My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ratification of IGR Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 02/23/09 Meeting
>
Item 3: Ratification of IGR Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:45:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2009 10:48:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Scripted
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/23/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
built in an emergency warehouse. Estimated cost: $2 million for a plain warehouse <br />design built on city owned land (not including space-saver shelving, which would be <br />required at an additional cost) plus monthly operating costs including security, HVAC, <br />phone, etc. <br />In addition to the potentially large expense required for storage of this evidence for the <br />extremely long periods of time specified by the bill, there are some other concerns: <br />Section 1(3) requires that "an inventory of biological evidence that has been preserved <br />under this section" be provided "upon written request by the defendant." First, this <br />language doesn't limit the response to the evidence relevant to the defendant, so it could <br />be interpreted to require that a complete inventory of all evidence be provided. Even if <br />this were interpreted in the way it is obviously intended (i.e., an inventory of evidence <br />relevant to the defendant's own case), there is no limit on how often such a request could <br />be made. Conceivably, a defendant could send such a request each month as a <br />harassment tactic, and we would be required to provide a response. (We currently have <br />one person in prison for rape who is on a regular basis trying to contact the detective <br />involved in his case. If this bill became law, he would almost certainly be sending such <br />requests with the same regularity.) <br />Section 1(4)(b) requires notice by certified mail to several persons if evidence is to be <br />destroyed. The cost of doing this is not inconsequential. As of today, the cost for us to <br />send one certified letter is $5.32. For just one defendant, the minimum cost to notify the <br />defendant, his lawyer, the DA, the Executive Director Office of Public Defense Services <br />and the Attorney General would be $26.60 per case. This would also increase employee <br />hours in the property room and mail room just in filling out paperwork. <br />Although Section 1(5) creates an exception for items for which retention is "impracticable" <br />due to the "size, bulk, or physical character" of the item, it does not account for the sheer <br />volume of items which, individually, are not a problem, but collectively require a lot of <br />storage space. As an example, our Forensic Evidence Unit routinely swabs potential <br />evidence such as beer bottles, pop cans, etc. and the swabs become the potential DNA <br />evidence so we can dispose of the original container to save space. (This is similar to <br />taking a small cutting of a bed spread so the original can go back to an owner or be <br />disposed so law enforcement doesn't have to keep 3 cu. Ft. of evidence.) Language in <br />the bill could require keeping the original articles, unless we went through the procedural <br />steps in the bill to allow destruction, creating another significant additional workload. <br />We have no problem with Section 2 of the bill which would appoint a Task Force to deal <br />with DNA retention issues. In fact, we believe that such a task force might be able to <br />arrive at a solution which creates a practical balance between the desire to retain DNA <br />evidence and the need to be realistic in terms of what agencies can reasonably be <br />expected to do in the current climate of inadequate---and diminishing---resources. We <br />would recommend that, if the bill is to move forward, Section 1 of the bill be eliminated. <br />SB 0316 <br />Relating Clause: Relating to clinical trials. <br />Title: <br />Requires health benefit plan to provide coverage of routine costs of care in qualifying <br />clinical trials subject to copayment and other cost sharing requirements. Limits liability of <br />insurers for adverse effects of clinical trial. <br />Sponsored by: Senator DEVLIN <br />URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0300.dir/sb0316.intro.pdf <br />ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation <br />Myrnie Daut Myrnie Daut CS-HRRS 1/28/2009 Pri 3 No No Monitor <br />Comments: <br />Interesting idea. Not currently covered under the City's plans. <br />16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.