Item 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman was concerned that the bill allowed a patrol officer to also act as a judge. She determined from Mr. Cushman that the bill exempted an officer from securing a court order to tap a telephone; however, the officer must meet certain criteria that allowed for a court order to be secured in exigent circumstances, similar to how exigent search warrants were currently issued. The burden would be on the police to demonstrate how they could not get a regular court order, and if they could not demonstrate that, the evidence collected would be suppressed. Ms. Bettman asked if there were many situations where a patrol officer had the ability to do a search without a court order. Mr. Cushman indicated the circumstances must be the same as he had previously indicated for search warrants. Ms. Bettman continued to be concerned about the bill as she did not think it contained enough protection for individual rights because of the lack of a check provided by a judge. Mr. Pryor was less concerned than Ms. Bettman about the bill’s impact on individual rights because he thought there were still safeguards in place given that the burden would be on the police to justify the telephone tap. He thought there were circumstances that argued for the bill, pointing out that if the situation was speculative an officer would still be required to get a court order. He did not think the bill addressed “fishing expeditions.” In addition, Mr. Pryor pointed out the exceptions were clearly defined as substantial risk of death, serious injury, or sexual assault and they were specifically called out in the bill. Ms. Bettman move to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 2494 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to drop the HB2494 from consideration. Ms. Bettman had no information about the drugs mentioned in the bill, salvinorin A or Salvia divinorum, or any pharmacological expertise to consult about the danger of those drugs. Mr. Cushman said that the drug was not a federally controlled substance; to this point, five states had enacted legislation against the drug and other states, including Oregon, were considering legislation. He said there was apparently no big problem with the drug at this time on the west coast and he did not object to dropping the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 464 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of Senate Bill (SB) 464 to Pri- ority 2. Ms. Wilson noted the bill was sponsored by the Judiciary Committee and was likely to make progress. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 423 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the bill, which was related to discrimination because of medical use of marijuana, Mr. Solin said staff recommended a status of Priority 2, Oppose because federal motor carrier regulations for drivers of commercial vehicles superseded State law. The City had more than 150 employees meeting the definition of a commercial motor vehicle operator. Eugene did random drug and MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 2