05/09/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Greg Veralrud said he is a lawyer in Eugene. Mr. Smalley is one of his clients. Mr. Smalley had contacted him last week indicating that he wished to speak tonight, but needed help interpreting the ordinance. Mr. Veralrud said he had studied the ordinance carefully, as well as looking at other legislation in other states, and court decisions regarding legislation. Mr. Veralrud said he did not think there was anything about the ordinance that could be deciphered by a reasonably intelligent person to let them know exactly what was being regulated, how it was being regulated, and the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Veralrud said some of this is a bit like pornography; you know it when you see it but trying to define it and make it a workable statute meaning something to the community is another matter. The statute and ordinance is flawed. The definitional sections are taken nearly verbatim from the Attorney General model act and borrows from the proposed State ordinance. There is nothing on the defined list of objects that can be considered drug paraphernalia that do not have hundreds of legitimate uses as well as illegitimate uses. This includes mixing bowls, blenders, spoons, capsules, envelopes, containers, 1I0ther objects,1I hypodermic needles, testing equipment, scales and balances. The only indication of what exactly is prohibited is the addition of the statement lIintended to be used or used in conjunction with controlled substances.1I He asked who would determine wheth- er or not something was intended or designed to be used with controlled substances. That finding can be made by virtue of how a third person, the purchaser, uses that product. Mr. Veralrud said this flaw has caused this sort of ordinance to be overturned in other jurisdictions. He said Dave Fronmeyer had reviewed the ordinance on the State level, who said that, IINotwithstanding the bill's facial constitutionality, the practical difficul- ties in enforcing the bill and the narrow scope of the bill, due to the complex culpable mental state requirements, suggests the bill as drafted may not accomplish the apparent legislative aim.1I Mr. Veralrud said the council should be concerned about the resources being used by the City Attorney's Office and the already thinly stretched resources of the police before enacting such an ordinance. He said that if whoever makes the decision about who must comply with the law has the same difficulty he did in interpreting the ordinance, it will essentially be a case of III know it when I see itll determination. Mr. Veralrud said the community does not need this added cost in the war on drugs. The great majority of tools use to ingest controlled substances are not found in IIheadll and novelty shops, but rather in the grocery store. You don't need a gold razor blade to cut up cocaine or need a kit to put it up your nose; you can get a straw at a fast food restaurant. Mr. Veralrud suggested that the council is misplacing valuable resources by adding this load to the community in terms of available police. He submitted that drug abuse and drug paraphernalia do exist inde- pendently. Mr. Veralrud said that the ordinance's recordkeeping requirement calls for the name and address of anyone purchasing such a product to be written down and subjected to police review. That information becomes part of the police computer record, and will be used by police officers to ma~.e search decisions. Innocuous purchases by law-abiding citizens would be added to the computer as a person who purchases from and frequents IIheadshopsll for drug paraphernalia. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1988 Page 8