The two California police-pursuit bills had the same goal: Saving lives. However, when it came to who should be held responsible for fleeing criminals, the bills parted ways.

That's why it came as little surprise that law enforcement officials in Nevada County and elsewhere backed Senate Bill 719, which would increase penalties for suspects who try to evade police - instead of Sam Aanestad's Senate Bill 718, which would have made it illegal for police to chase after someone who has committed anything other than a violent felony.

Los Angeles Democratic Sen. Gloria Romero's stiffer-penalty bill was approved this week by the Senate Committee on Public Safety in Sacramento, but the panel rejected the "Kristie's Law" bill authored by Aanestad, R-Grass Valley.

"Sam (Aanestad's) legislation was poorly written," Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal said. "We believe the consequences of this bill would create a situation where public safety would be endangered."

But Aanestad's office defends the bill, saying it was crafted in response to concerns from law enforcement.

"The bottom line on this is, law enforcement doesn't like being told what to do in California," said Bill Bird, Aanestad's spokesman.

"The Romero bill, which will provide for penalty enhancement, which provides for increased driver training, is a good bill. It will not cut down on the number of pursuits in California, though. It will not cut down on the number of accidents."

Aanestad's bill would have allowed pursuits only when an officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect had committed or tried to commit a violent felony, such as murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, robbery or rape.

According to the bill, "pursuits for misdemeanor offenses, traffic or civil infractions (would have been) prohibited."

The sheriff said this policy could prohibit authorities from chasing a drunken driver, who would not be classified as a violent felon.

"If we have to back away and let them go, down the road somewhere, there's a good chance that person will hurt somebody," Royal said.

According to the Romero bill, however, anyone thinking about fleeing from authorities would have to consider the harsher penalties and fines of running.

"The time has come for increased penalties," Royal said. "It puts the burden of running on the suspect."

Romero's bill also would promote a statewide program to educate drivers about the tougher criminal penalties, and it would help provide training to law enforcement.

"It's reasonable," the sheriff said. "The bill identifies the issue of training, safety and need for supervisory control. Our policy already does that."

Nevada City Police Chief Louis Trovato also said his department supports the Romero bill, because "it puts the responsibility where it belongs." Trovato criticized Aanestad for what the chief described as failing to take law enforcement's opinions into consideration.

"He still hasn't got it. He will try to get it passed again next year, and again, again," Trovato said.

"How would you feel if someone stole your car, and you and an officer saw it go down the street? You would ask the officer to go after it. With Aanestad's bill, we couldn't - it's not a serious felony."

Grass Valley Police Chief John Foster praised Romero's bill as the result of a collaboration from everyone involved.

"It meets the needs of law enforcement and the community," he said.

As for Kristie's Law, the proposal might soon get more notoriety than before it was voted down in committee.

Aanestad's bill was featured Wednesday on ABC's "World News Tonight," and Bird said his office is scheduled for a spot on FOXNews' "O'Reilly Factor."

"The bill might be dead," Bird said, "but we're not going to stop educating people about what we're trying to do."

ooo

To contact staff writer Roman Gokhman, e-mail romang@the union.com or call 477-4231.