Item 3E: Ratification of IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

those persons arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants and not persons arrested for speeding or other similar traffic offenses. Ms. Taylor asked why blood and urine testing would be needed in addition to breath tests. Mr. Cushman noted that blood tests were usually only applied if a person under arrest was being treated in a medical facility generally as a result of an accident, and that urine tests were usually only applied where a person under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol was reasonably believed by specially trained officers to be under intoxicants other than alcohol. Ms. Taylor averred that the bill represented a violation of personal liberties and did not support it. Ms. Ortiz thought that the provisions described by the bill seemed reasonable since they applied only to post- arrest situations. Mr. Poling maintained that the bill would bring blood and urine testing up to the same standard as the breath test particularly if the breath test for some reason had not been given or if it was given in a situation where a person was clearly intoxicated beyond what was indicated by a breath test. He added that the officers responsible for making the determinations of whether a person was intoxicated beyond what was indicated by a breath test were specially trained to do so and that such determinations would not be made haphazardly. Ms. Taylor maintained her position that the bill represented an invasion, Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz agree with the staff recommendation of Priority 3, Support. This bill will go before full City Council. HB 2054 – Relating to the creation and maintenance of a mental health database within the Law Enforcement Data System. Ms. Wilson noted that she had presented information regarding HB 2054 at the last CCIGR meeting where the committee had accepted staff’s recommendation to adopt Priority 3 support of the bill as well as staff’s suggestion for an amendment to the bill that would make the age provisions of the bill commensurate with existing state laws. Ms. Wilson offered additional clarification on the bill and noted that the bill would be consistent with existing state mental health laws without the aforementioned amendment. She subsequently requested that the committee remove the amendment direction given during the previous CCIGR meeting. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to remove the amendment direction to staff regarding HB 2054 and continue to a position of Priority 3 support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2141 - Relating to hazardous substances. Ms. Wilson reported that HB 2141 would expand the definition of hazardous substance to include those substances which posed a risk to public health and safety because irreversible harm or chronic adverse health affects could be shown. She added that staff was currently recommending a monitor position regarding the bill because it would have no direct impact on the City of Eugene although it did appear to be good public policy. Ms. Wilson noted that the monitor position recommendation provided by staff was also due to the bill’s fairly broad relating cause. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 support MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 4