Churchill County Update
Smoking ban will be enforced locally based on complaints
December 24, 2006
MARLENE GARCIA
MARLENE GARCIA
District Attorney Arthur Mallory said Thursday he will advise the Churchill County Sheriff’s Department to begin issuing citations similar to a traffic ticket if the department receives complaints of violations of a voter-approved smoking ban that went into effect in Nevada earlier this month.
The recommendation came after the latest court ruling in Clark County amid challenges to the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act.
Clark County District Judge Douglas Herndon’s ruling prohibits law enforcement from arresting anyone who violates the smoking ban but treats the violation as a civil offense. A suspected violator of the law will receive a summons to appear in court. (See related story)
“The guilt or innocence of a person will be a legal question for a judge,” Mallory said.
He doesn’t anticipate enforcement of the law being a high priority when deputies are busy with other calls for service.
“I don’t think (deputies) are going to patrol bars and restaurants looking for violations,” he said.
Health department officials can also cite smokers for violating the law, which prohibits smoking in restaurants, day care centers, public buildings, grocery or convenience stores and bars that serve food.
“If there are complaints we will accept them and consider them for prosecution,” Mallory said. “We will look at the circumstances to see who knowingly and willingly violated the law.”
Churchill County has not had a state health department enforcement officer based in Fallon in about two years, said Geoff Stark, county human resource director.
“There was a state employee here. We gave them space and had him in our building,” Stark said.
He said there is no one on the county’s staff who would be charged with responding to smoking complaints. The closest health department officials are in Carson City.
That leaves law enforcement in the city and county to deal with smoking complaints. But the law does not define whether the person smoking should be cited or the business that allowed smoking to occur.
Fallon Police Chief Russ Brooks did not immediately return a phone call seeking information about how city police will handle smoking complaints.
Nevada voters approved the smoking ban in the Nov. 7 election, with 54 percent favoring the strict ban on smoking in public.
Information from Associated Press reports was used in this story.
Confusion persists over new smoking ban
December 9, 2006
MARLENE GARCIA
MARLENE GARCIA
Churchill County District Attorney Arthur Mallory is advising the sheriff’s department to hold off enforcing a smoking ban that went into effect Friday in Northern Nevada.
The advice came after a group of Southern Nevada businessmen challenged whether the voter-approved law is constitutional. A Las Vegas judge issued a 15-day reprieve on the ban Thursday, but it only applies to Clark County.
Judge Douglas Herndon ruled that the business owners who are challenging the smoking ban could have a legitimate argument that the ban is unconstitutional.
Mallory said it is not wise to enforce the smoking law in Churchill County until the issue is decided in Clark County.
“If the law is declared unconstitutional we would be spinning our wheels,” Mallory said. “We think it’s appropriate to wait for a ruling from the court.”
He said the law’s language is not clear and raises raises raises questions. He referred to one section of the statute that says police officers or health officials shall issue citations for violations.
“The question arises who do they issue the citation to, the person smoking or the restaurant that allowed smoking?” Mallory said.
Fallon Police Chief Russ Brooks said Friday he hadn’t received any notification from the Nevada Attorney General’s Office about the new law or whether his agency is responsible for enforcing it.
“I do not know who’s supposed to enforce it. Until we hear something from the A.G.’s office, we’re scrambling to get an answer,” said Brooks.
Mallory said another issue that must be determined by law enforcement agencies is the level of resources each agency wants to devote to illegal smoking.
“Our restaurants are not an overriding place law enforcement currently patrols. Do we want to start patrolling restaurants? I don’t think so. I don’t think we need to become smoking police,” he said. “We would probably respond on a complaint basis.”
The definition of a casino is also unclear. Mallory said a casino is described in the law as a large building or room that holds a gaming license and has casino in its name.
Once the court makes a ruling, he said, he will recommend a educational period before citations are written so residents understand the new law.
The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act was approved by 54 percent of state voters in the November election. It prohibits smoking in bars that serve food, video arcades, malls, day-care centers and in slot machine areas of convenience stores and grocery stores.
It permits smoking on casino floors.
The Nevada Tavern Owners Association asked for a “breathing period” to a give both sides of the issue time to argue the constitutional merits of the case. The suit contends the law is vague and unfairly discriminates against some businesses.
Opponents, including the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, argued that business owners have not shown the smoking ban would harm their businesses.
The restraining order approved by Herndon prevents law enforcement from enforcing the law in Clark County because only Las-Vegas area law enforcement agencies were named in the suit, according to Nicole Moon, public information officer for the attorney general’s office.
“It is in effect,” she said about Northern Nevada. “Whether law enforcement wants to begin enforcing it now or not is up to them.”
