‘That's it?' Proposals to toughen Nevada's DUI laws stall as families question minimum 2-year penalty
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Two proposals to toughen Nevada's DUI laws have stalled in the Nevada Legislature with just weeks left in this legislative session.
Senate Bill 304 would amend the state's vehicular homicide law to kick in after a person's first DUI conviction should they then drive impaired and kill someone — right now, it's three strikes and you're out. A second proposal, Senate Bill 457, which is part of Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo's crime bill, would charge DUI drivers who kill with second-degree murder.
Nevada prosecutors, including the Clark County District Attorney's Office, have tried to charge DUI drivers who kill a person and who speed and who drive with no care for another person's life, with murder, but the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled the DUI with death law is more appropriate.
Nevada's DUI-with-death law carries a potential prison sentence of 2-20 years. However, a bipartisan 1995 law requires a judge to sentence a person to a minimum and maximum sentence, meaning in cases of DUI with death, the maximum amount of time a defendant will spend in prison without a parole hearing is eight years.
'How do you explain to a 9-year-old that the person they look up to and admire so much in life is only worth two years?' Kayla Padgett asked. Padgett's longtime boyfriend, Joshua Yokley, 43, died in April after police said a suspected DUI driver crashed into him. Yokley was riding a motorcycle on Lone Mountain Road near Rainbow Boulevard when Edward Dukes, 28, drove out of a Sante Fe Station parking lot and collided with the bike, police said.
Dukes told police he had 'a few drinks inside' the casino before the crash, documents said.
'A very mischievous man with a very intimidating size who had a heart of gold,' Padgett said of Yokley. 'He was taken to the hospital, where they tried to save him for about three hours.'
Padgett and Yokley's longtime friend, Mike Bracke, said the minimum two-year penalty is laughable.
'Why should we have to pay that burden of knowing that that person could literally go to jail for two years, and that's it?' Padgett said.
'How many families have to suffer before lawmakers finally pull their heads out of the sand and are like, 'Hm, something has to give,'' Bracke said.
Nevada's vehicular homicide law, which Senate Bill 304 would amend, carries a potential prison sentence of up to 25 years. Its sponsor, Republican State Sen. Jeff Stone, previously said he wanted a minimum penalty of up to 30 years. However, lawmakers amended the bill to change the possible penalty to 2-20 years, the same as the current DUI-with-death law.
'You can't make that make sense to me,' Padgett said.
As of Wednesday, Senate Bill 304 was stuck in a finance committee because the Nevada Department of Corrections estimates it will add more than $2 million to its budget due to the additional time offenders could serve in custody.
The governor's proposal had yet to have a hearing, and there were no hearings scheduled for it as of Wednesday.
The legislative session ends June 2. Lawmakers will not reconvene, except for special circumstances at the request of the governor, until February 2027.
'There is no conscionable reason for you to take physical control of an automobile while you are inebriated,' Bracke stressed.
Yokley was an organ donor, Padgett and Bracke said.
A spokesperson for Senate Democrats, who control that legislative body, said both proposals remain under consideration.
'Both of these measures remain under consideration, as we assess both the policy and the fiscal impact in light of the state's reduced budget situation,' a spokesperson for the caucus said. 'We're fully committed to passing strong public safety measures this session and both will be given fair consideration.'
Representatives for Assembly Democrats, who also control that chamber, and for Lombardo did not return requests for comment.
During Dukes' probable cause hearing on April 8, Las Vegas Justice Court Judge Suzan Baucum set bail at $250,000, records said. Dukes posted bond, and Baucum ordered him not to drive and to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet.
A preliminary hearing in justice court was scheduled for May 22.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
20 minutes ago
- Fox News
Booker, Cruz spar over threats to US judges in fiery Senate spat
Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas., sparred Tuesday over the uptick in threats made to federal court judges during President Donald Trump's second term. Their heated standoff comes as federal judges have issued a record number of injunctions against the flurry of executive actions by the president. The testy exchange took place during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch: District Judges v. Trump." Cruz, the subcommittee chair, used his remarks at the outset of the hearing to take aim at Democrats on the subcommittee, who he said were "utterly silent" about judicial threats under the Biden administration, including after threats were made against conservative Supreme Court justices. Cruz took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for "unleashing" protesters who gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh prior to their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization – the landmark ruling that overturned a 50-year-old abortion rights precedent – which he later said was ironic given the current "pearl-clutching" stance of Democrats on the panel. His remarks sparked a quick rebuke from Booker, who said, "Something you said is actually dangerous, and it needs to be addressed." "This implication that there was silence [from Democrats on the panel] at a time there were threats on people's houses is absolutely absurd," he continued. "I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from [Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.]," Booker said. "I actually distinctly remember you, chairman, on more than one occasion, condemning those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists." "To say things like that just feeds the partisanship in this institution, and it feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true," Booker added. In response, Cruz argued the "angry mobs" that appeared outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices prior to their decision in Dobbs were in violation of U.S.C. Section 1507. That law prohibits picketing outside the homes of judges or justices' homes in a way that could influence their decision or otherwise obstruct justice. Despite the protests, Cruz said, the Biden-led Justice Department "prosecuted nobody." "I really appreciate that you have now shifted the accusation you made earlier," Booker shot back. "Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests at Supreme Court justices' homes. Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way, not only to condemn that but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection. So if you're saying we didn't criticize –" he started before Cruz interjected. "Did the Biden DOJ go out and arrest a single person under this law?" the Texas lawmaker asked. Booker attempted to respond before Cruz interrupted again, "Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one [person]? Again, the answer is no." Booker attempted once more to respond before Cruz interrupted again, prompting Booker to raise his voice. "I did not interrupt you, sir, I would appreciate it if you would let me finish," he told Cruz. "I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country," Booker continued, prompting Cruz to laugh openly in response. "The attacks we see from the president of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about," Booker said. "I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top, that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing," he continued, adding that the notion that his Democrat colleagues said nothing in the face of Supreme Court justice threats "is a patent lie." The two continued arguing before Cruz said, "Let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law" under U.S.C. Section 1507 should be enforced, "because he knows the answer is yes." The hearing comes as the number of threats against federal judges has spiked during Trump's second term, which has seen hundreds of federal lawsuits filed in courts across the country seeking to either pause or halt the flurry of sweeping executive orders and actions taken by the president. Trump has repeatedly criticized what he called "activist judges," prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. The U.S. Marshals Service said last week that it has investigated more than 370 threats against federal judges since Trump's inauguration in January, which is a sharp rise from 2024, when 509 people were investigated during the entire year. Democrats on the panel used Tuesday's hearing to renew requests for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate an uptick in anonymous "pizza deliveries" sent to federal judges, which can be used as a threat or warning to let judges know their home address is known.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nevada lawmakers fail to pass any DUI legislation this session
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Nevada lawmakers failed to pass any legislation this session to amend the state's DUI laws, even amid a push from Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo and families who lost loved ones. The 120-day legislative session ended Tuesday at midnight. Nevada's DUI-with-death law carries a sentence of 2-20 years. A 1995 Nevada law requires judges to sentence a person to a range, meaning the maximum amount of time a DUI driver who kills can serve in prison before going before the parole board is eight years. The 8 News Now Investigators have found most drivers who kill serve those eight years or less, not 20. An amended version of Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo's crime bill, Senate Bill 457, would have increased the maximum amount of prison time for a DUI driver who kills to 25 years. Lombardo told the 8 News Now Investigators in March that he wanted to change the law to allow prosecutors to charge a DUI driver who kills with second-degree murder. The amended version would have carried a similar maximum sentence as the state's second-degree murder statute. A second proposal, Senate Bill 304, would have amended the state's vehicular homicide law to include all DUIs involving death. As currently written, a driver must have three prior DUI convictions to face a vehicular-homicide charge. The proposal would have negated the prior conviction clause, carrying a possible sentence of 10 to 25 years or 10 to life, the same as the state's second-degree murder statute. During a hearing on Senate Bill 304 in April, several families of crash victims pleaded with lawmakers to implement stricter penalties. A third proposal, Senate Bill 309, would have changed the minimum jail requirements for a person's second DUI offense within seven years, amending a possible penalty from 10 days in jail to 20. The bill also lowered the blood-alcohol threshold for when a defendant would be ordered into treatment. Lawmakers will not reconvene, except for special circumstances at the request of the governor, until February 2027. Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo released a statement on the session, highlighting education funding, without mentioning the DUI proposals. Representatives for Democratic and Republican leadership did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Colorado Dems face backlash for fundraiser with Ilhan Omar after Boulder terror attack: 'Reprehensible'
Colorado Democrats are facing criticism for leading a fundraiser with Rep. Ilhan Omar less than an hour after Sunday's antisemitic terrorist attack in which 12 people were hurt, including a Holocaust survivor. The suspect, 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is facing federal hate crime charges and numerous state-level attempted murder charges for using incendiary devices to burn people who were rallying for the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza ever since the terrorist group attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Soliman was in the country illegally after overstaying his visa and work authorization, according to authorities. About 30 minutes later in nearby Denver, there was a "private reception" with Omar, who has been a major critic of Israel, with many other Democrats listed as the hosts. Ticket prices ranged from $500 to $7,000. Omar is a member of a progressive group of lawmakers in Congress called the "Squad." Rise In Antisemitic Extremism Fuels Wave Of Terror Plots In The United States Since 2020 "Colorado Democrats who raise money for a notorious anti-Semite should be ashamed of themselves for ever doing so, but doing it while victims of the latest wave of anti-Semitic violence were en route to the hospital is even more hypocritical and reprehensible," Colorado House Minority Caucus Chair Rep. Anthony Hartsook, a Republican, said in a statement on Monday. Read On The Fox News App "Just last year, House Democrats turned away families of Israeli hostages, denying them access to the House floor for fear that House Democrats' own radical members might cause a scene. Enough is enough. We must speak loudly and clearly against extremists who justify violence against Jewish communities worldwide. There is no place for anti-Semitism in Colorado," Harstook added. In the aftermath of the attack, Omar posted on X, "Violence against all forms is never acceptable. We must reject hatred and harm in all its forms." 'Squad' Members Condemn Antisemitic Attack In Boulder After Years Of Controversy Rep. Junie Joseph, D-Boulder, who attended the event, faced additional scrutiny, but she told Fox News Digital that she condemns antisemitism. "Sunday was a deeply painful day for our community. My heart is with the victims of the Boulder attack and all those affected. I unequivocally condemn hate and violence in all forms—including antisemitism and Islamophobia," Joseph said in an email to Fox News Digital. "I've heard concerns about my attendance at a private event for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. I was originally invited to introduce her at a Young Democrats event focused on youth engagement—something I care deeply about. When she was unable to attend, I chose to welcome her at a separate gathering, as a matter of courtesy and civic respect," she continued. Holocaust Survivor Among Victims In Boulder, Colorado Suspected Terror Attack "Attending that event was not an endorsement of any particular policy or comment. It was an extension of my role as a public servant who believes in dialogue, inclusion, and maintaining open lines of communication—even when views differ." "Condemning antisemitism and supporting peace, dignity, and human rights for all—including Israelis and Palestinians—are not mutually exclusive. I believe both are essential to a just and compassionate society," Joseph further stated. "These are difficult times, and I remain committed to listening, learning, and leading with care—for all members of our community—Jewish, Muslim, and beyond." Fox News Digital reached out to Omar's campaign for article source: Colorado Dems face backlash for fundraiser with Ilhan Omar after Boulder terror attack: 'Reprehensible'
