Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

DRE draws absolutely nothing from the urine test to draw his conclusions and the urine is only supporting physical evidence when tested in the lab to confirm the finding of the DRE. Therefore to throw out the rest of the evaluation based on the fact the suspect refuses is a real and significant impediment to successfully prosecuting individuals who are impaired. Other instances of steps not being completed arise when a suspect suddenly stops cooperating with the evaluation or due to various conditions is unable to perform a step. The DRE is able, through their extensive training, to render an opinion in most cases based on the evidence that does present itself from the incomplete evaluation and where he is unable would say so in his report. It just doesn’t make sense to throw any actual evidence already collected out based on the fact an investigator was unable to collect other pieces of evidence not made available for whatever reason. There would be significant value derived from the passing of this bill toward the effort of holding drug impaired drivers accountable. HB 2151 Relating Clause: Relating to alcoholic beverages; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 471.313. Title: Allows city or county to adopt limits on numbers of premises within city or county, or within specific areas of city or county, that Oregon Liquor Control Commission may license for full or limited on-premises sales or off-premises sales of alcoholic beverages or as brewery-public house. Sponsored by: Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00A (5). Presession filed (at the request of Governor John A. Kitzhaber for Oregon Liquor Control Commission) URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2100.dir/hb2151.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Amanda Nobel-Flannery Denny Braud PDD-ADM 01/18/2011 -- Neutral Comments: We agree with the other respondents. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 01/13/2011 -- Neutral Comments: This concept is generally good for cities, in that it gives us more control over the number of bars, taverns, etc. in the city. I don't have any idea whether we think Eugene has too many drinking established (from a public safety perspective), so I defer to Chuck and Scott as to whether it's worth our time and effect to support it actively. I assume LOC and/or other cities will advocate for it. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Chuck Tilby EPD-ADM 01/15/2011 -- Neutral Comments: The ability to limit the number of licensed premises within the City has many advantages to the control of not only alcohol related crimes, but many other crimes that have 4