►
From YouTube: 4/8/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
D
E
F
F
F
A
Please
mark
assemblywoman,
krasner
and
assemblyman
o'neill
absent
excuse
for
the
time
being.
I
believe
there
are
over
in
government
affairs
taking
care
of
some
business
over
there
and
I'll
try
to
note
for
the
record
when
they
arrive.
Everybody
else
is
here.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
this
morning,
good
morning
to
members
to
guests
joining
us
on
the
zoom
and
to
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
A
Welcome
to
day
67
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
on
our
agenda,
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters
for
a
guest
joining
us
on
the
zoom
today,
please
mute
yourself
if
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
audio
feedback
and
if
you're
presenting
a
bill
or
answering
questions.
Please
remember
to
state
your
name.
Each
time
before
you
speak,
that'll
help
our
committee.
Secretaries
prepare
accurate
minutes.
I
know
it's
an
awkward
thing
to
do
so.
I
will
try
to
remind
you
if
you
forget
to
do
that.
A
A
Finally,
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
virtual
meeting,
so
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
various
points
throughout
the
meeting
with
those
matters
behind
us
committee,
you'll
see
that
we
have
three
bills
on
the
agenda
today
and,
of
course,
we're
going
to
take
them
slightly
out
of
order.
So
just
so
everybody
knows
the
intended
order.
A
Those
are
friendly
amendments
as
they
are
brought
forward
by
the
sponsors
of
the
bill,
and
so
at
this
time
I
would
ask
our
presenters
for
assembly
bill
405.
If
you
could
turn
your
cameras
on,
and
I
want
to.
First
welcome
to
the
committee
former
state
senator
for
district
9,
which
is
the
district.
I
live
in
becky
harris.
Who
is
a
professor
of
I'm
not
going
to
get
the
title
right.
So
she
is
a
professor
at
unlv
and
teaches
gaming
as
well
as
other
matters.
A
So
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
professor
harris
just
to
give
a
brief
introduction
about
where
405
came
from
and
who
will
be
presenting
today
and
then
we'll
turn
it
over
to
our
students
to
present
the
bill.
So
welcome
to
the
assembly,
judiciary
committee,
virtual
version,
professor
harris
and
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
H
Thank
you
cheerio
good
morning
to
you
vice
chair
wynn,
members
of
the
committee
and
the
committee
manager
for
the
record.
My
name
is
becky
harris
it's
nice
to
see
you
in
the
committee.
It
was
such
a
privilege
to
have
been
able
to
serve
with
so
many
of
you,
as
the
chair
indicated.
Presently,
I'm
an
adjunct
law
professor
at
unlv,
and
I
teach
law,
725
gaming
lawn
policy
as
part
of
this
class
chair
yeager,
has
generously
made
a
bill
available
for
the
law
class.
H
So
I
want
to
just
provide
the
committee
with
a
little
bit
of
context
about
the
genesis
and
development
of
av-405
prior
to
the
start
of
the
semester.
Gaming
attorneys
throughout
nevada
were
surveyed
for
changes.
They
felt
would
aid
in
the
regulation
of
gaming,
those
that
were
willing,
made
suggestions
to
the
class
and
provided
context
for
how
they
felt
their
suggested
changes
would
benefit
gaming.
H
After
hearing
their
suggestions,
the
students
selected
an
issue
that
they
wanted
to
study,
advocate
for
and
become
a
subject
matter
expert
in
chairman
yeager
graciously
agreed
to
include
each
of
the
students
issues
in
this
bill.
Students
wrote
white
papers
and
were
required
to
draft
a
bdr
for
their
respective
issues,
both
of
which
were
submitted
to
chairman
yeager.
H
The
students
were
also
excuse
me.
The
students
are
also
driving
the
advocacy
for
the
bill
and
have
reached
out
to
over
55
stakeholders
within
the
gaming
industry
in
nevada
to
solicit
feedback,
including
the
gaming
control
board.
Today,
you
will
hear
testimony
directly
from
the
students,
some
of
whom
have
conceptual
amendments,
to
propose
based
on
the
stakeholder
feedback
that
they
received.
Chair
yeager,
thanks
for
having
us
before
the
committee
today.
A
I
Yes,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
matthew
mccorkle,
my
first
name
is
spelled
m.
A
t
t
h
e
w.
I
I
A
I
I
I
A
J
J
H-A-R-T-L-I-N-E,
I'm
an
attorney
in
alabama
and
you'll,
be
gaming
law,
student
and
nevada.
Nevada
is
where
we
are,
because
I
had
to
make
sure
I
spelled
say
that
correctly,
but
section
two
is
has
to
do
with
a
really
complicated
topic.
I
didn't
understand
it
at
all
when
I
first
started
this-
and
it's
taken
me
up
until
about
yesterday,
to
finally
wrap
my
head
around
it.
So
I
want
to
break
it
down
to
you.
J
Essentially
publicly
traded
companies
publicly
traded
gaming
companies
in
nevada,
which
make
up
about
76
of
the
gaming
industry,
have
to
every
three
years
file
a
prospectus
on
selling
their
securities
with
the
gaming
commission
and
it's
under
regulation
16.115..
J
So
this
this
section
proposed
to
add
would
be
to
extend
the
time
frame
for
that
prospectus
to
be
good
for
from
three
years
to
five
years
and
what
it
really
does
is.
It
helps
publicly
traded
companies
avoid
having
to
come
before
the
commission
and
do
a
lot
of
paperwork
every
three
years
and
instead
they
get
an
extra
two
years.
J
J
So,
for
example,
if
if,
if
the
conditions
are
right
and
they
decide,
they
want
to
sell
their
stock
or
their
bonds.
J
If
they
don't
have
an
active
shelf
approval,
then
they
can't
do
it
and
then
they
may
have
to
apply
and
do
a
lot
of
leg
work
and
then,
by
the
time
they
get
done.
They've
missed
the
opportunity-
and
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
this,
because
you're
probably
going
to
have
more
questions
than
anything
else,
but
essentially
that's
the
long
and
short
of
it,
and
we
do
have
a
proposed
conceptual
amendment
to
delete
this
section.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
hartline.
I
appreciate
that
presentation
and
thank
you
for
making
efforts
to
pronounce
the
name
of
the
state
right,
that's
something
that's
very
important
to
us,
and
particularly
to
assemblyman
wheeler,
who
often
likes
to
call
out
presenters
who
mispronounced
the
name.
So
we
appreciate
that
effort.
A
K
Thank
you
good
morning,
cherry
yeager
good
morning
vice
chair
wynn,
members
of
the
committee
and
committee
manager,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
erica
edward.
I
will
be
speaking
on
section
3.
Regarding
the
foreign
gaming
statute,
the
foreign
gaming
statute
was
enacted
in
1977
in
response
to
new
jersey,
rising
casinos.
K
The
statute
at
time
required
nevada,
casinos
to
first
step
the
gaming
commission's
approval
to
operate
gaming
outside
of
nevada
in
1993.
This
requirement
of
first
having
approval
was
removed
by
the
legislature
a
in
the
statute.
This
was
done
because
gaming
companies
were
held
back
from
expanding
into
new
jurisdictions
because
of
the
lengthy
foreign
gaming
approval
process.
K
K
The
annual
reports
are
regulatory
reports
generally
describing
compliance
with
regulation.
While
the
quarterly
reports
ask
for
more
specific
things
like
changes
in
ownership,
changes
in
officers
and
key
employees
as
well
as
complaints,
disputes
and
arrests
related
to
gaming.
In
the
foreign
jurisdiction,
my
proposed
change
and
within
my
conceptual
amendment
is
to
move
some
quarterly
reporting
requirements
from
quarterly
to
annual
requirement.
K
The
key
reason
for
doing
this
is
because
the
way
nevada
gaming
manufacturers
do
business
today
is
they
enter
in
into
agreements
with
hundreds
of
jurisdictions
on
receiving
a
portion
of
revenue
for
renting
gaining
machines.
These
agreements
have
to
be
reported
to
the
board
as
part
of
their
quarterly
report.
K
This
includes
reporting
on
a
machine's
location,
name
street,
address
city
state
and
install
and
removal
date
of
each
machine
as
many
pictures
grow.
This
report
has
grown
as
well
the
larger
manufacturers
report
on
hundreds
of
jurisdictions
where
they
have
this
type
of
agreement.
This
information
could
be
provided
annually
instead
of
quarterly.
K
Another
part
of
the
quarterly
reports
includes
gain
licenses,
reporting
on
complaints,
disputes
and
arrests
relating
to
their
gaming
operations
outside
nevada,
and
these
specific
reporting
requirement
items
will
remain
the
same
with
my
proposed
amendments
or
changes
to
this
statute.
The
board
and
commission
would
still
receive
these
reports
quarterly.
K
Overall,
the
effect
of
the
statutory
change
is
a
reduction
in
the
frequency
of
some
reporting
requirements
that
the
board
receives
and
that
a
licensee
submits
to
the
board
regarding
its
operations
and
jurisdictions
outside
of
nevada.
The
time
period
for
these
specific
requirements
is
reduced,
but
the
information
required
will
remain
the
same.
Thank
you.
A
L
For
the
record,
my
name
is
michael
scully,
last
name
spelled
s-c-u-l-l-y
good
morning,
cherry
yeager
good,
to
see
you
again
vice
chairwin
members
of
the
committee
and
committee
manager,
section
4
of
our
bill
expands
the
definition
of
who
can
engage
in
global
risk
management.
I
have
to
admit
when
I
first
started
working
on
this
bill.
I
had
no
idea
what
that
means,
so
I
will
try
to
explain
it
for
all
of
you.
L
Global
risk
management,
generally
speaking,
means
setting
lines
on
sports
bets
across
multiple
jurisdictions,
balancing
those
bets
and
collecting
information
on
who
is
wagering
and
how
much
they're
wagering.
So
as
the
statute
is
currently
written,
it
only
allows
for
nevada
licensed
sports
books
to
engage
in
global
risk
management.
L
L
The
purpose
of
this
change
is
to
allow
for
ease
of
communication
between
sportsbook
operators
acting
in
multiple
states
and
to
encourage
the
expansion
of
book
operators
into
the
nevada
market.
As
you
know,
recent
changes
in
sports
betting
laws
have
opened
it
up
to
many
other
jurisdictions
with
the
current
statute.
L
Obviously
this
could
lead
to
communication
errors
between
the
departments
and
other
unnecessary
headaches.
Instead,
this
change
would
ease
their
expansion
into
the
nevada
market
by
allowing
these
their
current
global
risk
management
operation,
no
matter
the
location
as
long
as
they
obtain
a
license
to
operate
a
sportsbook
in
nevada.
L
The
reporting
requirements
under
the
gaming
control
board's
regulations
would
remain
the
same
for
every
global
risk
management
operation,
no
matter
the
location,
and
while
the
board
would
not
have
direct
jurisdiction
over
a
global
risk
management
team
operating
in
another
state,
they
would
still
be
able
to
discipline
the
actual
sportsbook
operator,
the
nevada
licensee.
If
there's
any
misconduct
by
the
affiliate,
this
bill
could
also
bring
some
of
nevada's
current
global
risk
management
practitioners
into
compliance
with
the
law.
L
Anyone
in
nevada
currently
performing
global
risk
management,
who
does
not
hold
a
license
to
operate
a
sports
book,
is
technically
a
violation
of
the
statute
in
its
current
form.
So
by
adding
the
language
or
an
affiliate,
we
can
bring
operators
who
are
unknowingly
breaking
the
statute
into
compliance.
A
M
Hello,
my
name
is
tanner
britton
spelled
b-r-I-t-t-o-n
and
I'm
here
to
present
the
ab-405
section
5
live,
which
is
in
regards
to
the
criminalization
of
match,
fixing
our
site.
This
section
of
the
bill
was
drafted
with
the
intent
to
codify
the
crim
criminalization
of
match,
fixing
in
nrs
ab405,
section
5
provides
guidance
to
nevada
law
enforcement's
in
situations
where
athletes,
coaches
and
managers
determine
margin
victory
by
using
less
than
his
or
hers
best
best
efforts.
M
M
M
Language
in
section
five
here
looks
to
avoid
situations
in
where
both
professional
and
collegiate
athletes
are
exploited,
while
at
the
same
time
it
kind
of
upholding
the
integrity
of
these
matches
that
are
wagered
on
in
nevada
sportsbooks
over
the
past
couple
years
and
past
50
years
about
the
ncaa
has
been
the
primary
target
of
a
lot
of
match,
fiction
scandals
which
most
commonly
being
college
basketball,
often
times
these
collegiate
athletes
are
exploited
in
match,
fixing
scandals
because
of
a
multitude
of
factors
like
cost
of
living
expenses,
different
economic
statuses
than
most
of
other
college
athletes
that
they
interface
kind
of
day-to-day
with
on
campus,
a
good
situation.
M
There
was
a
large
fixing
scandal
that
happened
at
the
university
of
san
diego
in
2010,
where
a
student
athlete
was
exploited
in
a
match,
fixing
ring
being
paid
for
point
shaving,
so
language
here
in
section
five
of
ab405
looks
to
kind
of
address
that
and
with
the
language
in
the
in
that
section,
being
quote
unquote
best
efforts,
the
language
of
that
was
was
drafted
in
accordance
with
contract
principles
of
best
of
the
term
best
efforts,
the
black's
law
dictionary,
defines
best
efforts
as
an
obligation
to
both
parties
to
make
their
best
attempt
to
accomplish
a
goal.
M
This
definition
is
used
when
there's
uncertainty
about
ability
to
meet
a
goal
so
like
going
into
a
a
game,
a
college
basketball
game
that
there's
no
there's
no
certainty
about
who's,
going
to
come
out
and
win,
and
there
was
a
conceptual
amendment
added
to
section
five
of
ab405,
just
a
minor
amendment,
just
clarifying
the
term
managers.
M
The
term
managers
in
that
section
was
meant
to
mean,
like
a
coach
oftentimes
in
soccer
and
baseball
coaches
are
referred
to
as
managers,
so
that
would
be
where
the
term
managers
comes
from.
In
the
amendment
and
with
that.
A
M
Right,
sorry
about
that,
I
just
with
with
my
myself
being
the
last
portion
of
the
bill
for
presenting
the
last
portion.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you,
chair
yeager,
for
having
us
and
we
do
stand
ready
for
questions
from
the
committee
at
your
discretion.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
all
so
much
and
first
of
all,
let
me
just
say
how
much
we
appreciate
you
being
concise
with
the
presentation
this
morning,
given
that
we
are
in
a
deadline
week
and
certainly
appreciate
your
efforts
as
a
pleasure
to
have
you
all
in
the
committee
this
morning.
I
think
we
do
have
a
few
questions,
because
no
committee
hearing
would
be
complete
unless
we
put
you
in
the
hot
seat
for
at
least
a
question
or
two.
So
I'm
going
to
go
first
to
assemblywoman,
bilbray
axelrod.
C
Thank
you
chair
for
the
question
and
thank
you
for
presenting
this
bill.
I
I
I
remember
not
that
long
ago,
just
a
few
years
back,
it
was
my
first
time
and
it's
a
little
a
little
intimidating,
but
you
guys
did
great.
So
I
am
looking
at
the
section
that
includes
the
digital
signature
and
I
I
think
that
is
a
great
idea,
especially
as
we
see
right
now,
we've
kind
of
moved
into
a
digital
world,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
might
be
too
broad.
C
I
know
a
digital
signature
can
be
everything
from
like
writing.
Your
signature
on
a
piece
of
paper
and
you
know
taking
a
picture
of
it
and
using
that
in
adobe.
I
was
wondering
if
perhaps
because
of
the
security
issues,
especially
within
this
area
of
statute
words
like
encrypted
or
something
like
that
might
be
justified,
and
I
just
wanted
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
that.
If
you
would
and
cute
really
cute
pooch
on
the
last
presenter
in
the
back
nice
cameo.
A
With
regard
to
mr
mccorkle
and
other
presenters,
you
don't
no
need
to
go
through
the
chair.
You
can
go
directly
to
the
member,
but
please
do
remember
to
state
your
name
when
you
speak.
I
Thank
you
again.
This
is
matthew
mccorkle
with
regard
to
whether
or
not
under
section
one,
if
it's
too
broad,
that
the
the
use
of
electronic
signature
is
defined
and
that's
in
nrs,
chapter
719,
which
is
more
broadly
the
uniform
electronic
transition
transactions
act
and
it
does
define
electronic
signature
as
an
electronic,
sound
symbol
or
process
attached
to
or
logically
associated
with
a
record
and
executed
or
adopted
by
a
person
with
the
intent
to
sign
the
record.
I
I
think,
certainly
if
it's,
if
the
committee
wishes
that
language
could
be
added
as
well
into
section
one
to
kind
of
maybe
make
it
a
little
more
concise.
So
there
isn't
that
breadth
of
just
a
signature
and
whether
or
not
that's
somebody
signing
or
or
just
scribbling,
on
a
document.
C
And
I
appreciate
that
and
and
that's
great
that
you
were
able
to
reference
that
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
might
be
a
broader
definition.
That
was
I
I
don't
know
the
the
I'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
when
that
statute
was
added.
But
I
just
think
because
of
the
of
the
nature
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here,
I
think
words.
A
word
like
encrypted
would
be
necessary
in
the
statute
and
I
and
I
kind
of
a
question,
but
just
also
a
suggestion.
I
guess
thank
you
so
much.
I
Again,
this
is
matthew,
mccorkle
and,
and-
and
I
agree
with
you-
assembly
person-
bilbray
axelrod-
I
think
maybe
the
use
of
the
word
encrypted
would
be
appropriate
oftentimes.
We
do
see
that
in
other
commerce,
such
as
real
estate
transactions,
when
there's
closing
on
houses-
and
you
get
a
specific
key
from
the
sender
in
which
that's
attached
for
you
to
sign,
so
that
there
is
the
acknowledgement
that
you
are
the
recipient
as
well
as
the
individual
who
is
authorizing
that
transaction.
E
N
I
Yes
again,
this
is
matthew
mccorkle.
With
regard
to
your
question
assembly
person
marzola,
I
think
the
it
could
kind
of
go
two
ways
depending
on
the
board
and
the
commission,
if
they
so
choose,
possibly
since
we're
relating
with
them
as
the
regulators
in
the
gaming
industry,
if
they
have
a
preferred
method
in
which
they
would
like
to
have
those
types
of
documents
signed
and
accepted
if
they
would
like
to
have
say
an
encrypted
key
to
minimize
the
use
of
fraud
or
forge
documents.
That
certainly
can
be.
I
know,
there's
different.
I
Let's
see
companies
such
as
docusign
that
already
have
these
types
of
electronic
signature
that
I
guess
software
that
you
can
use,
and
so
I
think,
maybe
using
something
that's
recognized
already
in
the
industry
or
even
other
highly
regulated
industries
such
as
banking
or
e-commerce,
which
people
use
all
the
time
and
much
more
than
we
even
do
in
the
gaming
industry.
I
think
trying
to
use
something
like
that.
That's
already
been
approved
and
tested
would
be
helpful.
A
C
A
C
A
C
Okay,
sorry
about
that,
my
mistake
so
back
to
my
question
section
two
broad
overview
here.
So
what
we
want
to
do,
it
sounds
like
is
cut
back
on
administrative,
so
the
they
have
to
have
the
gaming
companies
and
affiliates
have
to
have
these
updates
every
three
years.
We're
gonna
make
it
five
years,
so
it's
less
administrative
burden.
I
understand
that
my
question
is
where
it
talks
about
the
continuous
or
delayed
public
offering
of
its
securities
or
an
affiliated
company.
C
Can
I
get
a
better
clarity
of
what
does
that
mean?
Does
that
mean
the
company
is
selling
the
treasury
stock?
Is
this
just
for
transfers
of
stock
in
general
on
the
stock
market?
Is
this
if
a
new
affiliate
is
formed
an
ipo
for
that?
What
what
stock
is?
What
which
ones
are
we
talking
about
here
or
does
it
encompass
all
of
those.
J
Sorry
this
is
george
heartline
and
assembly
person
kasama.
To
answer
your
question,
the
it
does
to
my
knowledge,
encompass
all
securities
that
they
want
to
raise
money
for
so,
in
other
words
and
I'll,
say
this
too,
they
have
to
do
this
on
the
federal
level
with
the
sec
also.
J
So
it's
a
duplicative
process
to
some
extent,
and
I
understand
why.
But
at
the
same
time
it's
not
like
this
is
the
first
time
that
they're
gonna
have
to
go
to
the
principal's
office,
so
the
first
time
they
go
to
the
principal's
office
is
when
they
file
this
report
prospectus
with
the
sec
and
and
really
to
drill
down
and
answer
your
question
a
little
more
specifically
it's
what's
in
the
prospectus,
that's
allowed
to
be
approved,
so
it
could
be
anything
as
long
as
they
included
it
in
the
initial
prospectus.
J
So
whatever
they
put,
that's
what
I
mean
it's
just.
It's
called
a
shelf
approval.
It's
it's
really
interesting
once
you,
it
makes
sense
once
it
kind
of
you
kind
of
get
past
the
technology
and
the
technical
terms,
but
they're
allowed
to
put
this
ability
to
raise
money
on
a
shelf
and
take
it
down
anytime.
They
want
to
within
those
three
years,
and
what
this
would
do
is
allow
them
to
go
five
years,
but
I
hope
that
answered
your
question.
A
Mr
hartland,
I
had
just
a
quick
question.
I
I
think
after
you
presented
that
section
you
had
indicated
you
were
desiring
to
remove
that
section
from
the
bill,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
little
bit
about
how
you
arrived
at
that
decision.
Did
you
learn
something
along
the
way
that
concerned
you
with
potentially
making
this
change
in
statute.
J
Yes,
unfortunately,
it's
it
would
cost
four
hundred
thousand
dollars.
So
there's
a
fiscal
note
attached
and
the
reason
for
that.
My
understanding
is
that
you
know
there's
fees
involved
every
three
years
and
if
you
didn't
have
those
fees
there
would
be
a
deficit.
J
I
had
an
idea
about
what
could
be
done
about
that
which
would
be
to
increase
the
fees
every
five
years
to
reflect
essentially
the
same
price
that
they
would
have
paid
either
way,
but
I
don't
think
we
were
able
to
get
it
accomplished
with
the
stakeholders
and
get
a
get
enough
of
them
on
board
at
this
point
to
to
make
that
happen.
But
I
think
that
theoretically
in
the
future,
although
this
is
amended
to
be
deleted
to
save
this
bill,
we
we.
J
I
do
think
that
in
the
future
there
are
companies
that
have
reached
out
to
me
like
luke
orchard
at
igt
and
said
yeah.
I
mean
I
think
the
companies
might
be
able
to
agree
to
fees.
Just
let
us
know
how
much
it
would
be
to
be
increased
in
order
to
make
up
for
that
deficit,
because
their
time
is
money
so
to
have
an
extra
two
years
of
not
having
to
do.
A
lot
of
legwork
is
very
valuable
to
them.
A
Let
me
ask
one
since
I
don't
see
anyone
raising
their
hand,
miss
adler.
I
guess
the
question
I
had
was,
and
again
this
is
was
not
an
area
that
I
was
really
all
that
familiar
with.
So
I
do
want
to
thank
students
for
broadening
at
least
my
education
on
on
gaming
issues,
but
my
question
was:
do
does
auditing
of
foreign
gaming
operations
already
happen
at
the
board
level,
or
would
this
be
essentially
a
new
regulatory
requirement
that
is
imposed
on
certain
licensees.
K
This
is
a
regulatory
report
that
already
exists,
so
this
would
not
be
an
additional
regulatory
request.
This
would
just
be
an
extension
on
two
items
that
are
already
requested:
shifting
from
quarterly
to
annual.
A
Thank
you
any
additional
questions
on
section
three
of
the
bill.
Let
me
scroll
through
here
and
see
if
anybody
has
their
hand
up.
While
I'm
doing
that,
I
will
note
for
our
committee
secretary
that
assemblyman
o'neill
has
joined
us.
So
if
you
could
please
mark
him
as
present
okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions.
Thank
you.
Miss
adler,
we're
gonna
move
to
section
four,
which
is
the
global
risk
management.
I
think
we
have
a
question
on
that
section
from
assemblyman
wheeler.
O
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
we
do.
I
understand
the
intent
and
during
the
presentation
which
you
gave
as
far
as
defining
an
affiliate
of
such
a
person,
but
what
I
read
here,
all
we're
changing
is
or
an
affiliate.
So
what
I'm
seeing
is,
can
an
affiliate,
for
instance,
be
just
a
friend.
You
know
someone
who
is
working
with
that
particular
company.
How
does
it
have
to
be
affiliated
and
where
is
that
in
the
bill.
L
L
O
A
I
guess
mr
scully,
I
just
had
a.
I
think
it's
a
quick
question.
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
something
you
said,
but
I
think
it
indicated
that
you
know
by
use
of
the
word
affiliate,
then
we
don't
really
have
to
necessarily
have
the
entity
here
doing
the
global
risk
management.
L
Again,
this
is
michael
scully.
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
for
the
question
in
my
conversations
with
people
engaged
in
global
risk
management.
Currently,
the
companies
who
are
operating
books
in
nevada
are,
for
the
most
part,
doing
their
global
risk
management
exclusively
from
nevada.
At
this
point,
this
bill
would
just
it
would
make
it
easier
for
another
another
company
to
come
into
the
state.
It's
I
do
not
foresee
anyone
making
the
change
to
take
their
current
global
risk
management
group
in
nevada
and
move
them
somewhere
else.
L
This,
like
I
mentioned,
could
bring
some
current
global
risk
management
teams
into
compliance
just
because
they
I
spoke
with
someone
who
mentioned
that
they
currently
do
not
have
a
license
to
operate
a
sports
book.
However,
they
are
running
global
risk
management
operation,
so
they
did
not
realize
that
they
were
not
in
compliance
with
the
statute
and
by
adding
the
language
or
an
affiliate.
It
would
actually
bring
them
into
compliance.
A
A
Well,
you
all
know
I'm
going
to
have
a
question
if
you
don't
have
any
so,
mr
britton,
here
it
was
my
question.
I
certainly
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do.
I
think
it
makes
sense,
but
how
do
you
think
the
board
if
they
were
to
investigate
an
allegation
that
would
fit
in
the
new
language
that
you
put
in
the
conceptual
amendment?
How
do
you
think
the
board
would
go
about
proving
something
like
that.
M
Hi,
thank
you
training
for
that
question.
Excuse
me
just
just
as
a
point
just
for
clarification.
You
are
you
referring
to
the
to
the
gaming
control
board
in
terms
of
an
investigation
for
administration.
M
M
They
have
access
to
bank
funds
transfer
funds.
So
I
would
imagine-
and
excuse
me,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
the
board
would
go
about.
I'm
investigating
something
like
this,
but
the
fbi
would
would
conduct
a
standard
criminal
investigation
just.
C
A
O
A
I
think
we
all
wish
we
were
that
dog
right
about
now
give
that
thursday
of
a
deadline
week
so
well.
Well
done.
We've
had
some
really
good
zoom
backgrounds
this
week,
and
so
with
some
of
the
committees.
So
I
think
folks
are
really
stepping
up
their
game
and
I
for
one
appreciate
that.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
so
to
our
presenters
today,
I'm
gonna
first,
thank
you
for
presenting
and
I'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight.
What
we're
going
to
do
now
is
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you
all
for
some
brief
concluding
remarks
when
we
finish
that
testimony.
A
A
I
don't
see
that
happening,
although,
when
I
scrolled
through,
I
did
notice
that
assemblywoman
krasner
has
joined
us.
So,
madam
secretary,
could
you
please
mark
her
as
present
and
bps
at
this
time?
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
405.
A
Thank
you,
bps.
I
will
close
testimony
in
support.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
405..
I
don't
believe
anyone
on
the
zoom
is
here
in
opposition.
But
again,
if
I'm
incorrect,
if
you
could
turn
your
camera
on
and
let
me
know
you'd
like
to
speak
in
opposition,
please.
A
A
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
vps.
I
will
now
close
neutral
testimony
and
what
I'm
going
to
do
now
is
give
our
law
students
our
gaming
students
a
chance
to
just
make
some
brief
concluding
remarks
on
the
sections
of
the
bill
and
then,
if
senator
harris
would
like,
I
will
allow
her
to
make
some
concluding
remarks
at
the
end.
So
why
don't
we
start
with
mr
mccorkle
any
concluding
remarks
on
section
one.
I
I
A
Thank
you,
mr
mccorkle.
It
was
good
to
see
you
again
as
well.
We'll
go
next
to
mr
hartline.
Any
concluding
remarks
on
section
two.
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
This
is
george
hartline.
I
will
just
quickly
say
as
far
as
section
one
originally
I
worked
on
that
one,
and
I
wanted
to
tell
you
that
the
us
government's
encryption
standard
is
called
advanced
encryption
standard
and
that
is
the
standard
used
for
any
governmental
organization.
So
I
think
if
you
you
could
just
use
that
one.
I
think
that
would
be
good
as
far
as
section
two,
I
don't
really
have
anything
else
to
add
there
I'm
glad
to
be
here.
I
really
humbled
and
appreciate
the
opportunity.
K
Erica
adler
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
I
have
no
concluding
remarks
regarding
my
section
and
the
conceptual
amendment
submitted.
Thank
you
all
for
this
opportunity.
It's
been
absolutely
fantastic
and
I'm
very
grateful.
L
This
is
michael
scully
for
the
record
yeah.
I
was
wondering
if
there's
any
of
that
fritter
left,
because
if
there
is,
I
might
need
to
come,
get
a
piece
of
it
now,
just
I
guess.
In
conclusion,
I've
spoken
to
some
stakeholders
who
said
that
this
amendment,
adding
or
an
affiliate
to
the
global
risk
management
statute
would
be
beneficial
for
our
bookmakers.
L
So
I
urge
passage-
and
also
this
has
been
a
great
experience.
Thank
you
for
letting
us
come
and
talk
to
you
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
mr
scully,
and
then
section
five,
mr
britain,
any
concluding
remarks.
M
Thank
you,
joe
yeager
and
tanner
britton
for
the
record,
no
concluding
mark
remarks.
From
my
end
in
regards
to
the
amendment
section,
5
or
section
5
itself,
I
just
want
to
thank
you
again
for
having
us
as
a
class.
I
think
we
all
enjoyed
this
opportunity
and
all
enjoyed
being
able
to
sit
here
and
present
in
front
of
the
assembly,
and
I
thank
you
for
welcoming
my
dog
over
my
shoulder
too,
who
seems
to
be
the
star
of
the
show,
even
though
he
might
not
know
it
yet.
M
I'm
gonna
have
to
wake
him
up
here
in
a
second
after
I
get
off
this
call,
but
again,
thank
you
and
thank
you
to
all
members
of
the
assembly.
I
appreciate
it.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
This
is
becky
harris
for
the
record.
We
are
indeed
grateful
for
the
generosity
of
time
that
you
have
provided
the
class.
Knowing
that
your
deadline
for
committee
passage
is
tomorrow,
I
want
to
reinforce
for
the
committee
that
we
will
continue
to
work
with
stakeholders
and
continue
our
outreach.
We
will
also
continue
to
engage
in
dialogue
with
the
gaming
control
board.
It.
H
A
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
405
committee.
That
means
we're
going
to
take
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
next.
So
at
this
time
I'll
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
296
assembly
bill
296
revises
provisions
relating
to
crimes
I'll.
Let
the
committee
know
if
you
haven't
already
seen
that
there
is
a
conceptual
amendment
on
nellis.
That
is,
I
believe,
friendly
proposed
on
behalf
of
the
sponsor
of
the
bill.
A
P
P
Doxxing
is
a
posting,
a
private
or
identifying
information
about
an
individual
group
or
organization
with
the
intent
that
that
information
is
used
against
the
target
for
an
unlawful
purpose.
These
actions
are
a
severe
threat
to
our
community,
particularly
individuals
of
protected
classes
affecting
the
ability
of
already
marginalized
communities
to
be
safe.
In
both
a
digital
and
physical
space.
P
P
If
you
look
at
the
original
text,
it
did
have
some
language
and
in
this
particular
aspect
of
law,
the
language
really
has
to
be
very
specific,
so
it's
narrowly
tailored
to
capture
the
people
that
are
causing
the
most
like,
malicious
and
reckless,
like
actions
that,
like
invade
people's
physical
and
digital
space.
So
if
you
look
at
the
amendment
that
was
proposed,
it
is
a
friendly
amendment.
P
P
P
They
swatted
her
family's
home.
I
don't
know
if
you're
familiar
with
swatting,
but
swatting
is
when
you
call
the
police
on
an
address
and
say
that
you
are
being
threatened
or
you
are
there
and
the
police.
It
puts
police
officers
in
danger
because
they
will
then
get
in
their
cars
lights
and
sirens
and
go
into
a
household
because
they
think
there
is
an
eminent
threat
and
it
turns
out.
There's
not.
It
just
puts
those
police
officers
in
danger
and
obviously
those
unsuspecting
family
members
that
are
in
there.
P
This
bill
would
distinguish
and
would
capture
conduct
that
simply
involves
identifying
people
online,
where
the
purpose
may
be
to
protect
others
track
down
extremists
or
report
a
public
interest
story.
So
this
law
does
not
like
inhibit
the
ability
of
the
public
to
you,
know,
photograph
or
videotape,
like
police,
violence
or
police
brutality.
P
This
does
not
allow
this
does
not
prohibit
people
from
the
fbi
from
posting
pictures
of
those
that
were
involved
in
the
january
6
insurrection
to
post
those
pictures
of
people
that,
like
murdered
those
police
officers
at
that
scene.
P
This
does
not,
like
you
know,
prohibit
that
conduct.
Unlawful
doxxing
is
different
from
the
work
that
advocates
and
researchers,
including
those
at
the
anti-defamation
league,
are
doing
to
identify
extremists
and
help
law
enforcement
agencies.
Investigate
investigate
those
responsible
for
crimes.
These
activists
and
researchers
are
not
operating
with
unlawful,
malicious
or
reckless
mental
state.
P
There's
a
fine
line
to
walk,
and
it's
important
that
we
do
so
when
you
know
enacting
anti-legislation
boxing
anti-doxing
legislation
again.
My
goal
and
my
intent
for
this
bill
is
to
protect
individuals
who
are
doxxed,
while
protecting
individuals
who
identify
bad
actors
assist
with
criminal
investigations,
act
as
whistleblowers
create
art
and
publish
newsworthy
stories.
P
I
have
several
people
with
me
to
help
walk
you
through
the
provisions
of
the
bill
as
amended,
and
I'm
going
to
next
turn
this
over
with
the
chair's
permission
to
beth
holtzman,
the
western
civil
rights
council
from
the
anti-defamation
league.
Again,
she
will
be
here
to
walk
you
through
the
provisions
of
the
bill
as
amended,
and
we
will
be
available
after
for
any
questions
the
committee
may
have
so
chair.
With
your
permission,
if
I
can
turn
this
over
to
ms
holtzman.
N
N
So
this
bill
only
applies
to
conduct
in
which
the
individual
is
intentionally,
disseminating
the
personal
private
information
or
sensitive
information
of
another
person
without
that
person's
consent,
as
well
as
with
the
intent
that
this
would
then
cause
that
person
to
suffer
death,
bodily
injury,
stalking
or
mental
anguish
or
with
the
reckless
disregard
that
it
would
be
likely
to
cause
death,
bodily
injury,
stalking
or
mental
anguish.
N
Furthermore,
the
dissemination
of
the
personal
information
must
actually
cause
the
person
to
suffer
death,
bodily
injury,
stalking
or
mental
anguish,
or
that
it'd
be
reasonably
likely
that
they
would
or
be
in
fear
of
that
happening.
Additionally,
we've
provided
several
exceptions
in
the
bill
of
when
conduct
is
not
unlawful,
doxxing,
for
example.
It
is
not
doxing
if
personal
information
is
released
for
the
purpose
of
reporting
conduct
reasonably
belief
to
be
unlawful
reporting,
conduct
that
constitutes
crime
to
law
enforcement.
N
It
is
not
unlawful
doxing
if
information
is
personal,
information
is
disseminated
for
the
purpose
of
investigating
or
prosecuting
a
violation,
as
well
as
engaging
in
lawful,
constitutionally
protected
activity
such
as
pertains
to
speech,
press
assembly
and
petition.
Additionally,
we
added
language
to
note
that
nothing
in
this
section
should
prevent
construed
to
conflict
with
section
1983
of
the
civil
rights
act,
as
well
as
providing
language
from
anti-slap
statutes
to
prevent
the
those
from
being
utilized
as
well
as
just
to
reiterate.
There
is
no
criminal
penalties.
We
have
removed
those.
E
E
Thank
you
for
convening
today's
hearing
and
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
win
for
your
sponsorship
of
this
film,
founded
in
1913.
Adl
has
a
timeless
mission
to
stop
the
defamation
of
the
jewish
people
and
to
secure
justice
and
fair
treatment
for
all.
Today,
more
than
ever,
this
mil
this
mission's
relevance
is
endures
as
a
at
adl
we're
working
about
anti-semitism,
prejudice
and
hate
and
all
its
kind
while
defending
our
democratic
ideals
and
civil
rights.
Unfortunately,
we
know
that
hate
and
extremism
are
on
a
rise,
and
digital
space
are
not
immune.
E
The
despairs
disparities
and
start
term
in
terms
of
which
communities
are
particularly
impacted
by
hate.
According
to
a
recent
national
adl
study,
last
month,
27
percent
of
americans
experience
severe
online
hate
and
harassment
defined
as
including
sexual
harassment,
stalking,
physical
threats,
swatting
doxing
and
sustained
harassment.
E
Additionally,
in
the
2021
report,
33
percent
of
respondents
attributed
at
least
some
of
the
online
harassment
they
experienced
to
their
identity,
defined
as
their
sexual
orientation,
religion,
race
or
ethnicity,
gender
identity
or
disability.
We
must
do
more
to
ensure
that
we
are
protecting
against
online
hate
and
harassment
and
its
consequences
to
individuals,
personal
and
professional
lives.
Such
actions
include
the
emerging
threat
of
doxing
adl
urges
this
committee
to
support
ab296
to
address
doxing
in
nevada
state
law.
E
If
passed,
this
law
would
prohibit
a
person
from
posting
another's
information
online
with
the
intent
to
harm
them
and
with
reckless
disregard
of
causing
death,
bodily
injury,
stalking
or
mental
anguish.
According
to
adl's
2020
report,
81
of
americans
agree
that
laws
should
be
strengthened
to
hold
perpetuators
of
online
hate
accountable
for
their
conduct.
E
A
Have
you
so
much
miss
brislin
vice
chairwin
is
miss
nave
going
to
present
next.
Are
you
ready
for
questions.
P
He
is
not,
but
if
I
could
just
have
one
one
more
statement
and
poor
question.
P
P
It
is
frightening,
it
is
sad
and
it
is
terror-
terrifying
to
know
that
a
realtor
living
in
a
small
town
in
montana,
who
was
just
a
soccer
mom,
got
thrust
into
this
like
space
digitally
that
is
just
not
protected.
It
wasn't
something
where
someone
was
like
lighting
crosses
on
her
yard,
although
I
think
she
did
have
like
physical,
like
threats
in
that
matter
as
well,
but
it
was
the
way
she
described
it.
It
was.
It
made
her
question
the
safety
of
her
parents,
her
children.
P
You
know
she
went
from
worrying
about
taking
her
kids
to
soccer
practice,
because
these
threats
that
lived
in
a
digital
space
were
so
prevalent
and
people
talked
to
her
about
like
well
just
get
off.
Facebook
just
get
off
social
media,
but
it
terrorized
every
aspect
of
her
life
life
from
her
business
to
yelp.
P
Reviews
to
posting
pictures
of
her
children
were
following
you
on
her
family,
and
it
was
hundreds
of
thousands
of
like
posts
and
like
comments
that,
in
this
negative
digital
space
that
you
couldn't
just
turn
off,
it
was
there
and
it's
there
forever,
and
I
think
that
was
something
that
really
like
struck
me
and
watching
her
go
from
like
kind
of
an
obscure
like
normal
life,
to
being
thrust
in
this
position
where
she
is
now
the
face
and
voice
for
other
victims
around
the
country
was
just
truly
inspiring
so
hearing
her
story
would
encourage
people
to
reach
out
look
online.
P
You
can
unfortunately,
see
some
of
the
things
the
work
of
the
southern
poverty
law
center,
as
well
as
the
anti-defamation
league,
in
trying
to
bring
awareness
and
attention
to
this
online
hate
that
takes
place
and
how
that
can
escalate
to
you
know,
murder,
violence
and
stalking
is
just
incredible.
I
do
recognize
that
this
is
walking
a
very
fine
line
with
like
first
amendment
concerns
and
so
getting
the
language.
Just
perfect
is
what
we
are
looking
to
do
here
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
we
took
out
some
of
those
criminal
penalties.
P
We
just
weren't
there
yet
and,
as
you
can
see
from
the
amendment,
there's
still
some
typos
that
need
to
like
take
place
there.
So
we
will
continue
to
work
to
make
sure
that
the
intent
behind
this
law
really
protects
those
victims
in
that
online
space,
and
I
know
that
this
affects
nevadans.
We
saw
this
with
some
people
that
were
working
in
different
government
agencies
being
attacked.
You
know
in
this
like
online,
like
with
online
hate
about
like
just
their
jobs
and
they
weren't
public
officials
like
on
you
know
us
here
on
this
page.
P
A
Thank
you
so
much
vice
chair.
Thank
you
to
your
co-presenters
as
well.
We
have
a
number
of
questions.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
couple
of
quick
ones
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
intent
of
the
amendment.
Obviously
things
are
moving
pretty
quickly
this
week
and
I
understand
that,
but
it
did
look
to
me
that
there
were
perhaps
a
couple
of
sections
that
were
still
in
the
conceptual
amendment
that
dealt
with
criminal
penalties.
For
instance,
I
think
the
very
last
section
section
10
references
a
misdemeanor,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
on
the
record.
A
That
is
it
your
intent
to
completely
eliminate
any
criminal
aspects
of
the
bill
and
just
have
it
be
a
civil
action.
P
Yes
completely,
I
see
also
in
section
two
there's
a
start
of
a
line,
and
then
it
doesn't
finish
so
it
is
definitely
my
intent
to
take
out
all
of
the
criminal
penalties
they
just
weren't
ready
to
be
presented,
and
so
it
is
my
intent,
I
think
section,
one
section,
two
and
section
10,
like
all
reference
potential
criminal
stuff,
and
that
was
not
in
the
intent
and
I
have
beth
miss
holtzman
like
definitely
knows
way
more
about
this
like
so.
If
the
committee
does
have
questions,
she
is
here
to
answer
those.
A
Thank
you
vice
chairwin,
and
then
you
know
my
other
question
that
I
have
I'll
just
ask
it.
While
I
have
you
here,
and
it
is
on
page
three
of
the
conceptual
amendment-
and
I
would
say,
if
you're
looking
at
the
line
numbers
over
on
the
left
hand
side,
it
would
be
lines
64
to
67,
and
so
these
are
exceptions.
Basically,
where
you
know
this,
this
bill
would
not
apply
and
subsection
b,
which
I
think
will
become
subsection
a
when
the
amendment
is
prepared.
A
It
talks
about
reporting
conduct
that
is
reasonably
believed
to
be
unlawful
and
then
the
very
next
section
talks
about
conduct
believed
to
constitute
a
crime,
and
so
I
just
wondered
if,
if
there
was
something
that
was
envisioned,
that
would
be
unlawful,
but
not
a
crime
that
that
that
drove
the
need
to
have
these
two
separate
sections
listed
in
that
way.
P
I
will
go
ahead
and
turn
this
over
to
ms
holtzman,
but
I
have
a
feeling
that
I
just
recently
asked
them
to
remove
the
criminal
penalties,
and
so
I
think
there
was
just
some
wordsmithing
where
some
of
that
did
not
get
out
in
other
sections,
but
miss
holtzman.
If
you
can
go
ahead
and
answer
that.
N
Sure
this
is
beth
holtzman
speaking
again
and
I'd
say
that
these
two
sections
we
definitely
could
revise
it
to
eliminate
one.
But
I
believe
the
intent
was
to
try
to
encompass
actions
that
didn't
need
to
be
as
formal
as
reporting
something
to
a
law
enforcement
agency.
And
if
someone
was
sharing
information
that
they
believed
to
be
unlawful
to
in
other
ways,
but
it
wasn't
necessarily
as
formal
as
filing
a
police
report.
We
wanted
to
be
more
expansive
and
cover
other
conduct
as
well.
P
A
Thank
you
and
just
to
tie
it
into
something
else.
We
we
heard
in
this
committee,
I
suppose
an
example
that
could
be
the
the
bill
that
we
passed
that
deals
with
jaywalking,
which
would
be
a
civil
offense.
It
would
still
be
unlawful,
but
it
would
no
longer
be
criminal,
so
I
think
those
two
words
do
do
work
well
in
tandem,
and
you
know
if
and
when
we
process
the
bill,
we'll
leave
it
up
to
mr
wilkinson
about
whether
those
two
sections
could
be
condensed.
A
O
Hey
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
madam
vice
chair.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
really
like
the
intent
of
this
bill,
but
and
it's
personal
to
me,
because
I
actually
had
blm
and
antifa
published
my
address
online
and
thank
god
for
the
douglas
county,
sheriff's
and
our
legislative
police.
Here
nothing
happened
with
my
grandkids
in
the
house
that
weekend,
so
you
know
I
I
get
it.
Let's
put
it
that
way
the
but
the
question
I
have
for
you
is
there's
a
lot
of
this
information.
O
P
Thank
you,
rachel
lynn,
for
the
record,
and
I
think
I
will
turn
this
over
to
ms
holtzman.
I
know
she's
very
familiar
with
the
intricacies
of
how
these
dachshund
legislation
is
intended
to
work.
N
Thank
you.
This
is
beth
holtzmann
speaking
and
so
where
it's
distinguished
is
it
for,
if
even
if
the
information
is
already
publicly
available,
it's
the
way
it's
being
disseminated,
for
example,
in
the
tanya
gersh
example.
E
E
I
have
a
question:
it's
really
about
existing
language,
tying
it
in
with
doxing
in
your
bill,
so
in
section
1
and
in
section
10,
specifically
in
section
1,
on
line
13
and
14,
where
we
talk
in
existing
language,
that
we
talk,
the
the
definitions
because
of
the
actual
or
perceived
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
physical
or
mental
disability,
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity
or
expression
of
the
victim.
E
I'm
curious
if
we
could
enlarge
the
existing
statutes
through
this
bill
to
include
political
affiliation.
I
think
in
the
last
year
in
particular,
we
saw-
and
I
know
with
officials
we're
public
officials,
but
a
lot
of
times.
You
know
our
family
members
didn't
sign
up
for
this
are
our
addresses
a
lot
of
times
elected
officials
keep
their
personal
addresses
private
and
somehow
people
get
a
hold
of
them.
We
saw
on
the
national
level
where
you
know
home
address,
of
a
of
the
united
states.
E
Senator
was
shared
and
people
showed
up
on
the
doorstep
and,
and
he
wasn't
home,
but
the
mother
of
a
newborn
baby.
His
wife
was
there
and
and
was
very
threatened
and
that
information
was
shared.
So
I'm
just
curious.
Is
there
there
room
there?
There
are
people
who
got
involved
in
political
activities,
that
weren't
elected
officials
that
that
suffered
from
doxing
as
well.
P
Thank
you
for
your
question.
Assemblywoman
hanson
wrote
shall
win
for
the
record.
I
will
turn
this
over
to
miss
holtzman,
but
it
is
not.
It
is
not
my
intention
to
actually
include
political
figures
in
this
piece
of
legislation
as
a
protected
class.
I
think
we
are
public
officials.
Our
addresses
are
a
part
of
public
record
because
they
establish
our
residency
in
within
our
respective
districts.
P
You
know,
everyone
knows
where
I
live,
because
I
have
to
use
it
to
establish
residency
and
if
I
don't
have
that-
and
it's
not
a
part
of
my
public
documents
when
I
file
I'm
actually
committing
a
criminal
crime
for
not
living
in
the
district
or
not
providing
that
kind
of
information.
So
I
think
there
is
a
distinction,
I
think
also
with
political
figures.
It
can't
just
be
a
mere
threat.
There
has
to
be.
P
The
standard
is
higher
when
it
comes
to
things
like
defamation
or
you
know
any
of
those
kind
of
things.
So
I
I
I
it
is
not
my
intention
to
include
those
individuals.
P
I
think
some
of
the
other
people
that
you
were
talking
about
if
those
individuals
are
targeted
under
this,
the
the
structure
of
this
islam,
that
yes,
they
would
be
protected.
You
know
a
family
member
is
not
you
know
and
a
child.
They
are
not
considered
they're,
not
the
public
officials.
So
I
think
if
it
rose
to
this
level,
they
would
be
covered
under
this
anti-doxing
law
and
ms
holtzman
do
you
have
anything
further
to
kind
of
add
to
that.
N
This
is
beth
holtzman
for
the
record,
and
I
would
just
add
that
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
focus
on
the
protected
characteristics
in
which
people
are
most
often
targeted.
The
immutable
characteristics
that
we
find
in
hate,
crime,
laws,
race,
religion,
color,
national
origin,
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity,
etc,
and
that
will
be
the
focus.
E
And
share
just
real
quick.
If
I
could
clarify
thank
you
both
for
for
patients.
I
didn't,
I
don't
want
to
say
political
officials.
I
was
just
saying
political
affiliation
to
protect
voters
at
large,
no
matter
their
political
affiliation.
A
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
vice
chair.
I
think
this
is
a
great
bill.
I
just
have
a
question
when
we're
using
the
word
disseminates-
and
I
know
I
kept
hearing
people
say
online-
I
don't
see
the
word
online
in
here.
I
just
see
disseminates,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
covers
online.
Would
that
also
cover?
Let's
say:
if
somebody
put
a
bunch
of
posters
up
on
telephone
poles
going
down
a
street,
it
would
just
it
would
cover
all
all
types
of
not
just
online.
N
Beth
holtzman
for
the
record.
Yes,
the
intent
would
be
to
cover
any
sort
of
posting
publishing
of
that
information.
Although
it
often
happens
online
and
if
it's
helpful,
we
could
provide
a
definition
of
disseminate
into
the
bill.
C
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
casama.
Do
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members?
I
think
I
have
everyone
on
one
screen.
Finally,
I
don't
see
any
additional
questions
at
the
moment.
Let
me
check
my
messages
here.
Just
to
be
sure
you
know,
let
me
just
ask
this
one.
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
point,
but
the
new
section,
that's
being
added
in
section
7.5,
which
is
commonly
referred
to
as
anti-slap,
which
is
a
little
bit
of
a
complicated
area
of
law.
A
I
think
that
was
put
in
our
statute
back
in
2013,
and
I
just
wondered
if
somebody
for
the
edification
of
the
committee
and
for
myself
could
do
a
very
high
level
overview
of
what
section
7.5
is
intended
to
do
and
how
these
anti-slap
lawsuits
work
in
actual
real
life
in
the
court
in
the
courtroom.
If
somebody
could
try
to
address
that
just
for
the
legislative
record,
please.
N
Beth
holtzman
for
the
record,
so
the
intent
was
this
was
to.
There
were
concerns
about
individuals
who
would
be
sharing
information
and
trying
to
about
either
elected
public
officials
or
perhaps
law
enforcement
that
they
believe
are
engaging
in
misconduct.
A
Thank
you
and
I
will
note
I
I
believe
that
anti-slap
bill
was
from
former
senator
justin
jones
when
he
was
here
in
the
2013
session.
I
believe
it
was,
and
so
I
guess
my
other
question
and
you
know
perhaps
this
is
one
that
I
can
work
out
with
legal,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
section
7.5
is
is
needed
in
the
law
and
if
anyone
has
you
know
an
opinion
on
what
the
existing
anti-slap
law
that
already
is
in
statute.
Would
that
already
cover
lawsuits
like
this
or
so?
A
P
Rochelle
win
for
the
record,
I
believe
alyssa
neyworth
is
raised
her
hand
and
I
think
she
can
answer
some
of
the
intent
and
why
that
was
included.
Go
ahead.
C
As
you
know,
a
lot
of
language
is
being
added
very
quickly,
and
so
we
wanted
to
ensure
that,
with
regard
to
this
particular
new
form
of
liability
that
that
was
included,
but
it
might
not
be
necessary
if
there's
redundancy
within
the
system-
and
we
can
certainly
follow
up
with
you
on
that-
is
that
we
are
going
to
work
on
negotiating
and
cleaning
up
a
better
amendment
right
after
this
hearing.
And
will
we
recirculate
that
with
the
committee.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and,
and
you
know
I'll
work
with
legal
as
well,
I
think
the
intent
is
pretty
clear
in
terms
of
what
you
want
to
do.
I
just
don't
know
if
we
need
a
new
section
or
if
we
can
just
incorporate
it,
but
we'll
we'll,
hopefully
get
that
ironed
out
in
the
next
24
hours,
or
so
and
appreciate
your
willingness
to
keep
working
on
it.
P
And
rochelle
win
for
the
record.
Also
chair
yeager.
I
believe
that
we
have
some
people
calling
in
either
in
support
opposition
or
neutral,
but
they
might
be
able
to
address
it.
I
believe
miss
welborn
is
kind
of
familiar
with
why
we
wanted
to
include
that
section.
So,
ms
welborn,
if
you
are
on
the
line
to
testify
in
whatever
direction,
if
you
might
be
able
to
also
touch
on
that,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
the
committee.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
I
want
to
thank
our
presenters,
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
couple
minutes
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill.
Then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
you
to
make
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I
will
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
296..
A
D
C
P
D
F
Hi
committee,
good
morning,
committee,
chair
and
members,
my
name
is:
will
fregman
with
battleborn
progress.
W-I-L-L-P
is
in
peter
r-e-g-m-a-n.
We
rise
in
sport
of
ab-296,
as
we've
become
more
online
and
digitized.
In
the
past
year,
doxing
has
become
a
serious
threat
to
privacy
and
safety
of
individuals.
F
People's
lives
and
livelihoods
are
threatened
by
the
practice
of
doxing.
As
someone
who
works
in
the
digital
space,
there's
always
fear
of
how
my
life
could
be
turned
upside
down.
If
my
personal
information
were
leaked
on
an
unsavory
part
of
the
internet,
this
bill
will
hold
accountable.
Those
who
intentionally
seek
to
leak
personal
information
to
harm
people.
Thank
you
to
the
sponsor
and
we
encourage
your
support.
D
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
alison
rosas
a-l-l-I-s-o-n-r-o-s-a-s
and
I
am
a
policy
intern
for
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
First,
I
want
to
thank
beth
and
julie
with
the
anti-defamation
league
for
meeting
with
our
policy
team
on
this
bill.
Mce
dsb,
is
here
today
in
support
of
ab296
harassment,
stalking
and
abuse
are
complex
and
abusers,
and
perpetrators
use
many
different
means
to
terrorize
their
victims.
Doxxing
and
the
specific
sharing
of
personal
information
online
causes.
N
Many
victim
survivors
to
fear
and
increase
harassment.
Here
is
a
horrific
story
that
we
have
heard
in
the
advocacy
community
a
jealous
ex-boyfriend
posts,
his
ex-girlfriend's
address
online
in
his
post.
He
shares
that
this
woman
fantasizes
about
rape
and
wants
to
live
out
a
strange
rape
fantasy.
This
ex-boyfriend
provides
to
his
followers
online
her
address
how
to
break
into
the
home
and
what
time
she
will
be
home.
This
results
in
a
horrific
sexual
assault
to
this
woman.
N
N
While
this
is
a
very
extreme
scenario,
the
act
of
doxing
is
not
that
uncommon.
Many
individuals
experience
online
harassment
and
stalking
that
is
persistent
and
causes
many
victim
survivors,
mental
unrest.
We
support
ab296,
as
it
will
help
make
online
spaces
safer
and
hold
perpetrators
accountable.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
D
Q
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
judiciary,
this
is
holly
welborn,
h-o-l-l-y,
w-e-l-b-o-r-n
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
appreciate
assembly
woman
wen
for
reaching
out
to
us
months
ago
to
discuss
this
bill
and
working
with
us
to
ensure
that
we
we
get
it
to
a
place
that
does
not
punish
innocent
behavior.
We
share
her
her
and
the
anti-defamation
league's
commitment
to
protecting
people
from
racist
and
bigoted
attacks.
Q
So
many
defining
moments
in
our
nation's
fight
against
prejudice
and
systemic
racial
injustice
have
been
the
result
of
a
bystander
picking
up
a
camera
filming
a
video
of
an
individual,
engaging
in
a
bigoted
or
violent
behavior,
and
sharing
that
video
and
accompanying
identifying
information
online.
Our
concerns
are
diminished
by
removing
the
criminal
penalties
in
the
bill,
but
I
do
want
to
mention
that
defending
a
civil
lawsuit
is
stressful,
expensive
and
time
consuming.
Q
You
were
discussing
section
7.5,
I
believe,
when
we're
talking,
you
know
and
correlating
that
with
current
anti-slap
statutes,
that
we
need
some
type
of
protection
in
the
bill
that
ensures
that,
if
courts,
for
example,
there
is
a
case
that
will
be
before
the
nevada
supreme
court
williams
versus
laser
that
seek
to
diminish
the
strength
of
our
anti-slap
statute.
Q
So
in
order
to
ensure
that
we're
insulating
this
and
that
this
law
isn't
going
to
be
abused,
there
needs
to
be
something
throughout
the
bill
that
addresses
that
when
a
person
posts,
something
that
is
a
matter
of
public
concern
that
that
will
not
be
punished
activity.
Q
I
do.
I
want
to
make
the
record
abundantly
clear
that
the
statute
cannot,
under
any
circumstances,
be
used
by
a
government
official,
whether
that
is
a
police
officer,
a
legislator,
whatever,
as
a
tool
to
punish
innocent
behavior
in
constitutionally
protected
speech.
So
I
am
more
than
happy
to
continue
working
with
the
sponsor
working
with
legal,
to
get
that
language
very
tight
to
ensure
that
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
achieved
and
that
we
also
protect
constitutionally
protected
speech
and
activity.
Thank
you.
A
A
Thank
you,
bps.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
before
I
go
to
concluding
remarks.
I
did
just
have
a
question
that
I
neglected
to
ask.
So
let
me
ask
that
now,
and
it
is
simply
this-
I
don't
think
I
ever
heard
the
phrase
doxing
until
maybe
about
six
months
ago,
vice
chair
and
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
shed
some
light
on
where
that
word
came
from.
P
P
P
Hackers
and
online
vigilantes
routinely
dock,
both
public
and
private
figures,
so
that
is
the
kind
of
the
public
and
official
definition
of
the
word
doxing,
and
it
is
not
something
I
was
familiar
with
until
I
heard
tonya
gersh's
story
and
became
more
familiar
with
this
and
again,
I
would
encourage
people
to
do
that
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
appreciate
the
team
at
the
anti-defamation
league.
They
have
been
fantastic
to
work
with.
P
I
know
that
eliminating
online
hate
and
violence,
especially
amongst
like
our
vulnerable
targeted
communities,
is
something
that
they
work
tirelessly
on
passionately
on
and
they
know
that
human
life
is
at
stake
in
a
lot
of
these
cases.
So
I
just
appreciate
all
their
work
and
I
saw
miss
wellborn.
She
has
also
been
fantastic
about
making
sure
that
our
intent
matches
the
language
that
is
potentially
included
in
any
piece
of
legislation
that
this
body
decides
to
pass.
So
I
do
hope
that
I
can
count
on
your
support
for
assembly
bill
296.
N
This
is
beth
holtzman
for
the
record
and
no
additional
remarks.
Just
thank
you
again
for
your
consideration.
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation
committee.
What
we're
going
to
do
with
this
bill
is
we're
just
going
to
give
a
little
bit
of
time
to
get
that
amendment
a
little
bit
more
squared
away,
so
we're
not
going
to
work
session
the
bill
today,
but
it'll
likely
be
on
tomorrow
as
a
revised
agenda
at
some
point
and
you
learn
something
every
day.
So
I
had
never
heard
that
phrase
dropping
docs.
A
I
don't
encourage
anyone
to
be
dropping
docs
on
rivals
out
there,
but
I
do
encourage
you
to
try
to
use
that
phrase
at
some
point
today
to
some
unsuspecting
colleague
in
the
legislature
and
see
what
the
reaction
is.
So
thank
you
for
the
education.
Thank
you
vice
chair
wynn
and
your
presenters
for
presenting
this
morning
and
spending
a
little
bit
of
time
with
us
at
assembly,
judiciary
committee.
We
hope
you
all
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
A
Okay
committee
moving
along,
if
I
didn't
say
it
already
I'll,
say
I'll
formally
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
296..
That
brings
us
to
the
final
bill
on
our
agenda
this
morning
and
that
is
assembly
bill
396.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
396
assembly
bill
396
makes
various
changes
relating
to
the
use
of
deadly
force
and
we
have
our
own
assemblywoman
summers
armstrong
to
present
the
bill
to
us
here
this
morning
and
after
she
has
a
chance
to
do
that.
A
B
Thank
goodness,
we
have
a
crack
I.t
team
here
at
the
lcd
again,
my
name
is
chandra
summers:
armstrong,
I'm
the
assembly,
woman
representing
assembly
district,
six
in
clark,
county
nevada.
B
B
B
So
we
start
with
section
one
of
the
nrs
200
140,
and
you
will
see
that
number
one
is
updated
and
removes
the
word
public
and
and
clarifies
that
this
applies
to
peace
officers
or
a
person
acting
under
the
command
or
in
the
aid
of
a
peace
officer.
B
If
you
go
to
section
b,
you
will
see
that
the
text
says
that
the
homicide
results
from
the
use
of
deadly
force
by
a
peace
officer
in
accordance
with
nrs
171,
one
four,
five,
five
and
and
in
number
two.
It
says,
as
used
in
this
section,
peace
officer
has
the
meaning
ascribed
to
it
and
nrs
169.125.
B
Up
that
nrs,
it
specifically
outlines
police
sheriffs
folks
who
work
on
indian
reservations
and
but
folks
who
are
trained
in
policing
and
that's
where
the
clarification
comes
there.
B
I
think
that
you
should
pay
close
attention
to
the
word
imminent.
According
to
my
investigation
of
the
word
meaning
imminent
and
looking
online,
it
says
that
the
word
imminent
means
about
to
happen.
They
are
in
imminent
danger
of
being
swept
away,
it's
at
hand,
it's
close
it's
near.
It's
approaching.
B
B
Thought
me
capable
of
bringing
this
amendment.
It
is
a
reasonable
amendment
to
a
current
law.
B
B
B
That
incident
sparked
mostly
peaceful
protests
across
the
country,
and
it
brought
forth
this
discussion
and
changes
to
use
of
force
policies,
not
only
in
our
state
but
across
the
country.
B
I
believe
this
bill
is
a
reasonable
first
step
to
bring
consistency
and
clarity
in
a
standard
across
the
state
of
nevada.
I'd
like
to
just
bring
to
your
attention
a
press
release.
A
B
B
las
vegas.
Metro
police
department
is
the
largest
policing
organization
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
even
they
found
that
there
was
room
for
improvement
or
clarification,
and
they
have
done
they.
They
believe
that
they
are
the
gold
standard,
and
I
know
that
the
sheriff
was
on
on
the
radio
yesterday.
B
Talking
about
these
issues
and
the
intent
here
is
very
simple:
consistency
across
the
board,
so
that
we
are
clear
what
is
to
happen,
how
people
are
to
engage
if
someone
is
clean
and
how
they
are
to
use
what
they're
to
use
as
a
determination
on
how
much
force
they
are
to
use
when
pursuing
a
suspect
and
how
much
force
they
should
use
and
making
sure
that
we
are
clear
and
they
are
clear.
That
imminent
is
the
adjective.
B
So
thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
committee
for
listening.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
I
do
have
mr
ishman
on
the
call
who
would
also
like
to
speak.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
before
we
take
questions,
mr
ishman,
if
you
are
there,
if
you
could
turn
your
camera
on
and
unmute
yourself.
A
R
R
R
R
R
But
today
I
speak
not
only
on
behalf
of
napchat
but
or
several
other
community-based
organizations
such
as
the
national
association
for
the
advancement
of
colored
people,
better
known
as
the
naacp
las
vegas
chapter
octane,
mccoy
president,
the
east
vegas
christian
center,
troy
martinez,
pastor,
the
fountain
of
hope,
ame
church
las
vegas,
reverend
gregory
keith
mccloud
passed
the
national
coalition
of
100
black
women
incorporated
las
vegas
chapter,
dr
sandra
mack,
president,
just
to
name
a
few.
R
A
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
and
for
your
testimony,
mr
ishman,
I'm
sure
we're
going
to
have
a
couple
questions
assemblywoman.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
one
to
make
sure
that
the
legislative
intent
was
clear.
I
think
it
is,
but
I
think
it's
always
helpful
to
get
it
on
the
record.
A
With
respect
to
section
two
of
the
bill,
I
read
that
to
mean
that
you
know
if
an
officer
is
going
to
apprehend
a
fleeing
felon,
they
can
still
use
force
to
do
that,
but
it
reads
that
they
can
only
use
deadly
force
if
it
is
an
if
the
person
is
an
imminent
threat
to
themselves
or
others.
So
what
I
wanted
to
ask
for
on
the
record
is
this:
doesn't
prevent
officers
from
using
force?
It
just
restricts
the
times
that
they
can
use
deadly
force
to
apprehend
a
fleeing
suspect.
Is
that
right.
B
Thank
you,
chair
jaeger.
This
is
chandra
summers,
armstrong
for
the
record.
That
is
absolutely
correct,
and
it
is
also
in
line
with
the
policy
that
was
adopted
in
may
of
last
year
by
ldmpd.
B
B
If,
if
that
person
is,
has
turned
around
and
is
threatening,
we
understand
that
that
may
be
a
need.
B
A
C
A
C
C
B
Assemblywoman,
thank
you.
Assemblywoman
silver
axelrod
and
you
are
correct.
The
text
is
peace,
officers
officer
or
to
others
perfect.
A
Yeah
and
I
apologize
for
for
mistaking
that-
that's
an
important
distinction
to
make,
and
so
we
see
the
effects
of
a
long
week
already.
So
my
apologies
for
that.
Thank
you
for
clarifying
assemblywoman
additional
questions
from
committee
members.
If
you
have
any,
could
I
just
see
a
show
of
hands?
Please
assemblywoman
hanson.
Please
go
ahead.
E
Thank
you
chair
for
the
opportunity
and
thank
you,
assuming
woman
summers
armstrong
for
for
presenting
this
to
us
today
and
that
we
can
revisit
some
of
these
issues
and
ask
our
questions,
and
so
my
question
is
in
the
special
session
last
summer,
ab3
passed
and
it
dealt
with
several
issues
regarding,
I
think,
the
the
outcomes
of
the
tragedy
in
may
of
boyd
and
in
that
bill
the
chokehold
was
dealt
with
and
not
not
to
use
the
chokehold.
E
I'm
just
curious,
and
I
and
I
know
as
I
as
I
had
conversations
with
the
law
enforcement
community
and
particularly
the
seven
counties
and
the
you
know,
those
law
enforcement
communities
that
I
represent.
A
lot
of
them
said
they
were
on
board
with
ab3
because
they
said
they
already
practiced.
They
haven't
in
their
practice
a
lot
of
or
or
not
in
practice
anymore.
Some
of
these
concerns,
so
I'm
just
curious.
The
difference
between
83
and
and
this
bill
like
what?
What
does
this
expand
on.
B
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
hanson,
for
that
for
that
question.
So
from
my
understanding
of
reading
from
the
policy
from
a
las
vegas
police
department,
and
I'm
sure
that
chairman
yeager
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
the
the
banning
of
the
chokehold
and
there's
also
discussion
about
putting
folks
in
positions
where
they
cannot
breathe.
As
we've
heard
many
mornings
in
our
sessions
were,
are
were
adopted.
B
As
restraining
techniques,
okay
and
and
to
ban
those
as
restraining
techniques
once
someone
is
being
held,
this
is
a
mostly
for
a
fleeing
person.
If
someone
is
trying
to
get
away
and
how
they
address
that
situation
and
determining
with
the
word
imminent,
how
they
will
react
to
a
fleeing
suspect
who
they
don't
have
in
near
or
physical
custody
and
and
how
they
address,
whether
they
use
deadly
force
or.
P
B
B
Many
levels
in
their
policy
of
ldmpd
when
they
talk
about
de-escalation
and
they
talk
about
the
levels
of
force.
They
lay
out
in
detail
these
these
multiple
levels
and
they
also
give
explanations
in
this
policy
on
what
kind
of
actions
they
are
taking
at
each
level,
and
so
this
change
is,
is
twofold,
one
to
clarify
who
and
that
are
two
peace
officers
and
then
imminent?
A
And
I
will
say
assemblywoman
summer's
armstrong,
even
though
you
weren't
here
during
the
special
session
last
summer.
That
was
a
very
good
summary
of
what
assembly
bill.
3
sought
to
do,
and
I
think
what
the
difference
is
between
assembly
bill
3
of
the
special
session
and
assembly
bill
396.
So
you
must
have
been
paying
attention
during
that
special
session.
A
S
I'm
just
have
a
question
about
the
connection
between
sections
one
and
two,
so
I
understand
why
we
would
want
to
delete
some
of
the
previous
grounds
for
using
deadly
force
out
of
section
one,
but
now
it
looks
like
we've
now
defined
it
in
terms
of
section
two
and
with
section
2
sub
2,
I
think,
as
you
say,
adding
imminent
threat
is
critical,
so
we've
got
that
poses
an
imminent
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm
to
the
peace
officer
or
two
others.
S
So
my
question
is:
you
could
have
that
stand
alone?
That
could
be
if
the
suspect
poses
an
imminent
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm
to
the
peace
officer
to
others.
Deadly
force
is
justified,
but
we
further
narrowed
that
by
having
committed
a
felony
which
involves
the
affliction
or
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm,
so
I'm
curious
about
the
narrowing
the
purpose
of
narrowing
beyond
you
know
the
category
of
imminent
threats
of
serious
bodily
harm.
Why
we
wouldn't
just
want
or
any
situation
involving
a
imminent
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm,
peace,
office
or
others.
B
For
the
question-
and
I
hope
I
understand
it
right
and
I
hope
I
can
answer
it
properly-
the
word
felony
is
a
holdover.
B
This
has
been
in
this
litigation
in
this
legislation
for
a
long
time,
and
I
think
it
was
amended
in
93
and
and
the
word
felony
was
still
in
there,
and
so
my
my
thought
would
be
that
they
would
not
use
deadly
force
on
something
that
would
be
considered
a
misdemeanor
right,
and
so
you
would
use
the
the
level
that
it
would
rise
to
would
have
to
be
something
that
is
a
felony,
and
I
think
that
the
supreme
court,
when
they
there
was
a
case
that
sort
of
drove
a
lot
of
this
back
in
the
90s.
B
And
they
were
the
peace
officer
with
the
meds,
but
the
supreme
court
mentioned
felony,
and
so
I
think
that's
why
this
that's
the
term
that
is
used
so
that
there's
a
high
enough
standard
for
the
behavior
of
the
police
and
if.
G
A
B
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
and
I'll.
Just
note
all
right
assemblyman,
do
you
want
to
ask
a
follow-up
or
clarify
yeah.
S
David
orton,
like
or
assembly
district
20
for
the
record
yeah.
I
guess
you
know
in
old
section
in
section
one
one
of
the
things
that's
deleted
is
it
looks
like
d
protecting
against
an
imminent
threat
to
the
life
of
a
person.
So
that's
we're
removing
that
kind
of
generic.
S
You
know
I'm
trying
to
think
of
examples.
Perhaps
there's
somebody
who's
out
of
a
mental
illness
is
brandishing
a
gun
and
has
started
shooting
the
well,
maybe
hasn't
started
shooting,
but
is
so
you
know
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
felony
if
we're
in
a
felony
category
already
there,
but
I
can
see
where
a
police
officer
might
feel
that
they
would
have
to
shoot
to
protect
against
harm
to
the
police
officer
or
others
by
somebody
with
mental
illness,
brandishing
a
gun
in
it.
A
And
I
can
take
that
one,
I
think.
Maybe
some
of
the
confusion
is
section
one
of
the
bill
talks
about
one
instance
of
justifiable
homicide,
but
there
are
other
statutes,
nrs
200.200,
which
is
a
self-defense
statute.
That
would
apply
more
broadly,
so
those
protections
would
still
be
in
place
in
terms
of
someone
defending
whether
a
peace
officer
or
not,
someone
defending
themselves
or
others
would
be
able
to
avail
themselves
of
200
nrs
200.200.
A
A
So
I
think
that's
why
you
see
the
change
here,
because
the
changes
in
section
two
so
required
some
changes
necessarily
to
nrs
200.140,
which
is
in
section
one.
So
I
would
recommend
to
committee
members.
Of
course
it's
not
in
the
bill,
but
nrs
200.200
is
sort
of
the
entirety
of
the
self-defense
statutes
and
just
to
sort
of
bring
the
conversation
back
to
assembly
bill
3
from
the
special
session.
A
You
may
remember
those
of
you
who
were
here
there
was
talk
about
the
chokehold
and
the
chokehold
was
banned,
but
of
course
you
could
still
use
a
chokehold
if
you
used
it
under
nrs
200.200
in
self-defense
of
yourself
or
others.
So,
although
it
was
banned,
you
know,
you'd
always
have
the
availability
to
avail
yourself
of
the
statutory
defense
of
self-defense.
Of
course,
a
jury
would
make
that
determination
about
whether
you
were
justified
under
that
statute,
but
hopefully
that
sheds
a
little
bit
of
light
on
the
question
assemblyman.
S
S
But
the
officers
in
an
attempt
to
suppress
have
deployed
such
things
as
beanbags
or
rubber
projectiles.
They
skip
off
the
ground,
hit
somebody
that
has
a
pacemaker.
There's
an
unintentional
death
there.
But
if
I'm
reading
this
it
becomes
a
homicide
and
the
officer
is
acting
in
legal
authority
to
suppress,
it's
been
declared
a
riot.
All
that's
occurred,
I'm
just
having
trouble
with
with
that.
Could
either
you
miss
summers,
armstrong
help
me
or
even
chair.
Would
you
help
me
work
through
that
issue?.
A
I
can
take
that
if
assemblywoman
would
like
me
to,
I
think
it
sort
of
relates
to
what
we
just
talked
about
so
section
one
talks
section
one
basically
defines
when
when
something
would
be
justifiable
homicide
and
then
it
applies
to
peace
officers
of
those
acting
at
their
direction
and
then
refers
to
section
two.
But
I
think
in
the
situation
you're
talking
about,
you
would
still
have
sort
of
the
the
self
defense.
A
You
know
if
there's
like
a
some
kind
of
incident,
whether
it
be
a
riot
and
it's
it's
getting
threatening
to
police
officers
or
to
others,
they
would
be
able
to
use
what
is
available
under
nrs
200.200
to
defend
themselves
or
others,
including
with
deadly
force,
but
I
think
taking.
A
I
didn't
draft
the
bill,
but
I
think
taking
this
out
of
the
the
statute.
As
you
see
in
section,
one
just
sen
sends
a
message
that
you
know
there
might
be
something
going
on,
but
if
there's
not
sort
of
an
imminent
threat
to
yourself
or
others,
you
can't
use
deadly
force
on
those
people
and
unless
it
would
fall
under
the
self-defense,
that's
already
in
statute.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
helps,
but
I
think
the
intent
of
the
language
we
see
is
to
say
look,
we
don't
want
using
deadly
force.
A
Deadly
force
comes
in
a
lot
of
means,
but
we
don't
want
you
shooting
into
a
crowd.
If
there's
not
an
imminent
threat
there
to
yourself
or
to
others,
you
know,
police
can
use
other
means
to
to
get
that
situation
under
control
and
again,
if
they're
feeling
threatened
or
someone
else
is
being
threatened,
they
could
they
could
use
force
under
nrs
200.200
and
it
would
likely
be
justified.
S
S
S
I
I
just
I
feel
that
it's
too
limiting.
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
saying
and
I
agree
with
you.
I've
never
seen
a
case
of
indiscriminate
shooting
into
crowds
with
firearms.
I've
never
seen
that
nor
heard
of
one,
but
I
am
thinking
of
what
we
like
to
say
is
less
than
lethal,
but
people
have
argued
well
those
projectiles
those
rubber
bullets.
Those
bean
bags
come
out
at
such
a
speed
and
would
impact
chem
cause
and
should
be
considered
as
use
of
deadly
force.
That's
that's
what
I'm
just
having
trouble
to
come
to
grips
with.
S
A
Thank
you
assemblyman
o'neill,
and
I
do
think
it
would
be
helpful.
I
know
we're
all
busy,
but
if
you
have
a
chance
to
check
out
nrs
200.200,
I
think
that
would
would
help
a
little
bit
on
generally
the
self-defense
laws
as
they
apply
in
our
statute
as
well.
I'm
not
going
to
pretend
you
will
have
a
lot
of
time
today,
but
if
you
get
a
few
minutes
additional
questions
for
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
so
assemblywoman.
Thank
you
for
presenting
mr
ishmael.
Thank
you
for
helping
to
present
as
well.
We'll
ask
the
two
of
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment
we're
going
to
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I'll
open
the
hearing.
Excuse
me
I'll
open
testimony
and
support
for
assembly
bill
396..
A
D
D
D
Q
Q
Excellent,
thank
you
and
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
for
your
thoughtful
presentation.
It's
well
past
time
that
nevada
improved
their
justifiable
homicide
statute
as
it
pertains
to
law
enforcement
officers.
A
study
by
bowling
green
state
university
revealed
that
approximately
1
000
people
are
killed
by
police
each
year
between
2005
and
2020.
121
officers
have
been
arrested
for
murder,
manslaughter
44
were
convicted
and
often
of
a
lesser
charge,
and
approximately
30
percent
of
those
cases
involved.
A
victim
who
was
armed.
Q
This
bill
is
simple:
it's
not
a
radical
concept
to
require
that
an
officer
only
use
deadly
force
when
deadly
force
is
used
against
them.
Law
enforcement
officers
are
state
actors.
It
should
not
be
the
public
policy
of
the
state
to
resort
to
deadly
force
without
heightened
justification.
For
these
reasons,
we
encourage
the
committee
support
of
this
bill.
Thank
you.
D
C
M
This
is
jim
hoffman.
Can
you
hear.
F
Okay,
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
know
what's
happening
today:
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
Nacj
supports
av-396.
F
F
But
nevada's
statute
is
much
broader
than
that.
It
allows
police
to
kill
people
in
order
to
stop
them
from
fleeing,
or
quote
in
the
discharge
of
a
legal
duty
and
quote
among
other
permissions.
There
is
no
requirement
in
statute
that
the
person
actually
be
a
danger
to
the
community
police
have
wide
discretion
to
kill
whoever
they
want.
F
D
F
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e
g-r-a-n-t,
I'm
calling
in
support
of
the
bill.
My
brother
was
38
years
old.
He
was
not
a
threat
nor
an
imminent
threat
to
any
officer.
He
didn't
assault
any
officer,
yet
we
think
of
guns
as
deadly
force,
but
they
torture
devices
at
the
hoggle.
The
restraint
chair,
those
become
deadly.
I've
been
watching
the
george
floyd
trial
and
the
officers
testify
that
restraints
such
as
the
hobble
can
lead
that
they
are
a
higher
level
of
force
used
against
people.
F
A
D
F
Hi
good
morning
again,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
will
pregnant
with
battleborn
progress
for
the
record
w-I-l-l
peas
in
peter
r-e-g-m-a-n.
We
rise
in
strong
support
of
ab396.
We
commend
the
committee
for
bringing
this
bill
to
tighten
the
protocols
for
the
use
of
force
by
law
enforcement
officers.
It's
sadly
become
too
common
that
unnecessary
and
unjustifiable
violence
is
used
by
some
officers,
a
tactic
to
instill
fear
rather
than
suppress
a
legitimate
threat's
public
safety,
as
we
as
the
country
reckon
with
the
derek
chauvin
trial.
F
It's
a
time
for
serious
conversation
about
use
of
force
policy.
Chauvin
was
not
the
first,
not
the
only
officer
to
use
inappropriate
force
that
resulted
in
the
in
the
killing
of
someone
supposedly
in
their
custody.
It's
an
imperative
that
we
stop.
Cases
like
this
and
89
396
is
a
step
towards
doing
that.
We
thank
assembly,
woman
summers,
armstrong
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
we
ask
that
the
committee
please
support
it.
Thank.
D
F
F
F
F
For
example,
rafael
olivas
was
having
a
mental
health
breakdown
and
had
a
knife
in
his
hand
when
he
walked
out
of
his
home,
but
did
not
wave
the
knife
or
even
have
a
chance
to
interact
with
law
enforcement
when
they
arrived
and
shot
him
to
death.
Within
a
few
minutes,
eric
scott
was
killed
for
simply
having
a
ccw
at
costco,
keith,
childress
jr
was
killed
and
clearly
he
had
a
cell
phone
in
his
hand,
not
a
gun.
F
Joseph
justin
was
killed
when
the
officers
who
shot
him
claimed
they
saw
a
gun,
but
no
gun
was
found
near
or
around
his
body.
Sashi
brown
was
having
a
mental
health
breakdown
when
he
was
chased
by
officer,
kenneth,
lapera
and
subsequently
punched
multiple
times
and
then
tased
several
times
and
then
put
in
a
chokehold.
Just
like
george
floyd.
F
We
also
have
the
case
of
byron
williams,
who
was
riding
a
bicycle,
allegedly
riding
a
bicycle
without
a
safety
light
and
then
subsequently
killed
by
being
crushed
pretty
much
crushed
in
us
and
losing
his
breath,
definitely
in
the
same
manner
as
george
floyd.
So
there
are
countless
other
cases.
F
H
Morning,
terry
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washer
county
public
defender's
office.
I
have
the
privilege
this
morning
to
testify
on
behalf
of
my
office,
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
urge
your
support
of
this
bill
with
the
minor
language
changes
that
are
made
in
this
bill.
We
do
believe
that
it
will
have
a
significant
impact,
mostly
on
the
trust
of
our
communities.
H
We
just
want
to
state
that
we
do
believe
that
there
are
other
defenses
that
are
still
in
play
if
an
officer
is
involved
in
a
homicide,
so
we
do
not
believe
that
this
is
deleting
any
defenses
and
they
would
still
have
the
right
of
using
self-defense
and
other
means
if
this
were
to
take
if
there
were
to
be
a
trial.
So
we
do
support
this
legislation
and
urge
the
committee
to
pass
this
bill.
Thank
you.
D
A
D
D
F
While
doing
your
elected
duty
as
you
head
outside
an
unknown
person,
comes
up
behind
you
and
grabs
you,
the
attentive
officer,
who's
been
making
sure
you're
safe,
as
you
walk
out,
draws
their
weapon
and
points
it
at
that
person.
Who
then
sees
the
officer
and
says
I
will
kill
her,
but
the
officer
cannot
see
the
weapon
or
determine
how
this
person
will
kill
you
with
the
and
language
of
this
bill.
F
A
D
F
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
aj
dielep
with
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
My
last
name
is
phonetically,
spelled
david,
easy,
lincoln,
adam
paul.
For
the
record,
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
is
in
opposition
in
ab
396.
However,
it
is
more
of
a
technical
opposition
and
we
feel
with
clarification.
Our
concerns
can
be
mitigated.
F
F
A
Thank
you,
mr
d
lap.
I
will
just
note
the
fur
the
discussion
on
the
record
about
the
use
of
self-defense
under
other
sections
of
the
nrs,
and
I
do
believe
that
those
are
applicably
generally
to
everybody.
Not
it's
not.
They
don't
exclude
peace
officers,
so
I
will
just
say
for
the
record.
I
think
those
statutes
do
apply.
I
don't
think
there
are
any
exclusions
in
those
statutes.
As
long
as
you
meet
the
qualifications
bps,
could
we
take
the
next
caller
in
opposition?
Please.
D
C
I
want
to
begin
by
informing
the
committee
that
the
national
district
attorney's
association,
of
which
I
am
a
member,
has
publicly
condemned
and
continued
to
condemn
the
killing
of
george
floyd
and
the
actions
taken,
as
mr
floyd
begged
for
his
life
and
called
for
his
mother
as
an
officer's
knee,
was
jammed
into
his
neck.
So
we
certainly
appreciate
the
intent
of
this
bill
and
we
don't
object
to
the
concept
that
imminent
threat
should
be
in
play
where
an
officer
uses
potentially
deadly
force.
C
But
our
primary
concern
is
with
section
2,
sub,
1
and
2,
which
assemblyman
orrin,
licker
and
assembling
o'neill
touched
upon,
wherein
use
of
the
word.
Anne
appears
to
potentially
prevent
an
officer
from
reacting
to
an
imminent
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm.
If
the
person
has
not
committed
a
felony
that
falls
within
the
narrow
parameters
of
section,
one
police
officers
should
be
able
to
defend
themselves
and
others
whenever
there
is
an
imminent
threat
of
bodily
harm,
regardless
of
the
type
of
crime
that
may
have
brought
them
on
scene.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
miss
noble
and
again
I'll
note
for
the
record.
I
think
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
a
confusion,
perhaps
but
section
two
of
the
bill
talks
about
preventing
an
escape
and
that's
what,
when
this
would
apply
to
peace
officers,
the
self-defense
statute.
You
know
if
someone
is
an
imminent
threat
to
you
or
somebody
else,
anybody
can
use
deadly
force.
I
mean
that's,
that's
a
statute
that
applies
to
all
human
beings
who
live
in
this
state
and
operate
in
the
states.
A
So
again,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear
on
the
record
that
section
two
is
speaking
to
a
very
limited,
a
very
limited
situation
when
someone
is
trying
to
a
peace
officer
is
trying
to
prevent
an
escape,
and
so
just
for
sake
of
clarity.
I
wanted
to
mention
that
one
more
time
could
we
take
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
D
G
A
G
In
support
of
abc
396.,
so
I
am
dr
sandra
f
mack,
president
of
the
national
coalition
of
100
black
women,
incorporated
las
vegas
chapter.
The
members
of
the
national
coalition
of
100
black
women,
incorporated
not
unlike
the
nation,
have
observed
significant
and
consistent
increase
in
inappropriate
police
contact
with
black
women
and
girls.
G
G
These
said
members
will
request
that
the
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
implement
this
bill,
but
not
and
be
and
and
retool,
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
following
protocols
for
handling
women,
arrest,
use
of
force,
excessive
force
during
arrest
process,
use
of
inflammatory
and
provocative
language,
pre
and
post
arrest,
use
of
surveillance,
surveillance,
camera
body
and
dash
cameras
at
the
time
of
car
stops
and
arrests
and
conducting
ongoing
post-traumatic
stress
disorder,
assessment.
Post-Critical
incidents
to
determine
real-time
fitness
for
duty
and
who
gets
the
calls
to
respond.
G
A
A
D
D
D
F
Good
morning,
everyone,
my
name,
is
bryony
williams,
senior,
deputy
director
of
operations,
nevada
department
of
corrections,
and
I
just
wanted
to
chime
in
just
briefly,
and
I
would
like
to
humbly
request
that
the
committee
consider
of
many
amending
for
correctional
facilities
for
offenders
attempting
to
escape
from
a
medium
or
maximum
security
facility.
Thank
you.
D
F
A
That's
okay,
just
give
me
one
second,
so
I'm
going
to
close
neutral
testimony
for
a
moment
we'll
go
back
to
opposition
testimony,
sir!
Please
go
ahead
with
your
testimony.
F
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
community.
My
name
is
troyece
t-r-o-y-c-e
last
chromi
k-r-u,
mme
I'm,
the
vice
chairman
of
the
las
vegas
police
managers
and
supervisors
association.
I
am
calling
in
opposition
to
a
b
bill
396..
F
My
opposition
stands
in
the
confusion
of
the
bill.
There's
a
lot
of
portions
within
section
one
that
have
been
struck
out
that
I
believe
the
representative
from
metro
pointed
out,
and
additionally,
mr
spratly
and
again
that
representative
from
metro
pointed
out
the
problematic
word
of
the
the
use
of
the
word,
and
in
section
two,
the
further
opposition
of
this
bill
is
when
law
enforcement
officers
are
out
there
working.
F
A
A
B
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
the
judiciary
committee.
I
cannot
tell
you
how
much
I
appreciate
you
listening
today.
I
respect
this
committee
so
much
the
hard
work
that
you
do,
the
consideration
you
give
to
so
many
different
topics
and
how
well
you
listen
and
engage
and
challenge
those
of
us
who
come
before
you
and
it's
greatly
appreciated,
and
I
know
that
our
community
appreciates
it
too.
B
B
And
the
communities
of
color
understand
what
has
been
going
on
much
longer
and
we
are
hopeful
that
this
change
will
be
able
to
bring
some
clarity,
some
trust
and
into
our
relationships
with
law
enforcement.
B
I
would
like
to
just
take
a
moment
here,
if
I
may,
to
just
reply
to
an
example
that
was
given
by
officer
scratly.
We
have
built,
I
think,
a
very
good
relationship
with
the
officers
here
at
the
lcd
and
I'm
sure
that
if
someone
came
into
the
door
and
put
their
arm
around
my
neck
and
threatened
my
life,
that
would
apply
to
both
section
2
1
series
bodily
harm
because
they
could
choke
me
out
and
imminent
threat.
Because
it's
happening
right
then.
B
So
there
really
isn't
an
issue
with
the
and
it's
it's
it's
clear
and
a
reasonable
person
would
understand
and
be
able
to
make
a
good
decision
based
upon
those
facts.
B
What
we
are
trying
in
this
language
to
guard
against
is
just
overzealousness.
B
Maybe
misunderstanding,
maybe
ignorance,
by
clarifying
what
this
is
supposed
to
be,
which
is
imminent,
and
we
hope
that
the
committee
understands
the
purpose
and
the
intent
and
sees
the
need
for
this
language
change,
and
I
really
really
appreciate
your
time
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
ishman
may
have
something
to
say.
R
Yes
siren,
thank
you.
I
personally
don't
believe
that
the
end
is
an
issue
and
actually,
I
think
it's
a
good
thing,
as
the
gentleman
stated,
if
we
could
give
an
officer
an
extra
second
just
to
be
sure
of
the
action
that
they're
taking.
R
I
think
it
is
a
good
thing
for
all
involved
and
that's
something
that
I
believed
and
coming
from
new
york,
and
this
was
a
long
time
ago,
when
first
we
saw
cover-
which
I
believe
always
gave
you-
that
extra
second
or
two
to
determine
what
level
of
force
that
you
need,
and
so
maybe,
as
we
go
forward,
police
training
may
take
a
look
at
that
and
maybe
go
back
and
borrow
something
from
the
days
of
old,
where
you
got
that
cover
and
an
opportunity
to
actually
assess
the
problem
that
a
police
officer
might
be
faced.
R
I
strongly
again
urge
the
passage
of
ab
396
and
believe
that
this
is
in
line
to
be
good
for
everyone,
no
advantage
for
the
public
or
for
the
police
department,
and
so
thank
you.
A
A
committee.
Give
me
just
a
moment
here,
so
that
gets
us
through
our
three
bills
on
the
agenda.
We're
now
going
to
go
to
public
comment
by
way
of
reminder:
we'll
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Commenters
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment
and
public
comment
is
a
time
to
bring
up
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
committee
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
see
if
we
have
any
public
comment
this
morning.
D
F
F
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
I
apologize
for
throwing
you
off
today,
but
there's
some
good
bills
over
at
assembly
gov.
So
I'm
utilizing
my
son's
phone
today
my
work
phony
and
my
personal
phone.
I
just
want
to
say
that
please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability
for
families
like
myself
for
jorge
gomez's,
family,
byron
williams,
family
nico,
smith,
justin,
thompson,
kyle,
zimbleman,
all
395
people
killed
since
the
year
2000
during
interactions
with
police
in
nevada.
F
A
D
N
Last
name:
overly
o-v-e-r-l-I.
I
just
wanted
to
call
and
briefly
state
my
support
for
this
bill.
I
think
that
when
we're
dealing
with
human
life,
we
have
to
be
taking
every.
N
Is
really
important
and
necessary.
D
Q
This
is
jamie
stetson,
it's
j-a-m-I-e,
s-t-e-t-s-o-n.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
our
lawmakers
understand
and
that
they're
hearing
the
public
that
we
want
more
police
accountability
in
our
communities
again
repeating
another
caller.
Q
When
human
lives
are
concerned,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
right
and
that
we're
doing
the
right
thing.
Our
police
officers
deserve
more
clarity
in
our
law
and
they
need
to.
They
deserve
to
have
absolute
clarity
in
terms
of
what
you
know.
Use
of
force
means.
What
does
that
mean?
When
is
it
necessary?
How
should
that
happen,
and
any
legislation
that
creates
more
training
for
the
officers
in
our
community
is
going
to
be
good
for
our
community
and
it's
good
to
be
it's
going
to
be
good
for
those
officers
as
well.
Q
My
hope
is
that,
over
time,
our
legislature
implements
more
and
more
uniform
laws
across
counties
and
across
police
departments
that
help
our
officers
do
their
job
and
ensure
that
our
community
is
safe
from
the
people
who
are
supposed
to
protect
us
because
right
now,
that's
not
what
it
looks
like
to
those
that
are
living
in
our
communities.
I
don't
feel
safe
with
our
police
presence
in
our
community
and
I.
N
Q
Lots
and
lots
of
other
people
don't
either.
So
my
hope
is
that
these
concerns
are
taken
very
very
seriously
and
that
the
loss
of
life
in
our
community
at
the
hands
of
police
can
stop
unless
it
is
absolutely
necessary
and
in
many
cases
it
doesn't
seem
like
that's
what's
happening,
our
police
need
better
training
and
our
police
need
better
clarity
in
the
law
and
our
police
need
direction
from
our
legislation.
Thank
you.
A
F
A
There
there
was
not
an
amendment
presented
so
be
to
do
pass.
Do
pass
yes
from
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
I
think
I
heard
a
second
from
vice
chairwin.
Is
that
correct?
Can
you
can
you
hear
me?
We
can
hear
you
okay
and
we're
we're
sorry
about
your
technical
issues
earlier,
but
it's
one
of
those
weeks.
So
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second.
I
would
now
take
discussion
on
the
motion.
Anyone
like
to
provide
discussion,
assemblywoman
hanson,
please
go
ahead.
E
Thank
you
chair
and
wow
things
are
moving
a
little
too
fast.
I
wish
this
bill
had
come
up
a
lot
sooner
in
this
session.
I
was
a
yes
in
the
summer
in
the
special
session
on
ab3.
I
can't
be
a
yes,
yet
there's
still
some
things
to
work
out.
I
certainly
understand
the
intent,
and
I
support
that,
but
too
many
too
many
things
to
work
through
right
now,
so
maybe
by
the
time
it
comes
to
the
floor,
but
I
apologize
it's
just
moving
way
too
fast.
Thank
you.
A
S
S
A
P
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager.
I.
C
Support
the
intent
of
this
bill,
but
I
I'm
gonna
have
to
vote.
P
No
now
until
that
amendment
has
worked
out,
and
I
I
certainly
hope
that
we
can
all
come
to
agreement.
C
Agree
with
the
comments
of
my
previous
colleagues,
I
agree
with
the
intent
of
this
bill.
I
and
I,
but
I
just
have
some
concerns
with
the
opposition
with
that
one
word
so
I'll
be
a
no
right
now.
A
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
It's
wheeler
further
discussion.
Okay,
I
don't
see
further
discussion
and
again
committee
we'll
do
a
rope
call
or
excuse
me
we'll
do
a
voice
vote
on
this
and
I'll
give
us
enough
time.
So
we
can
make
sure
the
record
is
clear.
So
if
everyone
could
unmute
themselves
again,
the
motion
is
to
do
pass
assembly
bill
396.,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
P
A
Let's
anyone
oppose
nay
please,
and
can
we
just
have
the
nays
raise
your
hand
just
so
I
can
list
them
off
for
the
records
we
have
nodes
from
assembly,
woman,
hearty
assemblyman,
o'neill,
assemblywoman,
hanson,
assemblyman,
wheeler
and
assemblywoman
krasner.
I
think
that's
five
nays
did
I
miss
anybody?
A
Okay,
so
did
I
say
assemblyman
o'neill,
I'm
not
sure
if
I
did
but
but
so
the
motion
does.
The
motion
does
carry
and,
of
course,
I'll
sign
the
floor
statement
to
that
to
assemblywoman
summers:
armstrong
now
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
agenda
before
we
talk
about
tomorrow.
Anything
else
from
committee
members
this
morning.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
else.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
say
committee
before
we
talk
about
tomorrow
is
I
just
really
appreciate
the
last
couple
of
weeks
and
you
all
being
willing
to
to
get
here
at
eight
o'clock
and
to
try
to
get
through
these
bills.
I
think
it's
put
us
in
a
pretty
good
place
for
the
rest
of
today
and
tomorrow.
A
So
what
we
have
on
tap
for
tomorrow
is
the
following.
We
had
an
agenda
go
out
midway
through
the
meeting.
The
good
news
is,
we
are
not
going
to
be
meeting
until
nine
o'clock
tomorrow,
so
we
have
an
extra
hour
there
in
the
morning.
I'm
sure
we'll
need
it,
because
I
think
many
of
us
will
be
late
here
tonight
in
other
committees,
and
so
the
agenda
that's
out
now
has
I
think,
eight
bills
on
work
session
and
I'll
just
say
for
members
of
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public.
A
There
will
be
bills
added
to
the
work
session.
We
just
sort
of
started
with
the
ones
that
I
know
that
are
ready,
so,
throughout
the
day,
they'll
probably
be
a
couple
of
revised
agendas,
adding
work
session
bills.
So
if
there's
a
bill,
you
care
a
lot
about,
and
it's
not
on
there.
Yet
it
doesn't
mean
it's
not
going
to
make
it.
It
just
means
we're
still
trying
to
work
some
things
out.
So
please
do
be
aware
of
that
and
then
we'll
get
that
work
session
document
out
to
you
all
as
soon
as
we
can.
A
We
need
that
amendment
as
soon
as
possible
to
make
sure
we
can
get
through
the
work
session
timely
tomorrow
morning
and
again,
my
hope
is
that
we
can
get
through
the
work
session
in
a
couple
of
hours
tomorrow
and
then,
hopefully,
move
on
with
the
rest
of
our
day,
so
committee
members
feel
free
to
ask
any
questions
throughout
the
day
as
we
get
to
the
last
day
before
committee
deadline.
Thank
you
again
for
your
attention
and
your
hard
work
this
week
I'll
see
you
back
here,
remember
at
nine
o'clock.