Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

waived the right going in. He agreed with Councilor Taylor that this was a violation of civil liberties. He indicated that if a motion was made to change the stance to Priority 3 Oppose he would likely provide the second. Councilor Poling stated that when a person applied for a drivers’ license, a person gave implied consent that if they were arrested for driving under the influence they would submit to a test. He said what the bill addressed was that once an officer had probable cause to arrest someone for driving under the influence and that person took a breath test, but the reading indicated they were below the legal limit, the officer could then call in a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to conduct an intensive interview of the individual. He stressed that the DRE had hours of training and then had to do a number of drug recognition analyses with someone who was already a trained DRE prior to doing drug recognition on their own. He said based on their training experience, if a person who had been stopped by an officer was exhibiting conditions that made him or her appear under the influence, and it was obviously not attributable to alcohol, the person was then given the option to undergo urine analysis. He said the bill also covered the case of incapacity, such as when a person was in an auto accident and had a facial injury that would prevent administration of the breathalyzer test. He underscored that the blood or urine test would never be given under random circumstances and that the officer had to have probable cause. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend the motion to substitute a Priority 3 Oppose stance. Councilor Taylor related an instance in which a person who “was fragile” or not feeling well was stopped and could not pass a sobriety test. She said putting a person in that condition through a blood or urine test seemed like an invasion. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Clark, Brown, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Ortiz, Poling, and Solomon voting in op- position. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and the substitution passed. Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion, as amended, was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Clark, Brown, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Ortiz, Poling, and Solo- mon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and the stance for House Bill 2239 was changed to Priority 3 Oppose. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support posi- tion for House Bill 2384. Councilor Taylor said she had voted against the bill because she believed the PSCC had not fulfilled its purpose. She opined that it was a “waste of time and a waste of money” for a lot of people. Mayor Piercy remarked that it was her feeling that it was almost premature to adopt a position on the bill. She averred that they needed to have a cross-jurisdictional discussion on it. Councilor Zelenka asked if the bill appropriated the money to require the matching funds for the PSCCs. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill would provide a fund to give grants to PSCCs not to exceed $100,000 if the PSCC could demonstrate that it had matching funds. She said the bill did not establish where the matching funds would come from. She reiterated that the bill would require the state to administer a grant program. She anticipated that the bill would have a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee to determine whether or not the program would be funded. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting