was critical for an effective substance abuse program. Dr. Jeannette Sanders, testifying in support of A.B. 98, said she worked at the Department of Prisons, currently straddled two positions and was unable to do both effectively. Her testimony regarding need for the position of coordinator of programs is submitted as (Exhibit H). Answering a question concerning recidivism, Dr. Sanders explained the recidivism rate for people who complete Phase I but do not go into Phase II is 5.2 percent; the rate for those who complete both phases and who are paroled is 2 percent; the rate for those who complete both phases and expire their sentences is 3.4 percent. ASSEMBLY BILL 93 - Makes various changes to provisions governing assignment of offenders to program for treatment of abuser of alcohol or drugs established by director of department of prisons. Mr. Bayer, speaking in support of A.B. 93, mentioned there were several bills dealing with the same statutes and noted at some point a resolution committee should investigate overlap of issues. Subsequently he discussed possible changes for clarification of the term "entire program" as found in lines 16 and 20 of A.B. 93. Dr. Sanders commented on the fact that 25 percent of people who could have gone into Phase II refused it. As a result she felt a written contract with inmates to agree to both Phase I and Phase II was an excellent idea. ASSEMBLY BILL 83 - Requires peace officers to receive training in detection of use and abuse of alcohol and controlled substances. Mr. Gordon Waldaias, Acting Chief/DMV & PS/Post, stated the Nevada Peace Officers Standards and Training and the Nevada Law Enforcement Academy had taken no position on A.B. 83; however, if passed, their concern lay with the fiscal impact it may have on law enforcement agencies throughout the state. Eric Cooper, speaking against A.B. 83, explained there were 83 classifications of peace officers, many of whom probably did not even need this type of training. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Cooper stated Category II officers would probably only have peripheral contact with someone under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in their line of work; whereas the vast majority of Category I officers' contacts were under the influence of something. Major Dan Hammack expressed concern regarding the fiscal impact on the training time for troopers, not necessarily opposing the training in its entirety. Lt. Phil Galeoto of the Reno Police Department stated the Department was not against the training but was opposed to A.B. 83 to the extent of the fiscal impact. He noted all people hired in the Department had an excess of 32 hours of training in that area. Bob Bayer voiced his two main concerns: Liability when training is mandated in law as well as the fiscal impact. ASSEMBLY BILL 82 - Required certain information concerning use of alcohol or controlled substances to be included in records of criminal history. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, expressed concern regarding the vague language contained in A.B. 82, particularly involving confidentiality. An additional objection was a referral to Page 4, Section 7, Line 3 where a person communicating information relating to the abuse of alcohol or controlled substances would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Lt. Galeoto expressed the Reno Police Department's confusion concerning the language in A.B. 82 and indicated opposition to the bill as written, targeting Section 4 in particular. He also voiced concern over the fiscal impact, asserting it would have a dramatic impact on the Reno Police Department. Committee discussion ensued with questions directed to Lt. Galeoto. Dorothy North offered to work with a subcommittee in order to draft appropriate language and address existing concerns. Mr. Dennis De Bacco, Manager/Criminal History Records Repository within the Highway Patrol, echoed Lt. Galeoto's concerns regarding the gathering of information and indicated it had significant impact at the local level. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. De Bacco to be part of a subcommittee scheduled for the following day during a work session. ASSEMBLY BILL 88 - Makes appropriation to Eighth Judicial District for expansion of its program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Anderson brought to the committee's attention prior statements from the Honorable Brent Adams relative to a possible amendment to broaden the scope of A.B. 88 so that the Second Judicial District Court might be included. Mr. Neilander handed out to committee members a copy of the proposed amendment to A.B. 88 addressing a change regarding Washoe County (Exhibit I). The Honorable Brent Adams, presiding Judge in Department 6 of Second Judicial District Court, introduced his colleague, Judge Charles M. McGee of Department 2. He informed the committee that Judge McGee had been a pioneer of a program in the treatment of mothers, usually addicts, who were facing both criminal charges and at risk of losing custody of their children. Judge Adams urged the committee to adopt the proposed amendment to A.B. 88 which would allocate $100,000 directly to the Second Judicial District Court for the establishment of the drug court program. Judge McGee expressed extreme frustration in the endless process of clogging the prison with drug addicts. When children of drug addicts were taken away he cited an additional taxpayer burden of having to pay for foster care. He maintained addicts could be rehabilitated and stressed the drug court was a proven model. A project that was in the making, he attested, was a juvenile drug court in Reno including juvenile alcoholism for the purpose of deterring future behavior problems. Mr. Carpenter raised a question concerning the effect advertising of alcohol products would have on the public. Both Judge Adams and Judge McGee agreed in terms of establishing drinking patterns in young people in the abuse of alcohol, advertising played an extremely strong role. Mr. Brendan Trainor said he would support the drug courts as far as they go; however, his thoughts were the mere use or even sale of drugs to people who were willing purchasers should not be a crime in our society. Mr. Sandoval called upon Mr. Ben Graham inasmuch as he had left the hearing open on A.B. 96 in order to get Mr. Graham's testimony on the record. Mr. Ben Graham/Clark County District Attorney's Office, described A.B. 96 as a massive overhaul with massive fiscal effects and questionable work abilities. As a result he opposed it from a prosecution standpoint. He presented a copy of a plea memorandum (Exhibit J) which he thought might be useful as the committee ventured in the areas of diversion and possible alternatives to sentencing. He expressed hope that a person would be successful in rehabilitation...but if not, it would not be fair to anyone, particularly society, to have to go back and re-create the case. ASSEMBLY BILL 86 - Expands circumstances under which proceedings and sentences for persons convicted of certain offenses relating to controlled substances may be suspended or reduced. Mr. John Morrow, Administrative Deputy/Washoe County Public Defender, spoke in behalf of A.B. 86. He stated in recent years some very good programs had emerged from the legislature, A.B. 86 being one of them. Others included the drug court program and the boot camp program. He noted the program under the NRS 453 legislation had kept a number of citizens, at least in Washoe County, from suffering a life long stigma of a felony conviction for a minor drug offense. By adopting the proposal in A.B. 86, the program would be expanded slightly to include people who had prior convictions. He concluded, in the drug world many people had prior convictions for which they had never received treatment or assistance and at the present time those people were precluded from being considered for this program. ASSEMBLY BILL 87 - Makes appropriation to bureau of alcohol and drug abuse in rehabilitation division of department of employment, training and rehabilitation for support of certain programs of treatment for criminal offenders who abuse alcohol or drugs. Since there was no one present to testify, Mr. Sandoval closed the hearing on A.B. 87. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 15 - Urges Congress and President of United States to oppose legalization of certain controlled substances. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Trainer if he wanted to testify on A.J.R. 15 or if the previous testimony would suffice. Mr. Trainer said the previous testimony would suffice. Mr. Sandoval then closed the hearing on A.J.R. 15. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2 - Urges peace officers to identify and arrest, and courts to impose prompt, meaningful and consistent sanctions upon, juveniles who violate laws related to alcohol and drugs. Since there was no one present to testify, Mr. Sandoval closed the hearing on A.C.R. 2. Mr. Sandoval advised the committee there would be a 7:30 A.M. work session tomorrow morning on the bills heard today. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Christine Shaw, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman , Chairman Anderson Assemblyman , Vice Chairman Sandoval Assembly Committee on Judiciary February 23, 1995 Page