►
From YouTube: 4/29/2021 - 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
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
present
when
she
arrives.
I
expect
her
to
be
here
momentarily.
We
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
in
carson
city
and
to
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
Welcome
to
day
88
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
A
Before
we
get
started
on
this
morning's
agenda,
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters,
these
will
sound
familiar
by
now,
but
I
state
them
just
in
case.
This
is
your
first
time
joining
us.
If
you're
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city,
could
you
please
silence
your
devices
if
you're
intending
to
testify
in
carson
city
today?
Could
you
please
make
sure
when
you
come
to
the
table,
you
turn
the
microphone
on.
You
state
your
name
before
you
speak
and
then
please
turn
the
microphone
off
for
those
on
the
zoom.
A
Please
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
if
everyone
can
remember
to
please
say
their
name
each
time
before
they
speak
that'll
help
us
prepare
accurate
committee
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly
of
our
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
up
here
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
the
meeting,
exhibits
and
so
forth.
A
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
369
in
its
first
reprint
and
I'm
going
to
invite
chair
scheible
to
come
back
to
the
table
here
in
assembly,
judiciary,
and
I
will
let
committee
members
know
there
is
a
pretty
short
amendment
that
should
be
posted
on
nellis
as
well.
So
please
make
sure
you
take
a
look
at
that
during
the
presentation,
so
welcome
back,
chair
scheible,
please
proceed
when
you're
ready
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you.
C
Thank
you
so
much
terry
yeager
and
good
morning
to
the
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
melanie
scheibel.
I
represent
the
ninth
district
in
the
nevada
state
senate,
which
is
the
southwest
part
of
las
vegas.
Today,
I'm
here
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
369,
which
was
requested
by
the
interim
committee
to
conduct
a
study
of
issues
relating
to
pre-trial
release
of
defendants
in
criminal
cases,
also
known
as
the
bail
study.
C
This
bill
brings
together
two
recommendations
brought
before
the
committee
by
members
of
both
the
defense
bar
and
the
prosecutorial
bar
jointly.
The
recommendations
address
a
recent
supreme
court
ruling
in
valdez
jimenez
versus
the
8th
judicial
district
court,
which
found
various
statutory
provisions
regarding
pre-trial
release
unconstitutional.
C
There
are
two
summaries
of
those
recommendations
in
nellis
underneath
the
are
attached
to
this
bill's
first
hearing
in
the
senate.
Those
are
recommendations,
number
five
and
number
six.
They
can
also
be
found
on
the
interim
study
website,
or
I
can
email
them
to
you.
If
you
need
them,
they
just
kind
of
explain
the
genesis
of
the
bill
by
way
of
background.
What
about
one
of
the
holdings
in
valdez
jimenez
was
that
requiring
a
person
to
show
good
cause
in
order
to
be
released
without
bail
violates
that
person's
constitutional
right
to
non-excessive
bail.
C
For
a
couple
of
reasons
number
one,
the
court
doesn't
have
to
consider
less
restrictive
conditions
of
release
before
deciding
bail
is
necessary
and
two.
The
state
is
effectively
relieved
of
its
burden.
To
prove
that
bail
is
necessary
in
order
to
protect
the
community
and
ensure
the
arrested
person
will
appear
in
court.
C
Sb
369
seeks
to
correct
this
flaw
and
ensure
that
nevada
law
comports
with
the
constitution,
the
sections
of
the
bill,
as
you
see
them
on
nellis
in
the
first
reprint,
reflect
that
most
of
these
changes
occur
in
section
3
of
the
bill.
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
address
section
2
of
the
bill,
which
is
also
addressed
by
the
amendment
you
may
see
in
section
two
of
the
bill
and
I'm
on
page
six
around
line
number
37.
C
C
So
the
intention
is
not
to
delete
it
twice,
but
to
delete
it
once
and
insert
it
once
so
that
I
would
like
you
to
read
the
bill
as
if
that
starting
on
line
37,
section
10
is
still
there,
but
with
a
couple
of
changes
that
I
explained
in
my
amendment
and
the
changes
that
we're
making
include
that
the
requiring
the
court
to
utilize
the
standards
set
forth
by
valdez
jimenez,
which
is
that
the
standard
the
court
has
to
meet
in
order
to
impose
a
condition
of
release
on
somebody,
whether
that
be
bail
or
a
non-money
condition,
it
has
to
be
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary.
C
Moving
into
section
three
section,
three
makes
some
other
significant
and
important
changes
to
the
bail
statute.
Section
three
provides
that
it
strikes
the
unconstitutional
provision
requiring
the
defendant
to
show
good
cause
before
being
released.
C
It
also
provides
a
standard
procedure,
for
course,
to
follow
when
making
a
pretrial
custody
determination
by
consolidating
the
previously
separate
procedures
in
section
also
sorry,
also
in
section
three,
but
in
subsection.
Two
that
specifies
that
a
prosecutor
who
seeks
to
impose
a
bail
or
other
condition
upon
release
must
prove
sorry.
It
indicates
that
a
prosecutor,
if
they
are
going
to
request
bail,
must
show
by
prove
and
can
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
that
imposition
is
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary
to
protect
public
safety
and
ensure
the
person's
appearance
in
court.
C
C
That
is
the
substance
of
the
bill,
and
I
believe
this
moves
us
forward
towards
conforming
our
law
with
the
changes
requested
by
the
supreme
court.
I
would
like
to
point
out
that,
in
this
bill,
the
majority
of
the
bill
does
not
contain
policy
choices
made
by
the
legislature,
but
policy
that
reflects
what
the
supreme
court
has
decided.
There
was
also
another
amendment
on
the
senate
side
that
you
will
see
on
page
8
still
in
section
three,
and
that
is
subsection
three
on
line
25,
which
creates
a
rebuttable
presumption.
C
So
a
rebuttable
presumption
means
that
the
court
and
the
presumption
that
it
creates
is
that
if
a
person
used
a
firearm
in
the
commission
of
the
crime
that
there
is
no
less
restrictive
means
than
either
bail
or
a
condition
of
release,
so
in
other
words,
there
are
plenty
of
cases
when
people
come
before
the
court
and
they
are
simply
released,
they
are
not
required
to
post
bail.
They
are
not
required
to
check
in.
They
are
not
required
to
wear
a
monitor.
They
are
not
required
to
abstain
from
drugs
and
alcohol.
C
They
are
not
required
to
do
anything
except
return
to
court.
What
subsection
3
says
is
that
if
you
used
a
firearm
in
the
commission
of
the
crime,
you
have
to
overcome
a
presumption
that
some
conditions
are
going
to
be
necessary.
Usually
that
condition
would
be
surrender
of
the
firearm
surrender
of
other
firearms
in
the
home
and
not
having
access
or
being
in
possession
of
any
other
firearms.
C
C
The
court
is
still
empowered
to
make
that
decision,
but
it
moves
the
standard
just
a
little
bit
so
that
a
court
should
assume
that
if
someone
before
them
has
usually
utilized
a
firearm
in
the
commission
of
the
crime
they're
going
to
be
imposing
some
kind
of
conditions,
either
monetary
bail
or
non-monetary
conditions,
you
can
also
see
in
subsection
4
that
addresses
first
degree
murder
charges.
Those
are
the
only
charges
in
the
state
of
nevada
that
allow
for
being
held
without
any
bail.
A
D
You
chair
and
thank
you
senator
scheible,
for
this
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
have
a
question
about
what
you
were
just
discussing:
the
rules
for
somebody
who's
been
arrested
for
murder,
the
first
degree,
and
I
follow
all
of
it,
except
for
like
five
words
in
there,
where
it
says
they
may
be
admitted
to
fail
under
discretion
of
the
court,
and
that
says,
unless
the
proof
is
evident
or
the
presumption
great,
I'm
not
I'm
not
clear
exactly
what
that
means,
and
maybe
it
just
needs
a
few
more
words.
But
what?
What
is
that?
Referring
to.
C
Senator
scheible
for
the
record,
this
is
lifted
directly
from
the
nevada
state
constitution
and
it's
worded
a
little
bit
backwards.
If
you
ask
me,
because
the
way
that
the
bail
statute
works
is
that
actually
anybody
who
is
arrested
for
first
degree
murder
can
be
given
bail
unless
they
fall
into
this
special
category
and
in
order
to
show
that
they
fall
into
this
special
category.
What
happens
in
practice
is
that
a
prosecutor
will
go
in
front
of
the
court
and
say
your
honor.
C
So
if
a
prosecutor
sees
a
case
where
they
believe
that
these
circumstances
attend,
then
they
put
it
before
the
court
and
then
they
have
to
prove
to
the
court
that
the
evidence,
the
proof
is
evident
and
the
presumption
is
great,
that
they
are
not
eligible
for
bail
and
then
that
ties
the
hands
of
the.
If
the
court
thinks
that
the
prosecutor
has
met
that
burden,
it
ties
the
court's
hand
to
not
allow
that
person,
bail.
D
David
orrin
liquor
again
for
the
record
assembly
district
20..
Okay,
so
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do,
I'm
just
if
you're
are
you
saying
that
we're
bound
by
this
kind
of
confusing
language?
Because
that's
what's
in
the
constitution,
because
it
would
be
nicer
if
we
spelled
it
out
in
the
way
you
just
did,
because
it's
it's
not.
E
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
that's
correct!
That
is
verbatim
the
constitution
as
it
reads
now,
so
it's
it
cannot
really
be
changed.
It's
also
in
existing
law.
I
think
it's
I
was
just
checking
out
the
bill.
I
think
the
language
is
actually
moved
slightly,
but
it's
it's
the
same
language.
That's
in
the
constitution
now.
A
Looking
over
to
the
left,
I
don't
see
questions
at
the
moment.
Looking
over
to
my
right,
I
don't
see
questions
either.
I
think.
Maybe
we
got
off
pretty
easy
this
morning,
chair
shivel,
so
but
you
know
how
it
goes.
There
might
be
questions
before
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
presentation.
So
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
a
moment.
Let's
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
to
come
back
for
concluding
remarks.
A
A
A
F
F
G
Good
morning
mark
evil,
m-a-r-c-e-b-e-l.
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
morning
assembly,
judiciary,
I'm
mark
eva
again,
I'm
the
director
of
legislative
affairs
for
aladdin
bail
bonds
and
for
our
surety
seaview.
We
operate
in
nevada
as
well
as
eight
other
additional
states.
G
We've
been
engaged
and
then
been
fortunate
to
be
engaged
in
these
issues.
Going
back
several
sessions
now
and
we
are
in
full
support
of
the
implementation
of
the
decision
in
the
valdez
jimenez
case.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
judges
going
forward.
We
want
to
make
sure
the
judges
still
have
the
ability
to
do
an
individualized
determination
of
what
is
or
is
not
least
restrictive.
G
I
would
like
to
make
one
quick
point
on
that,
and
that
is
that
commercial
mail
often
gets
characterized
as
the
most
restrictive
option,
and
certainly
for
folks
that
can't
afford
or
don't
have
the
economic
needs
to
access
it.
It
can
be
a
barrier,
however,
at
time
of
at
first
appearance
oftentimes.
If
counties
do
not
offer
pre-cost
services
at
zero
cost,
it
can
be
just
as
restrictive
as
a
as
a
bayonne,
in
some
cases
even
cost,
even
more
than
10
of
the
bonds.
G
A
A
A
F
F
F
H
When
the
bill
was
in
the
other
house,
we
testified
in
support
and
then
an
amendment
was
added
in
section
three
subsection
three
with
the
firearm
and
rebuttable
presumption
language,
and
now
we
are
in
opposition
that
bill.
We
believe,
shifts
the
burden
back
and
kind
of
takes
us
back
to
where
we
were
before
before
valdez
jimenez
past.
H
F
I
The
first
reprint
of
this
bill
cancels
out
the
value
and
codifying
valdez
jimenez.
It
unconstitutionally
shifts
the
burden
to
defendants
to
argue
release
without
conditions.
Prior
to
the
valdez
humanist
case,
the
burden
was
placed
on
defendants
to
show
good
cause
as
to
why
they
should
be
released
without
posting
bail
and
without
conditions
on
their
release.
I
I
F
I
Good
morning,
terry
adrian
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
Due
to
the
rules
of
the
committee.
We
are
also
coming
in
opposition
to
this
bill,
specifically
regarding
section
3,
subsection
3..
I
would
just
note
if
that
subsection
was
removed.
We
would
be
in
support
of
this
bill
because
the
rest
of
it
does
codify
the
valdez
jimenez
decision
that
was
reached.
I
I
F
I
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E-S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
and
I'm
policy
director
of
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
here
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
369
in
its
first
reprint.
I
just
want
to
echo
the
sentiments
of
the
aclu
and
the
public
defenders,
but
the
amendment
related
to
firearms
shifts
the
burden
to
defense
attorneys
and
undermines
the
velvet
of
jimenez
ruling.
We
urge
that
you
remove
this
portion
of
the
bill.
Thank
you.
F
G
G
So
we
we
believe
that
both
on
a
conceptual
level
and
is
drafted,
this
specific
section
of
the
bill
is
a
problem.
But
again
our
objection
is
limited
to
this
section.
If
this
section
were
not
in
it,
he
would
support
the
bill.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
opposition
testimony.
I
will
not
open
neutral
testimony.
Anybody
here
in
carson
city
with
us
would
like
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
I
don't
see
anybody
coming
forward.
Let
me
check
the
zoom.
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom
turning
a
camera
on
or
unmuting
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
for
neutral
testimony?
Please.
F
F
G
J-O-H-N-J-O-N-E-S
here
today
in
the
neutral
position
on
sb
369.,
generally
speaking,
we
agree
with
the
language
contained
in
sb
369.
But
the
reason
we're
not
testifying
in
support
at
this
time
is
we're
waiting
to
get
a
complete
picture
of
what
the
bail
reform
landscape
looks
like
there's
still
ab424
that's
currently
pending
in
the
senate,
judiciary
committee
and
until
we
get
a
complete
picture,
we're
in
the
neutral
position.
G
I
do
want
to
say
we
are
working
with
chair
scheible,
senator
harris
and
assemblywoman
nguyen
on
the
bail
reform
bills
this
session,
and
I'm
hopeful
that
we'll
come
to
some
resolution
by
the
end
of
this
session.
I
also
want
to
briefly
state
with
respect
to
the
opposition
regarding
the
presumption
of
for
firearms.
Offenses
is
that
many
states
that
have
enacted
bail
reform
have
placed
in
presumptions
for
the
most
serious
offenses,
and
it's
the
da's
belief
that
nevada
should
do
so
as
well
with
that.
F
J
J
J
This
has
been
and
remains
one
of
our
primary
concerns
regarding
bail.
We
thank
the
sponsor
and
interim
committee
on
to
their
sensitivity
on
that
issue.
That
said,
we're
seeking
in
the
neutral
position
today
in
part,
because
we
need
to
see
how
sb,
369
and
ab424
the
assembly
bail
bill
are
resolved
together.
J
I
also
echo
many
of
the
statements
made
by
jon
jones.
We
have
worked
with
the
attorneys
the
prosecuting
attorneys
association
regarding
bail
bills.
We
are
not
necessarily
opposed
to
sb
369
conceptually.
This
bill
does
not
include
the
same
strict
time
requirement
of
24
hours
for
a
bail
hearing
as
ab424
does
we
believe
that
that
particular
strict
time
requirement
would
be
problematic
for
most
jurisdictions
in
nevada,
including
ours?
J
Moreover,
that
strict
time
frame
requirement
found
in
ab424
is
not
constitutionally
or
legally
necessary,
since
ab424
and
sb
369
are
not
complementary
and
do
different
things,
we
are
neutral
on
sb
369
until
it
is
determined
how
the
two
will
be
resolved.
We
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
bill's
sponsors
and
the
committee.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
consideration.
A
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
now
close
neutral
testimony
and
committee.
I
did
excuse
chair
scheible.
She
had
another
commitment
this
morning
to
attend
to
so
the
concluding
remarks
on
the
bill
have
been
waived,
but
of
course,
would
encourage
committee
members
to
reach
out
to
chair
scheible.
If
you
have
additional
questions
based
on
the
testimony
that
was
heard
here
this
morning,
so
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
369
in
its
first
reprint.
A
A
Okay
committee,
we
will
come
back
to
order
and
we'll
now
go
to
our
first
bill
on
the
agenda.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
177
senate
bill.
177
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
Welcome
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
senator
ratty,
it's
great
to
have
you
here
this
morning,
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
so
welcome
and
please.
A
K
Good
morning
hi
everybody,
my
name
is
julia
reddy
and
I
represent
senate
district
13,
which
is
sort
of
the
middle
of
reno
and
sparks.
I
am
lucky
to
have
downtown
reno,
I'm
lucky
to
have
downtown
sparks.
I
have
the
university
frankly,
I
have
all
the
cool
parts
of
northern
nevada
and
you
should
come
spend
time
in
my
district.
K
I
am
always
nervous
coming
into
the
judiciary
committees.
I
typically
prefer
to
come
with
legal
counsel,
but
none
was
available
today.
So
I
hope
you'll
give
me
some
kindness,
though
this
bill
does
not
have
a
lot
of
legal
connotations.
So
I'm
grateful
for
that.
I
am
extremely
proud
to
be
here
on
behalf
of
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence
advocates
and
survivors
to
present
sb
177.
K
L
L
L
L
When
I
asked
for
suggestions,
one
of
the
other
female
members
thought
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
give
valentine
suckers
to
all
the
fellas.
Well.
Needless
to
say,
we've
come
a
long
way.
Baby
senators,
sue
wagner
and
gene
ford
proposed
a
10
fee
on
all
marriage
licenses
to
help
fund
domestic
violence
centers.
L
It
was
an
uphill
battle
until
the
premier
lobbyist,
at
the
time
jim
joyce
decided
to
throw
his
support
to
the
cause.
He
represented
the
wedding,
chapels
and
convinced
his
clients.
This
was
the
right
thing
to
do
in
the
assembly.
I
took
up
the
mantle
and
helped
shepherd
the
bill
through
our
house.
The
judiciary
committee
supported
the
bill
and
then
we
hit
a
roadblock
two
of
our
female
members,
wanted
to
kill
the
measure
and
attempted
to
attach
a
sunset
amendment.
L
L
L
Florence
fought
hard
to
get
it
located
in
north
las
vegas,
because
so
many
of
these
women
had
children
and
this
enabled
more
frequent
visits
with
their
kids.
The
women's
prison
was
named
after
this
powerful
and
persistent
woman.
Florence
was
lobbying
in
the
1981
session
for
an
appropriation
for
the
rape
crisis.
Center
funding
was
very
tight.
We
knew
we
were
going
into
a
recession
and
the
assembly
ways
and
means
committee
members
asked
me
in
the
final
days
if
florence
could
have
some
of
our
domestic
violence
money.
L
A
Thank
you,
miss
foley.
I
really
appreciate
those
comments.
I
I
had
no
idea
where
the
name
florence
makur
came
from
for
our
women's
prison,
so
thank
you
for
giving
us
a
little
bit
of
history
certainly
is
is
interesting
and
thank
you
for
sharing
your
perspective
of.
I
guess.
As
you
said,
we've
come
a
long
way
now
that
we
have
the
first
female
majority
legislature
and
if
you
look
at
this
committee,
I
think
the
men
are
outnumbered
two
to
one
on
the
assembly,
judiciary
committee.
So
thank
you
for
laying
the
groundwork
for
that
senator
ratty.
L
Well,
you
know
you're
so
welcome.
Florence
was
was
persistent,
she
was
dogged
and
she
would
wear
us
all
down.
You
know
she
would
talk
so
much
and
be
such
a
strong
advocate
that
everybody
would
say
just
vote
for
florence
so
that
she
will
be
quiet.
I
mean
that's
how
she
got
a
lot
of
her
votes,
but
we're
so
fortunate
that
she's
part
of
our
history.
K
Thank
you.
I
really
appreciate
the
indulgence
to
share
a
little
history,
because
I
think
it's
important
in
some
ways,
so
many
things
have
changed
and
in
other
ways,
if
you
listen
to
that
story,
you
had
an
advocate
in
one
house
who
had
a
bill
who
then
I'm
sorry
julia
ready
for
the
record,
who
then
ran
up
against
a
powerful
lobbyist
who
decided
to
throw
his
weight
behind
it.
And
then
it
went
over
to
the
other
house,
and
somebody
tried
to
throw
an
amendment
on
it
and
then
the
ways
and
means
committee
got
involved.
K
Dear
lord,
40
years
later
we
still
have
this
program,
so
I
I
think
it
resonates
with
maybe
where
many
of
us
are
sitting
right
here
today
and
some
of
the
things
that
we're
working
on
as
well.
The
other
thing
that
resonates
is
the
need
has
not
gone
away
and
we
still
to
to
this
day,
have
women
and
men
who
are
victims
of
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence,
who
need
our
support
and
so
shifting
from
maybe
a
little
light,
light-hearted
presentation
to
the
very
significant
importance
of
this
issue.
E
E
S-T-A-R-R-L-A-C-O-T-A
and
I
am
a
domestic
violence
survivor,
I
wanted
to
speak
in
support
of
sb
177
today,
because
I
know
that
domestic
violence,
programs
in
the
state
of
nevada
truly
provide
provide
life-saving,
essential
support
for
thousands
of
victims
each
year
and
the
need
far
outweighs
the
resources
available
to
them.
I
was
in
my
relationship
with
my
abuse
for
10
years
and
we
have
two
children
together
prior
to
meeting
my
abuser.
E
I
was
a
strong
tough
woman
raised
in
a
competitive
family.
Domestic
violence
doesn't
discriminate,
it
made
me
think
I
was
a
weak
person.
I
was
embarrassed.
I
liked
myself
and
everyone
around
me
in
hopes
that
he
would
change.
I
was
mistreated,
beaten,
verbally,
abused
and
manipulated,
and
sadly
I
stayed
in
fear
of
getting
hurt
and
not
being
able
to
survive
with
my
children.
E
I
lost
myself
and
my
faith.
While
with
my
abuser
I
was
alone
thought
it
was
best
for
me
and
my
kids
to
isolate
from
the
outside
world.
I
lost
friends
and
family
during
the
10
years
with
him.
Why
didn't
I
just
take
my
kids
and
leave
is
a
question
that
is
asked.
My
car
was
no
longer
my
car.
My
keys
were
taken.
He
threatened
to
get
me
fired
from
my
job.
My
cell
phone
was
taken
and
he
always
was
monitoring
calls
and
texts.
E
My
clothes
were
thrown
away
and
other
members
of
my
visa
circle
of
friends
and
family
were
keeping
tabs
on
me.
I've
had
horrible
things
happen
while
I
was
in
the
relationship,
one
that
I
replay
often
is
a
time
when
I
tried
to
escape
my
own
home.
My
ex
was
drinking
early
in
the
morning
after
having
a
long
night
at
the
casino
he
lost
money
gambling.
I
knew
he
was
going
to
take
it
out
on
me.
The
rest
of
the
day
I
tried
to
avoid
any
arguments
he
threw
my
way.
E
I
even
tried
to
remove
myself
by
taking
a
bath.
He
didn't
like
that.
I
was
taking
too
long
in
the
bath.
He
locked
my
bathroom
door
and
started
throwing
water
bottles
at
me.
Through
my
clothes,
I
was
going
to
wear
for
work
in
the
tub
with
me
and
all
my
makeup
in
the
toilet,
urinated
on
them
and
then
tried
flushing
everything
down.
E
I
know
this
may
seem
extremely
detailed,
but
it
is
the
reality
in
that
moment.
All
I
could
think
of
is
how
am
I
going
to
leave.
He
already
took
my
cell
phone.
I
can't
call
for
help
I'm
naked
and
cornered
in
the
bathtub
for
a
split
second.
He
walked
into
my
daughter's
room
and
in
that
time
I
tried
to
run
for
the
front
door.
Let
me
remind
you
that
I
was
willing
to
try
and
escape
from
home
naked
with
neighbors
all
around.
I
was
desperate.
E
I
felt,
as
I
went
as
I
ran,
wet
out
of
the
bathtub.
He
heard
me
and
chased
after
me
as
I
ran
to
the
front
door.
He
pushed
me
and
I
slipped
from
being
wet
sliding
and
slammed
into
the
wall.
He
dragged
me
by
my
hair
and
took
me
to
our
room.
He
hit
me
in
the
head
and
leg
several
times
places
that
can
easily
be
covered
up.
I
had
no
choice
but
to
obey
or
pay.
E
E
I
received
an
advocate
who
helped
me
with
all
the
necessary
paperwork,
to
file
a
temporary
protection
order.
I
was
given
shelter
so
that
I
wouldn't
have
to
live
in
fear
of
my
abuser.
Coming
back
to
our
residents
since
living
at
the
domestic
violence
resource
center's
transitional
housing
program,
I
have
been
able
to
save
money
thanks
to
an
awesome
financial
advisor
who
has
guided
me
on
how
to
save
and
provide
for
my
family.
E
E
I
want
to
thank
dvrc
who
helped
me
through
my
battles.
It
wasn't
easy,
but
life
is
definitely
easier.
Now,
I'm
free,
I
never
looked
back
once
I
committed
to
the
dvrc
program.
I
know
that
there
are
more
women
and
men
out
there
still
living
that
life.
I
need
help.
I
received
I'm
forever
grateful
for
dvrc.
A
Thank
you
for
sharing
with
us,
ms
kota,
certainly
sorry
for
what
you
went
through,
but
delighted
to
hear
that
you
were
able
to
get
out
of
that
situation
and
get
some
help.
And
again,
just
thank
you
for
having
the
courage
to
talk
about
it
openly
to
the
committee.
We
really
appreciate
it
senator
ready.
K
K
K
This
base
funding
allows
programs
to
develop
basic
infrastructure
and
it's
the
really
important
general
fund
leverage
that
they
can
use
for
to
draw
down
other
federal
dollars
as
well
as
generate
philanthropic
dollars.
If
any
of
you
have
ever
been
on
the
board
of
a
non-profit
or
run
a
non-profit,
you
know
how
critical
it
is
to
have
that
pot
of
money
that
allows
you
to
do
what
you
need
to
get
all
the
other
money
that
helps
you
accomplish
your
mission
and
there
are
many
survivors
who
are
still
in
need
of
support.
K
If
you
look
at
the
2019
nevada
unifying
crime
report,
there's
still
a
domestic
violence,
offense
every
17
minutes
and
18
seconds,
a
protection
order
issued
every
37
minutes
and
37
seconds,
one
rape,
every
four
hours
and
eight
minutes
and
2116
rape
cases
just
27.6
cleared
meaning
the
offender
was
taken
into
custody.
That's
the
lowest
clearance
rate
of
any
felony
in
reported
in
the
ucr,
and
it's
not
just
the
victims,
but
it's
the
overall
impact
on
society.
We
know
that
officers
were
shot
responding
to
dv
calls.
K
K
K
If
you
want
to
talk
about
the
growth
of
domestic
violence
between
2012
and
2019,
the
domestic
violence
crimes
rose
by
21
percent
and
those
are
just
the
reported
cases.
We
know
that
many
many
cases
go
unreported.
This
chart
compares
the
number
of
primary
victims
served
to
the
reported
number
of
cases.
So
these
are
the
people
who
are
showing
up
to
services
the
top
line
versus
the
number
of
cases
that
are
actually
reported.
K
K
K
When
nevada
programs
were
unable
to
meet
50
of
the
shelter
requests
in
2019,
it
was
37,
so
we're
getting
better
and
22
in
2020
they're
making
progress,
but
we
want
to
close
that
gap
so
that
there
isn't
a
waiting
list.
The
programs
have
had
a
they
have
a
significant
cost
increase
if
they
can't
use
the
shelter
and
have
to
play
somebody
in
a
motel.
K
K
So
the
funding
source
is
marriage
licenses
and
marriage
has
plateaued.
So
if
you
look
at
2010
to
about
2016,
you
can
see
it's
kind
of
going
down
and
sort
of
leveled
out.
We
get
a
bump
in
2017,
which
is
generally
attributed
to
the
legalization
of
same-sex
marriage,
where
we
had
a
new
population
who
was
getting
marriage
licenses,
and
then
there
was
some
unmet
demand
and
then
that
sort
of
leveled
back
out
to
the
plateau.
Obviously
2020
is
going
to
be
an
unusual
year.
K
K
K
K
So,
on
a
walk-through
of
the
bill,
it
updates
the
vic
the
definitions,
a
bit
to
be
more
in
line
with
current
technology.
We've
changed
it
from
sexual
assault
to
a
victim
of
sexual
violence.
K
We've
updated
the
name
of
the
account
to
the
account
to
aid
victims
of
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence,
and
there's
a
25
fee
increase
section
2
is
requires
that
urban
counties
the
funding
goes
exclusively
to
victims
of
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence
and
in
rural
counties,
I'm
sorry
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence
and
in
rural
counties
primarily
to
victims
of
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence.
This
is
important.
The
way
this
was
set
up
before
is
we
don't
want
an
abundance
of
agencies
who
are
all
getting
a
little
peace.
K
We
want
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
primary
provider
in
every
county
in
the
urban
counties.
It's
typically
a
domestic
violence
agency
and
a
sexual
violence
agency
in
the
rural
counties.
They
are
often
the
same
agency
if
that
makes
sense,
and
it
makes
changes
that
allow
for
some
programs
to
some
agencies
that
don't
provide
shelter
and
again
you
can
imagine
the
range
of
services
that
are
across
the
17
counties
requiring
shelter
is
a
barrier
to
some
agencies,
but
those
services
are
still
important.
K
We
also
change
the
language
from
spouses
to
partners
and
from
children
to
family
members,
recognizing
the
diversity
of
the
families
that
we
serve
today,
and
it
adds
prevention
programs
as
an
eligible
use
because
often
as
we're
working
in
this
space,
a
small
amount
of
money
going
to
prevention
pays
great
dividends.
Moving
forward.
K
So
I
strongly
believe
that
the
best
path
forward
is
to
use
the
mechanism
that
is
already
in
law
and
make
sure
that
it
is
enough
of
a
resource
to
get
the
job
done.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
the
history,
to
hear
from
a
survivor
and
to
hear
the
details
of
the
bill.
I
stand
ready
for
questions.
A
We
heard
assembly
bill
30
in
this
committee,
which
we
passed
out,
which
made
some
of
the
similar
actually
some
of
the
same
changes
you
see
in
this
bill
in
terms
of
renaming
accounts
and
the
grants
that
are
provided
to
the
counties.
I
think,
however,
as
senator
raddy
has
mentioned,
the
the
real
difference
in
this
bill
is
the
increase
of
the
funding
from
25
to
50,
but
if
you're
looking
at
the
bill-
and
it
looks
familiar,
that
is
why
I
know
assembly
bill.
A
30
was,
I
don't
know
months
ago
at
this
point,
but
if
it
looks
familiar,
that
is
why,
so
I
do
have
some
questions
so
far,
senator
raddy
and
let
me
just
kind
of
give
the
order
we
have
at
the
moment
we'll
start
with
assemblywoman
krasner
and
then
go
to
assemblywoman
gonzalez,
then
assemblyman,
wheeler
and
I'm
sure
they'll
be
after
some
after
that,
as
well
assembly.
One
krasner
please
go
ahead.
M
Thank
you,
cherry
yeager
and
thank
you
senator
ratty,
for
bringing
this
bill
and
thank
you,
senator
helen
foley,
for
being
present
to
to
tell
us
about
the
history
of
this
bill
and
thank
you
for
your
service
to
our
state
and
paving
the
way
for
us
for
for
the
women
here
today.
Thank
you
so
much,
I'm
just
shocked
that
nevada
still
has
the
seventh
highest
rate
of
women
murdered
by
men
in
the
united
states.
M
I
mean
when
this
has
been
going
on
for
the
last
10
years,
we've
been
either
in
the
first
through
tenth
position
of
of
the
highest
rate
of
women
murdered
by
men
in
the
united
states.
That's
shocking!
Also.
I
did
a
little
research
here.
The
average
cost
of
a
wedding
in
the
united
states
is
33
900,
including
the
ring,
but
not
including
the
honeymoon
which
you
know.
That's
another
10
15
000..
M
You
know
we
spend
so
much
money
on
a
wedding
with
fancy,
dinners
and
open
bars
and
a
beautiful
cake
and
a
band,
and
you
know
on
and
on
and
on
and
a
dress
and
a
ring
and
and
we
can't
increase
the
fee
for
victims
of
of
sexual
assault
in
16
of
our
counties.
It's
really
shocking
to
me,
but
I
just
I
guess
it's
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you,
senator
ratty,
for
bringing
this
bill
and
figuring
out
a
way
to
do
this.
M
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record
for
folks
that
know
I
began
my
career
in
sexual
assault
and
domestic
violence
as
an
advocate
and
have
been
impacted
by
both
issues.
Unfortunately,
and
so
this
is
something
very
near
and
dear
to
my
heart,
so
senator
thank
you
so
much
for
bringing
this
bill
and
ms
kola
thank
you
so
much
for
sharing
your
story,
it's
impactful
and
powerful,
and
so
I
definitely
wanted
to
thank
you
because
I
know
that
it's
very
difficult
for
those
of
us
to
do.
M
Can
you
go
maybe
into
more
detail
about
how
little
resources
rural
counties
have
to
combat
this
issue.
Please.
K
You
bet,
I
am
julia
ready
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
ques,
the
question
assemblywoman
gonzalez
through
you,
chair,
yeager.
It's
like.
N
S-U-E-M-E-U-S-C-H-K-E
and
the
as
she
said,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
gonzalez,
for
asking
that
question.
N
The
amount
of
money
that
goes
to
rural
communities
is
extremely
limited.
There
is
some
base
funding
that
comes
out
of
marriage,
license
it
right
now.
I
think
it's
like
28
000
a
year
that
programs
in
the
smallest
rural
counties
can
use
to
provide
services.
Obviously,
that
is
not
enough,
and
so
every
program
who
receives
this
money
is
engaged
in
grant
writing
and
fundraising,
oftentimes
in
begging,
in
whatever
way
that
they
can
raise
funds
to
make
sure
that
services
are
provided.
N
We
also
rely
quite
heavily
on
volunteers.
Last
year
there
was
100
000
plus
hours
of
volunteer
time
that
was
donated
across
the
state
to
make
sure
that
these
services
are
available,
24,
7.
N
There
are
a
few
rural
programs
who
have
also
figured
out
how
to
put
together
some
funding,
whether
it's
federal
private
dollars
to
initiate
sexual
assault
services
in
carson
city
advocates
to
end
domestic
violence
as
a
sexual
assault
response
advocates,
who
have
done
a
phenomenal
job
over
the
last
10
years
to
pull
this
together
and
provide
these
services.
But
without
some
base
funding
we
are
not
going
to
see
the
same
services
being
provided
in
other
counties,
so
this
bill
is
critical.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
was
actually
going
to
follow
up
a
little
bit
on
assemblywoman
gonzalez's
question
there.
I
know
that
two
of
the
three
counties
that
I
represent
have
domestic
violence
services
and
do
an
extremely
good
job
they
in
douglas
county
and
lyon,
and
they
take
absolutely
no
funding
from
the
state.
D
It's
all
done
privately
and
through
the
county
a
little
bit
so
and
there's
so
there's
no
funding
coming
out
of
the
marriage
license
portion.
That's
why
I
should
say
not
from
the
state
that
we
know
of
so,
but
so
when
we
say
these,
they
don't
have
services.
I
think
that
we
should,
you
know,
say
they
do
have
services,
but
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do
here.
They
do
have
services
and
they
do
have
really
good
services.
But
my
question
is
the
because
I
just
don't
know
the
answer
to
this.
D
K
So
julia
ready
for
the
record
so
first
off
I
I
would
like
to
just
say
thank
you
assemblyman
wheeler,
for
the
question
and
yes,
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
many
communities
have
been
scrappy
and
I
think
you
know
better
than
many
that
the
issues
in
rural
counties
are
even
more
challenging
because
everybody
knows
everybody
and
when
you
start
talking
about
sexual
violence
or
domestic
violence,
how
you
help
victims
becomes
incredibly
challenged.
So
I
am
proud
of
the
scrappiness.
K
I
do
have
a
list
that
I
can
provide
you
of
all
of
the
agencies
that
do
receive
funding
in
each
of
the
counties.
So
I
we
can
distribute
that
for
the
committee.
If
that
is
helpful,
and
so
in
terms
of
has
there
been
a
legislative
audit?
I
I
cannot
answer
that
question.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
somebody
from
dcfs
on
the
line
today
who
may
be
able
to
answer
that
question,
not
sure
if
we
do,
I
don't
think
that
we
do,
but
I
could
certainly
get
back
to
you.
D
O
I've
had
quite
a
a
nice
time
going
down
memory
lane
and
looking
at
senate
bill
371
from
the
81st
session,
which
one
of
our
our
members
here
his
father
was
the
chair
of
judiciary
senator
close
at
the
time,
so
that
was
kind
of
fun.
O
I
was
looking
back
to
see
when
the
last
time
the
marriage
license
was
increased
and
I
think
it
was
14
back
in
2015
and
then
I
looked
at
your
numbers
and
it
shows
that
our
marriage
licenses
went
up
in
2015,
so
we
know
that
those
dollars
actually
make
a
difference
that
time
it
was
for
marriage,
tourism.
I
believe
right
is
that
correct.
So
I'm
happy
that
you
chose
the
the
25,
I
think
there's
nothing
more
powerful
than
than
knowing
that
you're
getting
the
license.
O
You're
coming
to
the
marriage
capital
of
the
world,
you're
getting
that
license
and
you're
doing
good
things
with
that
money.
Besides
just
getting
married,
I
was
wondering
if
you
got
any
pushback
from
any
folks
saying
that
this
would
like
make
people
not
come
to
vegas
to
get
married
or
anything
like
that,
which
I
mean.
I.
I
think
that
if,
if
25
is
going
to
make
the
difference,
maybe
you
should
probably
not
get
married,
but
but
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
had
heard
any
of
things
like
that.
K
Thank
you
again,
julia
ready
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
What
if
I
had
no
idea
that
a
member
of
the
committee's
dad
was
also
the
chair
of
the
committee
at
that
point,
this
state
is
just
amazing
in
that
way,
sometimes
never
burn
bridges.
Let
me
just
say
that,
so
to
answer
your
question,
it
was
last
raised
for
these
programs
11
years
ago.
K
My
understanding
with
the
theory
behind
you,
you
saw
kind
of
the
plateauing
of
marriage
licenses
and
my
understanding
is
80
of
the
marriage
licenses
that
we
issue
in
the
state
of
nevada
are
actually
two
people
who
don't
live
here.
So
it's
actually
a
very
small
number
of
marriage
of
the
percentages,
folks
who
are
in
nevadans
and
living
in
nevada
and
getting
married
and
then
80
percent
of
folks
who
are
marriage
tourism.
K
I
believe
that
you
will,
if,
if
the
experience
follows
through
from
the
senate,
I
believe
you
will
hear
some
folks
in
opposition
to
this
bill,
for
those
very
reasons
that
there
is
a
concern
about.
Are
we
going
to
impact
marriage
tourism
and
if
we
impact
marriage
tourism
will
the
overall
dollars
going
to
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence
go
down
because
we're
not
getting
that
80
percent?
That's
coming,
I
tend
to
agree
with
you.
While
not
everybody
has
a
marriage
has
a
wedding.
I
certainly
do
not
have
a
wedding.
K
I
didn't
pay
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
for
my
wedding,
absolutely
did
not
we
eloped
and
then
had
a
party
later,
so
we
spent
a
little
bit
more
money,
but
the
I
do
not
believe
that
the
marriage
license
fee
is
the
decision-making
factor.
If
you
are
choosing
to
travel
for
your
wedding,
if
you
are
choosing
to
travel
for
your
wedding,
even
if
you're
just
coming
from
la
to
vegas
the
mileage
and
the
cost
of
gas
alone,
is
a
more
significant
cost
than
the
marriage
license
fee.
K
So
I
do
not
believe
that
there
is
any
evidence
that
this
fee
will
change
the
decision-making
process
for
somebody
who
is
going
to
choose
to
come
to
nevada
versus
arizona
or
anywhere
else,
and
if
they're
going
any
farther
afield,
it
just
gets
more
expensive
right,
like
my
niece,
who
made
us
go
to
hawaii,
so
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
impact
wedding
tourism,
but
there
certainly
is
that
concern
out
there.
K
If
we
raised
it
by
25,
it
would
make
us
the
most
expensive
in
the
surrounding
area.
By
comparison,
I
think
that
would
get
us
to
100
in
clark,
county
and
california
is
93..
So
we'll
be
a
little
bit
more
expensive.
There
are
some
other
states
that
are
cheaper,
but
again
the
farther
you're
traveling,
the
more
expensive
your
your
marriage,
tourism
marriage
is
going
to
be.
So
I
think
that
the
value
that
we
get
from
this
bill
will
more
than
offset
the
cost.
K
Also,
as
you
saw
in
the
chart,
marriage
license
and
the
number
of
marriages
license
being
pulled
has
recovered
and
there
was
pent
up
demand.
So,
while
many
industries
have,
I
will
just
say,
been
kicked
in
the
teeth
during
the
pandemic
and
are
still
on
a
less
stable
road
to
recovery.
K
O
Thank
you
for
that,
and
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
you,
as
I
said
so,
just
just
for
the
record
in
clark
county,
it's
I
believe
77
currently,
and
so
it
would
go
to
102
right.
That's.
K
I'm
sorry
I
was
struggling
with
my
papers,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
in
clark
county,
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
77
would
go
up
to
102.
in
carson
city.
It's
75
and
would
go
to
100
as
an
example,
and
it
looks
like
the
lowest
ones
are
there's
a
number
of
the
more
rural
counties
who
are
at
60
and
it
would
go
up
to
85
to
have
that
accurate
on
the
record.
B
B
So
to
know
that
my
father
and
one
of
my
dearest
friends
who
helped
raise
me
was
behind
the
beginning
of
this
whole
process
is
something
that
just
has
really
moved
me
today,
and
so
I
thank
you
for
for
doing
that
and
she
then
went
on
to
that
was
the
last
session
my
dad
served,
and
so
she
went
on
and
was
in
the
senate
in
his
senate
seat.
B
So
this
is
just
like
a
full
circle
of
just
all
good
things,
and
you
know
I
can't
think
of
a
better
cause
that
this
money
could
go
to,
and
I
wanted
to
thank
miss
cota
for
sharing
her
story
for
being
brave,
to
share
her
story
and
to
get
out
of
the
situation
that
she
was
in
once
if
you've
never
been
involved
in
domestic
violence,
you
have
no
idea
what
those
victims
go
through
and
how
hard
it
is,
sometimes
for
them
to
seek
help
and
to
get
out
and
to
better
their
lives.
B
So
thank
you
for
being
here
to
share
your
story
and
my
question.
I
think
this
is
great
that
we
can
expand
this
to
other
counties
and
that
it's
taken
41
years
to
do
seems
like
a
long
time.
But
my
question
is
so:
is
it
the
money
you
know
that's
raised?
Would
it
then
be
divided
up
in
the
counties
you
know
by
population
or
how
is
that?
K
Yep
great
great
question:
again:
julia
ready
for
the
for
the
record,
so
our
current
state
is
all
counties.
Besides
clark,
100
of
the
money
goes
to
domestic
violence,
the
designated
domestic
violence
program
and
in
clark,
county
85
percent,
goes
to
the
domestic
violence
program
and
15
goes
to
the
sexual
violence
program.
K
This
bill
shifts
this
to
acknowledge
the
growing
challenges
that
we
have
in
sexual
violence,
and
so
the
way
the
bill
is
currently
construed
75
in
the
designated
counties,
75
percent
will
go
to
domestic
violence
and
25
percent
will
go
to
sexual
violence,
but
all
counties
will
benefit
from
sexual
violence,
so
we've
and
again
perhaps
to
a
prior
question
just
to
be
clear.
Yes,
we've
had
domestic
violence
services
in
all
counties.
We
haven't
necessarily
had
sexual
violence
services
in
all
counties
and
certainly
haven't
had
funding
for
sexual
violence.
N
Question
absolutely
for
the
record
sumaiski.
So
there
is
a.
There
is
a
brilliant
formula
that
is
contained
within
within
the
the
legislation
which
creates
a
base
amount
for
every
county
and
it
differentiates
between
larger
counties
and
smaller
counties.
N
N
So
it
tries
to
balance
the
fact
that
you
need
some
base
funding
to
be
able
to
provide
any
services
right.
A
phone
line
is
going
to
cost
the
same,
no
matter
where
you
are,
but
also
take
into
account
the
need
to
have
funding
address
the
population
centers
as
well.
So
hopefully
that
answered
the
question.
K
So
I
just
want
to
thank
the
coalition,
who
worked
with
all
of
the
partners
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
agencies
were
on
board,
and
we
didn't
show
up
here
today
with
a
different
agencies
having
different
arguments
about
how
the
formula
should
work.
There
is
general
consensus
about
how
the
formula
should
work.
A
P
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
being
here
I
and
and
grateful
to
all
of
you
who
have
worked
so
hard
to
protect
victims
of
violence
and
sexual
assault,
and
so
it's
not
lost
on
any
of
us.
The
great
work
that's
been
done,
so
I
am
a
fan
of
the
purpose.
I'm
not
a
fan
of
the
funding
mechanism.
P
K
So
julia
ready
for
the
record,
so
we
had
some
debate
over
this
in
the
senate
and
I
do
not
have
the
data
nor
phil
qualified.
It
isn't
really
part
of
the
bill,
and
so
I
I
did
not
weigh
in
I
will
say
in
the
senate
we
had
a
senator
who
you
may
know,
and
the
senator
who,
on
the
other
side,
who
both
cited
different
data
that
showed
different
results.
So
I
don't.
K
I
just
can't
weigh
in
on
on
the
answer
to
the
question,
because
I
don't
know
that
I
have
the
most
relevant
data,
miss
maeske
or
we
also
have
liz
ortenberger.
Thank
you
who
I've
known
for
a
very
long
time.
K
On
the
line
from
clark
county
do
either
of
you
know
the
data
between
whether
you're
married
or
not
married
in
terms
of
the
both
domestic
violence
and
sexual
assault
or
sexual
violence.
R
L-I-Z-O-R-T-E-N-B-U-R-G-E-
and
we
can
cite
our
own
data
and
tell
you
that
of
the
25
000
clients
we
work
with
every
year.
61
are
married,
so
that
is
our
clark
county
data
for
satan.
P
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
yeah.
You
know,
you
know
how
the
internet
is.
You
go
to
different
studies,
different
states
different,
I
tended
to
go
to
research
and
certainly,
I
think,
we're
still
going
to
maybe
have
to
agree
to
disagree,
but
those
those
are
the
nevada
numbers.
I
take
you
at
your
word
so
from
that,
though,
if
we
go
thinking
about
marriages
are
plateauing
the
marriage
licenses
even
before
the
pandemic,
people
are
getting
married
later
in
life,
more
people
are
cohabitating.
P
So
if
we're
looking
for
a
funding
mechanism
such
as
marriage,
where
there's
still
some
discussion
about
our
marriages
better
for
relationships
than
dating
relationships,
as
far
as
domestic
violence
goes
to
me,
I'm
wondering
why
we
don't
go,
and
this
will
get
all
the
lobbyists
that
represent
liquor,
get
their
attention
real,
quick.
I
remember
attending
a
crime
and
law
enforcement,
a
huge
seminar
that
was
offered
here
in
2012..
P
I
think
it
was
about
three
or
four
hundred
people
were
there,
and
this
statistic
was
emblazoned
in
my
brain
that
89
of
all
crime
violence
was
related
had
some
component
of
drug
and
alcohol
abuse.
So
I
I'm
just
curious
why?
We
don't
maybe
look
for
a
funding
mechanism
to
help
support
domestic
violence
at
the
root.
P
If
and
I
would
be
interested
to
know
what
the
stats
are
in
alcohol
and
drug
abuse
in
relationship
to
domestic
violence
and
go
after
that,
rather,
even
though
I
understand
your
reasoning
behind
the
marriage
fee
to
me,
that's
plateauing
alcohol
use
is
not
in
fact
it's
spiked
in
the
in
the
pandemic,
so,
and
it
just
seems,
you'd
have
a
broader
base
in
in
having
alcohol
or
liquor
sales
have
a
fee
involved.
So
that
was
just
my
thoughts.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
hanson,
again
senator
raddy
for
the
record.
I
I
100
appreciate
the
question
and
and
the
the
thinking
behind
it.
There
were
definitely
some
members
of
the
senate
who
were
I'll
use
the
word
squeamish
about
creating
what
they
call
the
nexus
between
marriage
licenses
and
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence.
I
don't
see
it
as
a
nexus.
K
The
there's
nothing
in
the
bill
that
is
implying
or
saying
that
somehow
getting
married
leads
to
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence,
and
I've
had
so
many
people
come
up
since
those
conversations
to
the
senate
to
me
and
say,
I'm
so
pleased
that
my
happiness
and
my
my
big
day
leads
to
other
folks
having
this
resource.
So
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
another
side
to
that,
but
we
are
in
no
way
shape
or
form
trying
to
equate
or
connect
marriage
to
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence.
It's
not
the
premise
of
the
bill.
K
It
has
been.
This
funding
source
has
been
a
stable,
though
plateauing,
funding
source
for
40
years
and
over
those
40
years.
There
have
been
many
efforts
to
get
to
the
two-thirds
vote,
to
figure
out
how
we
fund
this
differently
and
we
haven't
been
able
to
get
there
to
liquor,
specifically
our
current
liquor
tax
funds,
our
general
fund,
and
so
when
I'm
considering
policy.
It's
always
we
have
to
consider
it
on
the
day
that
we
have
the
bill
in
front
of
us
with
the
circumstances
and
the
environment
that
we
are
living
in
at
the
time.
K
The
circumstances
in
the
environment
we
are
living
in
right
now
is
a
pandemic
with
an
economic
impact
that
has
reduced
our
budget
capacity,
where
we
are
currently
every
morning
in
our
finance
committees,
making
12
percent
cuts
across
the
board
to
our
budget,
the
concept
of
coming
in
and
raising
a
general
fund
funding
source
and
not
having
it
backfill.
The
12
percent
cuts
for
all
the
other
critically
important
services
that
we
are
cutting
right
now
and
instead
increasing
services
for
something
else.
K
K
I
don't
think
it's
viable
in
the
middle
of
a
pandemic
economy
when
our
hospitality
industry,
our
restaurants,
our
wholesalers,
our
distributors,
our
producers
of
alcohol,
have
all
literally
been
kicked
in
the
teeth
and
are
trying
to
recover
if
future
legislators
and
future
legislatures
want
to
get
together
and
come
to
the
place
where
they
can
get
to
two-thirds
to
replace
this
with
another
stable
funding
source.
I
will
be
on
that
team,
but
in
this
session
in
this
pandemic
in
this
economy,
I
don't
think
it's
viable
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
it.
K
I
will
say
that
I
also
investigated
cigarette
taxes
and
divorce.
The
good
news
is
that
a
lot
fewer
people
are
getting
divorced
in
nevada,
then
are
getting
married
in
nevada,
so
it
was
not
a
sufficient
funding
source
and
our
cigarette
taxes
are
already
the
highest
in
the
region.
So
I
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time
trying
to
work
with
the
folks
on
the
senate
side
who
were
looking
for
a
different
way
to
do
this
and
we
just
couldn't
get
there
this
session.
K
D
D
I
guess
that's
the
same
question
that
I've
got
is:
is
it
fair
coming
out
of
pandemic
when
people
haven't
had
jobs,
etcetera
to
go
to
a
25?
Actually,
it's
100
percent
increase
at
25,
although
you
say
it's
insignificant
in
the
overall
of
what
a
wedding
may
cost,
but
not
everybody
is
spending
thirty
thousand
dollars
for
a
wedding.
D
So
my
two
questions
for
you
is:
is
there
any
consideration
for
a
lower
amount?
As
I
understand
the
bill,
this
is
not
required
by
each
county
to
institute
it's
their
choice,
or
is
it
a
requirement.
K
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman
o'neill
I
so
it
is
required.
It's
a
mandate,
it's
a
statewide
mandate,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
very
clear.
There
are
other
portions
like
the
14
of
marriage,
tourism
that
is
optional,
two
counties
and
so,
for
example,
if
clark
county
was
concerned
that
this
this
dollar
amount
was
too
high,
they
could
they
could
roll
back
the
14
for
marriage
tourism
as
well.
They
they
they
have
some
things
that
they
have
done
locally,
that
they
could
lower
it.
K
But
this
would
be
a
mandate
across
the
board.
I
don't
think
it's
an
insignificant
increase
if
you
look
at
I'll
just
take
clark
county.
So
again
it
doubles
the
portion
that
goes
to
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence.
But
if
you
look
at
clark
county
where
the
marriage
license
fee
goes
from
77
to
102,
that's
a
32
increase.
It's
not
very
often
that
we
do
32
increases
to
anything.
K
So
I
will
walk
right
into
that
conversation,
because
the
reason
that
it
needs
to
be
25
is
25
is
the
dollar
amount
that
gets
us
makes
up
for
the
11
years
of
inflation,
so
the
the
reduction
in
purchasing
power
that
these
agencies
have
experienced
over
the
last
11
years
and
frankly,
I
brought
I
blame
us
because
we're
not
very
good
at
getting
to
a
two-thirds
vote
on
a
regular
basis
to
give
people
a
regular
increase.
So
then,
when
we
do,
we
have
to
make
it
bigger.
K
Secondly,
it
allows
us
to
give
them
a
bump
for
a
while,
so
that,
because
we're
probably
not
going
to
do
this
again
next
session
or
the
session
after
that,
and
so
it
gives
them
a
little
breathing
room
going
forward
and
then
critically
it
allows
us
to
include
the
16
of
17
counties
who
have
never
had
any
of
this
funding
going
for
sexual
violence.
And
so,
if
I
back
off
of
25,
I
can't
accomplish
all
three
of
those
things.
D
D
K
K
So,
yes,
the
marriage
there
well
well,
there
was
a
heyday
in
reno
where
folks
came
to
reno
for
marriages
because
of
you
know,
changes
in
law
that
have
occurred.
We
do
not
have
the
same
marriage,
tourism,
industry
and
I
do
not
think
it
was
the
cost
of
the
marriage
license
fee.
That
was
the
impact
on
those
industry.
It
was
just
a
change
in
marriage
tourism
generally
for
our
area,
as
well
as
the
overall
changes
in
how
people
choose
to
get
married.
K
I
think
in
in
the
northern
nevada
area
and
the
rest
of
the
rurals,
the
trend
towards
outdoor
weddings
has
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
wedding
industry.
Just
generally,
so
I
don't
well.
I
agree
with
you
that
that
industry
has
been
struggling
elsewhere
than
clark
county.
I
do
not
believe
it
had
anything
to
do
with
the
cost
of
the
marriage
license
fee.
D
A
Okay,
so
assemblywoman
cohen
has
agreed
to
ask
her
question
offline,
so
we
can
get
to
some
testimony.
I
appreciate
that
members.
If
you
have
additional
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask
offline.
I
want
to
move
to
testimony
members.
As
you
know,
we
do
have
a
floor
session
today,
so
I
am
going
to
be
limiting
testimony
in
the
following
manner.
I'm
going
to
take
20
minutes
of
testimony
and
support.
Speakers
will
have
two
minutes
and
then
20
minutes
of
opposition
testimony
and
then
we'll
see
what
we
have
for
neutral.
So
to
our
speakers.
A
I
would
just
encourage
you
perfectly
fine
to
to
say
I
agree
or
try
to
keep
your
remarks
short,
so
we
can
get
in
as
many
people
as
possible.
So
with
that
being
said,
let's
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
177.
I
want
to
start
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city.
We
only
have
one
chair,
I
believe
so.
You'll
have
to
come
up
one
at
a
time.
Q
Q
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
resource
center,
the
proposed
increase
to
the
marriage
license
fee
would
provide
critical
support
to
our
organization
and
many
others
across
the
state,
and
I
urge
you
to
support
this
bill.
Since
the
last
increase
to
the
fee
in
2009,
we
have
seen
significant
growth
in
the
demand
for
domestic
violence
services
in
washoe
county.
Q
Q
This
funding
is
crucial
not
only
for
its
support
of
our
services,
but
also
because
it
serves
as
a
match
mandated
by
many
of
our
federal
grants.
Additionally,
the
domestic
violence
resource
center
depends
on
the
flexibility
of
the
marriage
license
funding.
Unlike
federal
dollars.
We
can
use
these
precious
funds
to
support
the
administrative
and
operational
expenses
that
keep
our
lights
on
and
doors
open
on
a
daily
basis.
Q
A
S
Good
morning,
thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
will
try
to
keep
my
comments
very
brief.
I
did
want
to
address
two
specific
points
as
they
relate
to
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
we
wholeheartedly
urge
your
support
of
this
bill.
First,
the
chair
himself
sponsored
a
bill
in
last
legislative
session,
ab176
and
ab176
required
our
office
to
chair
an
advisory
committee
on
the
rights
of
sexual
assault
survivors
in
our
duties.
S
We
were
required
to
create
a
recommendations
report
for
funding
of
sexual
assault
advocates
and
what
we
did
was
a
county-by-county
analysis
of
the
number
of
sexual
assault
advocates
across
the
state,
regardless
of
how
they
are
funded.
We
looked
at
the
number
of
sexual
assault,
nurse
examiners
in
each
county
and
the
number
of
existing
advocates.
S
So
there
was
a
question
about
rural
services
and
I
want
to
specifically
address
that
in
six
counties
in
nevada.
We
have
absolutely
no
sexual
assault
advocates
that
includes
douglas
county
to
your
to
your
question
earlier
assemblyman
wheeler.
We
also
have
five
counties
where
there
is
only
one
part-time
advocate,
and
that
includes
lyon
county.
S
So
if
you,
if
you
would
like,
I
have
provided
a
copy
of
that
report
to
the
committee
and
we
have
a
breakdown
per
county.
That
also
looks
at
the
number
of
sexual
assaults
that
are
reported
per
capita
in
each
county.
S
S
There
are
two
specific
programs
program
grants
the
stock
grant
and
the
sas
grant
that
are
most
relevant
to
victims
providers
and
we
last
year
administered
1.9
million
dollars
in
stock
and
sas
funding.
That's
about
62
cents
per
nevadan.
However,
only
30
percent
of
those
funds
are
earmarked
for
victim
service
providers.
The
rest
of
the
funds
are
earmarked
for
law
enforcement,
prosecution
agencies,
courts
and
other
discretionary
funds.
S
So
I
I'm
happy
to
answer
your
questions
about
vowel
funding
and
the
report
that
we
that
the
advisory
committee
issued
in
terms
of
sexual
assault
advocates
and
availability.
But
in
sum
we
estimate
over
2
000
more
advocates
are
needed
across
the
state
and
to
ensure
that
every
survivor
of
sexual
assault
has
asked
access
to
an
advocate.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
here
or
offline.
A
M
M
I
did
just
want
to
rehash
a
couple
of
things
that
were
discussed,
so
one
one
aspect
is
that
kobit
19
did
send
many
people-
men,
women
and
families
home
and
potentially
into
an
abusive
situation
because
of
that
police
departments,
emergency
call
lines,
domestic
violence,
resource
centers
and
hospitals
have
all
reported
increased
rates
of
domestic
violence
so
that,
along
with
an
increased
population
in
the
state
and
11
years
of
inflation,
we
really
do
need
more
resources.
This
is
not
something
that
can
wait
another
two
years
to
figure
out
a
new
funding
source
or
another
funding
source.
M
I
also
want
to
be
clear
that
this
is
not
a
new
funding
source
domestic
violence.
Resource
programs
have
been
funded
by
this
marriage
license
fee
and
we
merely
want
to
increase
that
so
that
we
can
support
our
state
and
support
victims
here.
So
with
that,
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
the
nevada
women's
lobby
urges
you
to
support
this
important
piece
of
legislation.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
offerman
we'll
stay
here
in
carson
city.
Miss
adler.
Did
you
want
to
testify
and
support?
Okay,
no
more
testimony
here
in
carson
city.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
now
is
go
to
the
zoom.
I
know
we've
had
miss
maeshke
and
mrs
ortenberger
answer
some
questions,
but
I'm
assuming
that
both
of
you
would
like
to
testify
in
support
as
well.
So
we'll
just
go
where
you
are
on
the
screen
that
I'm
looking
at,
I
see
mishmash
you're
on
the
top
right.
N
N
I
really
want
to
say
thank
you
to
mrs
foley
for
being
here
and
providing
history.
Too
often,
I
think
we
forget
where
history
is
and
I
think
that's
a
detriment,
and
I
mostly
want
to
say
to
starla.
Thank
you.
N
We
know
how
hard
this
is,
and
we
so
appreciate
your
willingness
to
come
and
to
talk
about
not
only
your
experience
but
also
letting
folks
know
about
the
experience
of
so
many
other
people
who
have
gone
through
programs
here
in
in
washoe,
in
washoe
county
in
clark
county
in
lander,
county
in
churchill
county
and
who
have
received
services
that
have
allowed
them
to
move
on
with
their
lives
and
to
develop
safe,
loving
homes
for
themselves
and
their
children.
So
again,
thank
you
so
much
for
being
here.
N
I
just
want
to
encourage
folks
to
understand
that
this
funding
is
critical.
If
we
don't
have
this
funding,
services
will
start
to
go
away
when
we
experience
the
the
decrease
in
funding
during
the
pandemic,
people
were
very
creative
in
how
they
were
able
to
pull
it
together
and
to
change
how
they
provided
services
in
in
just
a
moment
and
be
able
to
be
there
for
all
of
the
folks
that
needed
them.
N
N
I
just
want
to
end
this
by
letting
folks
know
that,
according
to
the
centers
for
disease
control
and
prevention,
the
lifetime
economic
costs
associated
with
medical
services
lost
productivity
from
paid
work,
criminal
justice
and
other
costs
for
a
victim
of
domestic
violence
was
a
hundred
and
three
thousand
dollars
and
for
a
victim
of
rape
was
a
hundred
and
twenty
two
thousand
dollars.
If
our
services
can
prevent
or
mitigate
the
harm
to
victims,
we
stand
to
save
nevada
millions
of
dollars.
So,
thank
you
for
your
time.
R
Thank
you,
chair,
yeager,
hello,
liz
ortenberger
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
ratty
and
committee
for
hearing
this
bill
today,
I'm
the
ceo
for
safeness.
We
serve
approximately
25
000
clients
a
year.
We
serve
survivors,
batterers
children
and
pets
affected
by
the
epidemic
of
domestic
violence,
but
s
b,
177
is
not
about
our
size
or
our
successes.
It's
about
the
504
victims
and
children
that
were
not
admitted
into
shelter
in
the
year
prior
to
the
pandemic.
R
It's
about
a
victim
like
martha
who
was
beaten
in
front
of
her
three
children,
but
because
her
abuse
did
not
include
a
weapon
or
strangulation,
and
it
happened
three
weeks
before
and
she
had
not
had
additional
contact
with
the
batterer.
Her
lethality
index
score
was
not
high
enough.
We
were
already
operating
at
120
percent
to
secure
her
a
bed.
R
Sb
177
is
about
the
500
callers
a
year
that
roll
to
our
answering
service,
because
our
three
full-time,
24-hour
seven
call
center
is
already
impacted.
Taking
other
calls
it's
about
the
20
percent
of
those
that
are
never
able
to
be
reached
back
like
ashley,
who
explained
she
had
been
strangled
the
night
before
and
when
we
tried
to
call
her
back.
We
got
no
answer
when
a
victim
is
strangled
as
part
of
their
domestic
violence.
Their
homicide
rate
goes
up
by
750
percent.
R
Most
importantly,
sb
177
is
about
ending
the
epidemic
of
domestic
violence.
76
percent
of
children
growing
up
in
domestic
violence.
Households
will
repeat
this
cycle
as
a
victim
or
as
a
batterer,
though
it's
programs
like
what
we
run
in
juvenile
detention,
working
with
10
and
11
year
old
boys,
who
are
already
showing
signs
of
violence
that
will
end
this
epidemic.
Marriage
license
funds,
those
programs.
R
We
had
a
homicide
here
on
friday
night,
a
young
woman,
exchanging
items
with
her
boyfriend
in
a
parking
lot.
She
was
stabbed
to
death
while
her
mother
and
ten-year-old
infant
looked
on.
What
keeps
me
up
at
night
is:
if
I
had
more
awareness
dollars,
more
marketing
dollars
more
support
dollars.
Would
she
have
known
that
safeness
could
have
facilitated
that
exchange
for
her
for
25
dollars?
R
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
ortenberger
we're
going
to
stay
on
the
zoom
and
let
me
just
check:
is
there
anybody
else
on
the
zoom
who
would
like
to
testify
in
support?
If
so,
if
you
could
turn
your
camera
on
unmute
yourself
and
let
me
know,
I'm
checking
my
second
monitor
over
here
and
I
don't
think
I
see
any
activity
on
the
zoom
so
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
and
support
please.
F
F
I
Good
morning
carriejan
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
We
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
bringing
forward
this
important
bill.
We
believe
that,
unfortunately,
and
have
found
that
our
clients
have
been
involved
in
these
situations
where,
if
they
had
been
provided
support
earlier
on,
then
maybe
they
would
not
have
been
victimizers
themselves.
F
H
Good
morning,
chairman
jaeger
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
too
wanted
to
register
our
support
at
the
public
defender's
office.
We
are
not
only
committed
to
protecting
the
constitutional
rights
of
all
nevadans,
but
also
stopping
the
cycle
of
trauma
and
this
bill
brought
forward
by
senator
ratty,
a
solution
that
can
get
people
away
from
bad
situations
and
hopefully
fix
some
of
the
problems
that
we
have
in
this
state.
So
we
urge
the
committee
support.
Thank
you.
F
P
P
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
testimony
and
support
I'll
now
open
up
for
testimony
in
opposition.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
here
in
carson
city
in
opposition,
but
let
me
ask
just
to
be
sure
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
to
the
table.
Let
me
check
the
zoom
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition,
I
don't
see
any
activity
on
the
zoom
either
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
somebody
there
in
opposition,
please.
F
A
A
F
I
Good
morning
this
is
mandy
davis,
m-a-n-d-I-d-a-b-I-s,
I'm
the
deputy
administrator
for
the
division
of
child
and
family
services.
I
tried
to
make
myself
known-
I
was
on
the
call
earlier,
but
was
unable
to
we
oversee
the
administration
and
awarding
of
funds
received
through
the
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
I
No
new
staff
are
needed
to
accommodate
the
changes
in
this
bill
and
we
will
be
able
to
distribute
any
funds
received
in
the
account
in
accordance
with
our
current
procedures.
I
also
wanted
to
respond
to
the
question
earlier
from
assemblyman
wheeler,
regarding
whether
lcb
has
ever
audited
these
funds
pre-pandemic.
We
received
approximately
three
million
dollars
per
year
from
this
funding
source,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
it
was
ever
enough
to
reach
the
threshold
to
warrant
an
lcb
audit.
To
my
knowledge,
lcb
has
not
audited
the
funding
source
over
the
past
several
years.
I
I
would
note
that
this
is
the
only
source
of
non-federal
funding
that
supports
domestic
violence,
programs
and
sexual
violence
programs
in
the
state.
Many
of
the
agencies
that
we
fund
with
this
funding
source
use
these
funds,
as
the
required
non-federal
match.
That's
required
to
receive
all
the
federal
funds
that
they
receive
and
we're
supportive
of
any
assistance
for
this
vulnerable
population
that
we're
able
to
provide
I'd
be
happy
to
stay
on
the
line
for
any
questions.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
I
Bill
today,
this
is
mandy
davis
for
the
record
today
we're
testifying
in
the
neutral
position.
Thank
you.
A
A
K
Thank
you
again,
julia
ready
for
the
record.
First
of
all,
my
gratitude
to
you,
chair,
yeager
and
to
the
committee.
I
know
we're
at
a
busy
time
in
session,
and
you
gave
us
we're
pretty
gracious
with
your
time
to
do
some
storytelling
today
that
I
think
you
know
the
bill
itself
was
not
that
complicated,
but
I
think
the
stories
were
powerful
and
important.
So
thank
you
for
that
graciousness
to
the
to
you
and
to
the
entire
committee.
K
I
wanted
to
note
that
I
understand
that
there
are
several
letters
from
support
that
are
exhibits
in
the
record
that
we'd
like
to
refer
to
as
well
as
the
ag's
report
is
there.
So
if
you
want
to
see
that
information
as
well
plus
some
other
data
that
we've
uploaded,
if
you're
looking
for
additional
details
beyond
that,
I
would
say
that
I
hope
that
the
stories
that
you've
seen
today
paired
with
the
data
that
demonstrates
the
need,
will
get
you
to
a
place
that
you
can
push
that
green
button.
When
it
comes
time.
K
I
think
that
we
do
a
lot
of
work
here
in
the
legislative
sessions
and
we
all
do
everything
that
we
can
to
make
a
difference.
But
this
is
one
that
I
am
absolutely
confident
that
we,
if
we
can
get
it
across
the
finish
line,
that
it
will
impact
people's
lives
and
it
will
help
them
in
ways
that
I
would
only
hope
that
if
I
were
in
the
same
situation
that
I
would
have
access
to
the
same
help.
So
with
that,
I
ask
for
your
support.
K
I
also
have
had
a
couple
of
requests
to
add
sponsors,
I'm
always
terrible
about
distributing
my
bills
for
sponsors,
and
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that
in
the
assembly.
But
if
you
would
like
to,
I
will
figure
that
out
and
if
you
would
like
to
be
a
sponsor.
Please
email
me,
and
I
will
figure
that
out.
Thank
you.
A
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
177
committee
members
that
takes
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda
this
morning,
and
that
is
public
comment.
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
resort
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
Let's
start
with
public
comment
here
in
carson
city.
Would
anyone
like
to
give
public
comment?
A
F
T
P
T
T
They
shot
and
killed
joshua
as
he
sat
in
his
car
with
all
the
tires
shot
out,
surrounded
by
at
least
10
armed
police
officers
and
numerous
police
vehicles
robinson
was
the
last
one
to
arrive
on
the
scene
in
the
only
officer
to
shoot
his
gun.
Other
officers
on
the
scene
had
instructed
all
present
to
hold
their
fire
and
reno
pd
officers,
robinson
and
tiger
knew
that
joshua
was
not
armed
with
a
gun.
T
They
one
of
them
testified
that
he
knew
joshua
did
not
have
a
gun,
but
only
had
a
pocket
knife,
and
another
officer
present
had
described
that
knife
as
a
little
folding
knife
officer,
tom
robinson
is
now
the
chief
of
reno
police.
He
would
go
on
to
kill
william
barton
less
than
three
months
after
he
killed
joshua
layman,
please
keep
joshua's
family
and
your
family
and
all
families
collect
affected
by
police
violence.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability
from
law
enforcement.
Thank
you
have
a
nice
day.
A
F
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps.
We
appreciate
all
you
do
to
help
make
these
meetings
possible.
I
will
close
public
comment
anything
else
from
our
committee
members
this
morning
all
right.
Thank
you.
Committee,
there's
a
couple
announcements,
some
of
a
couple
of
which
I
think
you'll
find
interesting
and
hopefully
receive
as
good
news.
A
A
There
will
be
donuts
tomorrow
morning
in
the
building
around
8
o'clock.
So
if
you
want
to
stop
by
for
that,
the
other
piece
of
news
is,
we
will
not
be
having
a
judiciary
committee
meeting
on
monday
morning
either.
So
again
you
can
show
up
monday
morning,
but
we
won't
be
here
now.
Some
of
you
may
recall
we
had
originally
scheduled
our
committee
photo
to
be
taken
on
monday,
so
we're
going
to
move
that
to
wednesday
of
next
week.
A
So
we'll
get
a
reminder
out
to
you
for
that,
but
so
no
need
to
show
up
on
monday
and
then
tuesday
we're
going
to
have
a
meeting,
but
we'll
be
starting
at
nine
o'clock
and
we'll
see
about
the
rest
of
the
week.
So
you're
gonna
get
a
couple
days
off
from
judiciary,
hopefully
give
you
a
chance
to
catch
up
on
some
of
your
other
work
and
get
ready
to
present
those
bills
over
in
the
senate
so
again,
committee.