►
From YouTube: 5/4/2021 - 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
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
bilbray,
axelrod,
absent
excused.
Everyone
else
is
here.
That
means
we
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Committee
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
here
in
carson
city
and
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
on
the
zoom,
as
well
as
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet.
Welcome
to
day
93
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
on
this
morning's
agenda,
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters
for
those
of
you
joining
us
in
carson
city.
A
Could
you
please
mute
any
of
your
devices
for
those
of
you
on
the
zoom?
If
you
could
please
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that
would
be
helpful
for
everybody
participating
in
today's
meeting.
If
you
could
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
particularly
when
answering
questions
that
would
definitely
be
helpful
and
then
those
of
you
in
the
audience
here
look
like
you're
veterans
of
this
process,
but
just
as
a
reminder
when
you
come
to
the
table,
make
sure
to
turn
the
microphone
on
on
to
state.
A
Your
name
provide
your
testimony
and
then
turn
the
microphone
off.
When
you
are
done
speaking,
we
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
and
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly
of
our
very
hard-working
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
up
here
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
morning's
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
E
E
This
bill
creates
a
state
level
exemption
from
licensure
requirements
for
investment
advisors
to
specific
types
of
qualifying
private
funds,
as
defined
in
federal
law.
The
bill
also
sets
forth
several
conditions.
An
advisor
must
meet
to
qualify
for
an
exemption.
Additionally,
an
advisor
who
becomes
ineligible
for
the
licensing
exemption
must
comply
with
any
applicable
laws
for
licensure
within
90
days
of
ineligibility.
E
First,
it
requires
in
section
4.5
that
the
securities
administrator
securities
division
office
of
the
secretary
of
state
submit
biennial
reports
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
for
submission
to
the
legislative
commission
and
also
requires
the
report
to
be
published
on
the
internet
website
of
the
sos
or
by
similar
means.
Additionally,
it
makes
conforming
changes
in
section
8.5
of
the
bill.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
F
A
E
E
Such
records
requires
a
property
holder
to
maintain
any
records
used
to
justify
excluding
certain
information
from
the
report
and
increases
from
10
percent
to
20
percent.
The
maximum
percentage
of
the
value
of
the
property
that
a
firm
hired
to
locate,
deliver
recover
or
assist
in
the
recovery.
The
property
may
charge
the
property
owner
as
a
commission
under
certain
circumstances,
and
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
Thank
you,
chairman.
A
F
A
A
E
This
bill
revises
the
eligibility
of
non-profit
organizations
that
provide
services
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
to
receive
grants
from
the
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
and
also
renames
the
account
as
the
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
or
sexual
violence.
Additionally,
the
portion
of
the
fee
that
is
collected
by
the
county
clerk
when
issuing
a
marriage
license
that
is
used
to
fund
the
account
is
raised
from
25
to
50
dollars.
E
A
A
I
had
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
summers:
armstrong
right
in
front
of
me.
It
was
a
quick
tie
there
for
the
second
I'll,
give
it
to
assemblywoman
vice
chairwin,
because
I
heard
her,
although
assemblyman
o'neill
was
right
there
as
well,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
We
have
a
second.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
H
Thank
you
chair,
I've
got
to
say
I
originally
was
a
no
on
this
bill,
but
I've
been
approached
by
some
elected
officials
here
in
carson
city,
explaining
to
me
their
domestic
violence
procedures
and
their
need
for
the
additional
funding,
and
with
that
that
support
from
and
requests
from
the
local
community.
I
will
be
a
strong
yes
on
this.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
D
I
will
be
voting
yes,
I
I
like
the
bill,
but
just
reserve
the
right
on
the
floor
to
change
the
vote.
Thank
you.
F
Oh
boy,
this
is
a
terrible
position
to
be
in,
and
I've
had
this
conversation
and
I've
appreciated
the
conversations
I've
had
in
the
last
few
days.
I
greatly
appreciate
the
policy
you
know
I'm
there
with
that,
and
I
would
love
to
be
involved
in
the
interim,
but
I
I
voiced
my
concerns
about
the
funding
mechanism.
F
I
understand
why
you
have
to
do
that,
but
I'm
going
to
have
to
be
a
no
just
because,
even
though
I
I
would
love
that
we're
going
to
visit
in
the
interim,
maybe
some
other
ways
we
could
have
a
stable
funding
mechanism.
I
know
that,
typically,
once
we
have
a
funding
mechanism
in
place,
it
rarely
gets
changed.
F
I
had
put
on
the
record
my
ideas
about
perhaps
visiting
some
of
the
other
ways
we
could
fund
this
and
in
a
legislature
where
we
have
found
money
before
for
a
raiders
stadium.
I
would
think
I'm
even
for
an
appropriation
it's
not
about
giving
money
to
these
organizations
that
do
great
work.
It's
just
how
we
do
it
so
again.
My
regrets.
I
can't
support
it
at
this
time.
J
J
A
A
I
believe
I
have
nays
from
assemblyman
wheeler
and
assemblywoman
hanson.
If
there
were
any
other
nays,
could
you
raise
your
hand
and
let
me
know
okay,
so
I
see
two
nays.
That
means
the
motion
does
carry
and
I'm
going
to
assign
the
floor
statement
on
senate
bill
177
to
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
So
congratulations,
senator
raddy,
thank
you
for
being
here
with
us
this
morning,
so
that
takes
us
through
our
work
session
committee
members,
and
that
means
we'll
go
to
our
the
beginning
of
our
agenda
and
we
will
take
the
two
bills
in
order
today.
A
We
have
senator
orrin
shaw
again
with
us
this
morning
and
he'll
be
presenting
both
of
the
bills.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
107
in
its
first
reprint.
That
bill
makes
various
changes
relating
to
the
statute
of
limitations
for
certain
causes
of
action.
As
I
reference,
we
have
senator
oran
shaw
here
and
I
think
he
has
some
backup
with
him
on
zoom
today.
So
welcome
again
senator
orrinshaw,
it's
great
to
see
you
please
proceed
when
you're
ready
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you.
K
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
for
the
record,
james
orange
all
state
senate
21,
that's
parts
of
henderson,
unincorporated,
clark
county.
It's
really
a
pleasure
to
be
here
in
person
for
the
first
time
this
session.
You
know
as
a
former
member
of
this
committee,
former
vice
chair
of
this
committee.
I
know
all
the
good
work
that
you've
done
and
really
proud
to
be
a
former
member
of
this
committee,
former
vice
chair.
K
Both
of
the
bills
have
to
do
with
some
issues
regarding
fundamental
fairness,
senate
bill
107
has
to
do
with
access
to
justice
senate
bill
107,
in
my
opinion,
tries
to
help
make
sure
that
an
employee
is
able
to
pursue
administrative
remedies
for
either
a
wrongful
termination
or
workman's
comp
issue
without
having
to
worry
about
racing
to
the
courthouse
and
filing
a
lawsuit,
and
in
my
opinion,
if
senate
bill
107
has
passed,
I
believe
that
there
may
be
less
litigation,
because
the
administrative
remedies
through
the
eeoc
or
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
may
be
successful,
and
there
may
not
be
that
race
to
the
courthouse.
K
I
am
very
lucky
to
have
jp
kemp,
an
attorney
in
las
vegas
who
specializes
in
this
area
with
me
and
with
your
permission,
chair
yeager,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
him
to
kind
of
give
us
some
of
the
nuts
and
bolts
and
war
stories
he
has
from
being
in
the
trenches
representing
workers,
and
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
L
Thank
you
chair
good
morning,
I'm
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association.
Thank
you
for
having
me
here,
hello
to
the
committee
members
this
morning.
I
want
to
thank
senator
orrin
shaw
for
having
brought
sb
107
a
very
important
clarification
in
the
law,
in
certain
respects.
L
The
the
case
that
started
this
was
patos
versus
las
vegas
bistro.
It
was
a
case
where
an
employee
office
manager
who
tripped
in
bell
hurt
herself
ended
up
getting
fired
for
filing
her
workers.
Compensation
claim
she
filed
her
lawsuit.
It
was
more
than
two
years
but
less
than
four
years,
and
when
you
look
through
the
statute
of
limitations,
nrs
11.19,
you
don't
find
any
specific
reference
to
a
claim
for
wrongful
termination,
wrongful
discharge
retaliatory
discharge,
nothing
of
that
nature.
L
The
federal
courts
had
previously
looked
at
this
and
they
analogized
it
to
personal
injury
cases.
The
supreme
court
of
nevada
had
never
addressed
it
until
it
came
before
them
in
the
push
case,
and
in
that
case
they
also
used
an
analogy
to
personal
injury
and
wrongful
death
statute,
which
is
nrs,
11.190,
subsection
4e
and,
as
we
looked
at
that,
I
mean
an
average
in
nevadan.
L
Could
never
have
read
that
statute
that
talks
about
personal
injury
and
wrongful
death
and
come
to
the
conclusion
that
it
would
apply
to
their
case
of
wrongful
termination,
and
so
when
we
looked
at
it,
we
thought
well
here
in
nrs
11.220,
which
is
a
catch-all
that
provides
four
years
for
any
cause
of
action.
That's
not
otherwise
provided
for
in
the
statutes,
it
would
appear
that
that
would
apply
and
it
doesn't
appear
anywhere
else.
So
the
catch-all
four
years
should
have
applied.
L
Well,
the
supreme
court
nevada
disagreed
with
that
went
with
the
personal
injury
and
wrongful
death
statute.
So
we
we
thought.
Well,
you
know,
average
average
americans
and
average
nevadan
should
be
able
to
read
the
statutes
and
determine
how
much
time
that
they
have,
and
so
we
we
senator
warren
shaw,
brought
this
bill
in
order
to
clarify
that
working
with
the
stakeholders,
it
was
determined
that
the
two-year
statute
limitations
for
local
discharge
was
a
good
time
period,
but
also
working
through
it.
L
We
noted
that
sometimes
people
have
charges
of
discrimination
or
other
administrative
complaints
that
are
working
their
way
through
the
administrative
process
and
sometimes
particularly
actually
it's
kind
of
a
paradox,
because
the
most
the
cases
with
the
most
merit
actually
take
the
longest
to
work
their
way
through
the
nevada,
equal
rights,
commission
or
the
eeoc,
and
sometimes
that
is
more
than
two
years.
So
you
would
have
a
situation
where
you
would
have
to
run
off
and
file
a
lawsuit
to
meet
the
two-year
statute.
L
If
you
were,
if
you
had
a
companion
claim
for
the
common
law,
retaliatory
discharge
or
wrongful
discharge,
you'd
have
to
go
and
file
the
lawsuit
before
the
administrative
agency
ever
got
through
with
their
investigation
and
making
their
determination.
L
L
But
subsection
two
does
provide
for
a
tolling
of
that
time
period,
while
the
case
is
pending
before
an
administrative
agency
on
a
complaint
or
charge.
So
if
someone
has
a
charge
at
the
nevada,
equal
rights,
commission,
that's
sort
of
a
paradigm
of
the
medical
rights
commission.
If
that's
pending
and
you
get
to
the
two-year
point,
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
rushing
off
to
the
courthouse
to
file
a
lawsuit
or
or
face
losing
your
common
law
claim
you.
L
You
will
have
a
tolling
of
that
time
period,
while
the
nevada
rights
commission,
for
example,
works
its
way
through
the
administrative
charge
process
and
then
just
like
when
the
vatica
rights
commission
finishes,
and
they
give
you
a
if
they
give
you
a
notice
of
right
to
sue.
L
You
get
90
days,
and
so
we've
kind
of
factored
in
the
the
what's
traditionally
been
thought
of
three
days
for
mailing
and
that's
how
we
get
93
days
is
because
it
would
be
the
90
day
period
plus
three
days
that
it
takes
for
the
nevada
rights
commission
right
to
let
her
get
to
you
in
the
mail,
and
so
you
would
have
either
your
full
two
years
or
if
the
two
years
gone
by,
you
would
have
that
additional
93
days
so
that
you
could
bring
your
claims
together,
because
very
often
there
are
these
companion
claims,
and
so
that
is
basically
what
section
1.5
of
the
bill
does
section
2
of
the
bill.
L
Is
actually
the
amendment
to
the
catch-all
to
instruct
the
court
basically
not
to
do
this
analogizing
to
other
causes
of
action?
If
it's
not
provided
for
by
the
legislature
in
the
statutes,
then
the
court
should
just
apply
the
the
four-year
catch-all.
That's
what
it's
there
for
there
are
examples.
Sometimes
it's
not
even
consistent
court,
for
example,
an
intentional
interference
with
prospective
economic
advantage.
L
In
one
case
they
said
it
was
four
years
analogizing
it
to
an
unwritten
contract
and
in
another
case
they
analogized
to
fraud
and
said
it's
three
years,
and
so
there's
this
inconsistency,
and
the
idea
is
that
people
ought
to
be
able
to
read
the
statutes
and
figure
out
what
the
time
is
without
the
court.
Second,
guessing
them
later
on
so
section
two
is
an
amendment
to
nrs
11.220,
which
calls
for
the
court
to
not
analogize
to
other
things,
just
apply.
L
A
M
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
senator
orange
orrin
sharal.
It's
good
to
see
you.
The
one
thing
that
I
have
a
question
about
is:
if
there
is
a
companion
workers,
compensation
case,
this
appears
to
be
like
wrongful
termination.
M
K
You
and
through
you,
mr
chair,
to
assemble
them
and
summer's
armstrong,
and
here
I'd
like
to
use
my
lifeline
and
reach
out
to
mr
kemp,
because
he's
got
a
lot
more
expertise
in
this
area.
So
with
your
indulgence,
mr
chair
I'll,
use
the
lifeline.
Thank
you.
L
I
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Through
you
to
the
assembly
woman,
we
did
have
a
an
earlier
proposal
that,
while
workers
compensation
claim
was
working
its
way
through
that
system
that
there
would
be
the
same
tolling
that
didn't
survive
the
amendment
process.
L
But
you
know
usually,
if
someone
has
been
fired
because
of
the
workers,
compensation
claim
that
that
event
has
taken
place
and
they
would
have
two
years
from
that
termination
to
to
bring
the
claim
the
workers
comp
claim
will
not
toll
it.
There
are
some
drawbacks
to
that,
because
sometimes
you
get
down
to
the
end
of
workers,
comp
claim,
and
rather
than
put
somebody
through
vocational
retraining.
L
Sometimes
the
employer
would
want
to
bring
that
person
back,
but
through
the
amendment
process
that
didn't
that
didn't
survive
so
someone
if,
if
they
don't
have
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
charge
or
some
other
type
of
whistleblowing
claim
where
they
had
complained
to
a
government
agency.
L
A
And
no
need
to
go
through
the
chair
unless
you
just
like
to
do
that
and
senator
orrinshaw,
we
used
to
say
phone
a
friend
and
I
think
we're
in
the
zuma
friend
land
now.
So
that's
probably
a
first
in
assembly
judiciary
as
well.
Do
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members,
assemblyman
wheeler,
please
go
ahead!
A
J
K
J
L
For
the
record
jp
account,
but
someone
wheeler
no
currently
as
it
stands
under
the
court
ruling
in
patos
it's
two
years
and
so
at
the
end
of
two
years.
If
the
the
bad
equal
rights
commission
had
not
finished
before
that,
two-year
period
ran
out.
If
they
had
this
companion
tort
claim,
they
would
have
rights.
Commission
had
finished
its
process.
L
It
does
not
add
two
years
to
the
end
of
that
process.
You
would
have
the
original
two
years.
You'd
have
up
to
90
if
the
two
years
had
gone
by
you'd
have
93
days
from
the
issuance
of
the
letter
of
the
notice
of
right
to
sue
letter.
So
that's
how
it
would
work
if
they
had
two
years.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time.
Senator
orrinshaw.
Thank
you,
mr
kemp.
Thank
you
for
presenting
as
well
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
107
in
its
first
reprint.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
the
room
with
us
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
in
support
right?
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
A
A
N
N
What's
interesting
too
about
today,
for
me
and,
as
you
may
know,
is
that
today
unfortunately,
is
the
two
year
anniversary
of
my
friend
assembly,
tyrone,
thompson's
death
and
in
his
honor,
I'm
wearing
a
purple
tie,
and
I
also
have
his
pen.
So
it's
a
little
emotional
for
me
to
be
here
today
as
well.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
can't
believe
I'm
saying
that
under
opposition,
but
I'm
saying
that
here
this
is
my
first
time
at
the
table.
N
So
regardless
we're
here
in
opposition
to
sb
107
today
and
with
me
today,
I
do
have
a
deputy
district
attorney
from
our
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
in
las
vegas
and
via
zoom
who's.
An
expert
in
this
I
am
not,
but
I'm
here
just
to
testify
and
support
we
have
are
in
opposition.
We
have
spoken
with
the
sponsor.
We
have
explained
our
concerns
to
the
sponsor
and
unfortunately,
or
at
least
through
neco,
and
we
have
not
been
able
to
come
in
agreement
on
on
a
fix
for
this.
N
So
that
said,
mr
chair,
with
your
indulgence,
if
I
can
ask
you
to
please,
we
can
go
down
south
via
zoom
to
our
district
attorney
scott
davis.
Thank
you.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members
of
committee,
scott
davis,
on
behalf
of
clark,
county
clark
county,
is
an
opposition
to
this
bill,
not
for
what's
been
discussed
already,
but
for
what
hasn't
been
discussed
and
that's
section
one
of
the
bill
section.
One
of
the
bill
eliminates
existing
statute
of
limitations,
including.
I
B
Existing
two-year
statute
of
limitations
for
torque
it
doubles.
It
would,
in
fact
double
that
from
two
years
now
to
four
years,
and
this
action
will
have
significant
and
negative
impacts
on
federal
1983
claims
brought
against
the
clark
county
as
well
as
cities,
state
officials
throughout
nevada
and.
A
A
B
Sure
so
again,
scott
davis,
on
behalf
of
on
behalf
of
clark,
county
clark,
county's
opposition
to
this
bill
is
based
upon
the
effects
of
section
one
of
this
bill,
which
deletes
removes
a
number
of
existing
statute
of
limitations
most
critically,
the
two-year
statute
of
limitations
for
torque
claims.
B
This,
in
turn
will
have
significant
and
negative
impacts
on
federal
1983
claims
that
are
brought
against
the
county
against
cities
against
the
state
across
the
board,
because
when
you
double
the
state's
statute
of
limitations
for
tort
claims,
the
impact
of
that
will
be
to
double
the
statute
of
limitations
for
federal
1983
claims
from
two
years
to
four
years.
B
By
expanding
the
potential
viability
for
these
federal
claims,
you
should
expect
that
it
will
result
in
increased
workload
to
deal
with
increased
cases,
increased
costs
for
defending
cases
reaching
back
four
years
and
it
will
make
it
more
difficult
to
defend
the
states
or
the
county
on
and
its
employees
on
these
types
of
claims.
So,
by
way
of
an
illustration,
in
my
current
position,
I
often
represent
prosecutors,
who
have
been
sued
for
filing
a
criminal
case
and
having
done
their
job
prosecute
the
defendant.
Often
after
a
case
is
dismissed,
there'll
be
a
section
1983
claim.
B
Dismissal
that
type
of
claim
it's
not
decided
before
the
discovery
stage,
so
you
still
go
through
the
discovery.
Prosecutor
can
be
made
to
answer
questions,
produce
documents
etc.
For
a
case,
that's
now,
or
would
now
be
four
years
in
their
rear
view,
mirror
and
all
of
a
sudden
they're
having
to
dig
that
up
and
answer.
B
Make
it
more
difficult
to
defend
those
types
of
cases,
especially
if
it's
the
case
where
prosecution
has
been
dismissed,
because
the
prosecutor
would
have
to
recall
something
that
happened
four
years.
C
A
Mr
davis,
if
I
could,
if
I
could
interrupt
you
for
if
I
could
interrupt
you
for
just
a
second,
I
think
I
think
your
testimony
may
be
misunderstanding.
What
the
deletion
to
section
one
of
the
bill
does
the
deletion
of
section
one
of
the
bill
and
we'll
go
to
legal
to
clarify,
but
it
doesn't
delete
existing
law.
The
existing
law
continues
to
exist.
A
The
deletion
of
section
one
of
the
bill
simply
removed
the
amendment
that
was
being
proposed
in
the
first
version
of
the
bill
to
add
action
for
wrongful
termination
of
employment
to
the
existing
statutory
language.
But
I
want
to
hand
it
over
to
mr
wilkinson
just
to
confirm
that
for
the
record,
because
I
think
it
might
implicate
the
rest
of
your
testimony
in
terms
of
the
bill.
So
if
we
go
to
mr
wilkinson,
please.
H
By
amendment
from
the
bill,
but
that
means
the
nrs
11.190.
O
A
I
don't
know
if
that,
if
that
helps
with
the
testimony,
but
I
I
don't
think
the
bill
is,
is
making
any
changes
to
the
existing
law
that
you're
speaking
about
with
respect
with
respect
to
1983
actions
and
the
likes.
So
I
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
and-
and
I
guess
just
ask
you
given
that
if
there's,
if
there
are
other
portions
of
the
bill
that
are
still
concerning
for
you
and
for
clark
county,
I
think
that'd
be
appropriate
to
address
those.
A
B
Thank
you
for
that
that
clarification,
I
think.
With
that
clarification,
I
will
submit
my
comments
and
have
nothing
further
to
say.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
davis
appreciate
that,
and
that's
why
we
have
legal
counsel
here
I
know.
Sometimes
it
can
look
like
we're
deleting
sections
of
the
bill,
but
usually
the
deletion
by
amendment
just
indicates
that
no
changes
will
be
made
to
that
section.
So
if
that
language
were
actually
being
deleted,
you
would
see
it
in
the
bill
as
being
deleted,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear
for
the
record.
Anyone
who
might
be
watching
or
might
be
watching
in
the
future.
N
Alex
from
teeth
to
clark
county,
I
do
not,
but
I
will
communicate
with
mr
scott
davis
as
well
about
this,
and
if
we
need
to,
we
will
respond
in
a
written
format
as
well
to
either
change
our
testimony
from
opposition
to
another
position
or
leave
it.
As
is
with
an
explanation
as
to
why.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
ortiz.
Thank
you,
mr
davis,
for
being
here
and
thank
you,
mr
wilkinson,
for
stepping
in
there
do
we
have
any
additional
testimony
in
opposition
here
in
carson
city.
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
I
think
we've
already
gone
to
our
folks
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anyone
else
there
who'd
like
to
testify
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
107.
G
P
D-A-G-N-Y-S-T-A-P-L-E-T-O-N
executive
director
of
naco
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
We
were
prepared
to
testify
in
opposition
today
and
will
defer
to
the
conversation
that
you
just
had
with
clark
county
and
we'll
adjust
our
opinion
accordingly.
Work
with
our
members
and
follow
up
thanks.
So
much.
A
G
Q
G
G
A
Thank
you
bps,
and
I
suspect
that
perhaps
that
caller
had
the
same
misconception
that
our
prior
folks
in
opposition
did
but
would
invite
those
if
you
read
the
bill-
and
you
still
have
concerns
reach
out
to
the
committee
or
to
myself
or
to
the
sponsor
please,
so
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
opposition
testimony
I'll
now
open
it
up
for
neutral
testimony,
we'll
start
here
in
carson
city.
Anyone
in
the
neutral
position-
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward,
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
neutral
bps.
G
To
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
senate
bill,
107
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
again
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
senate
bill,
107,
press
star,
9,
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
and
we
will
go
back
to
our
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
666,
please
press
star,
6
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
state
your
name
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
that
may
begin.
C
My
apology,
that
was
a
mistake
on
my
end,
warren
hardy,
w-a-r-r-e-n
h-a-r-d-y.
I
apologize
for
calling
in
under
neutral.
Mr
chairman,
you're
correct.
I
I
was
asked
by
the
urban
consortium
to
get
on
the
record
with
the
similar
concerns
to
the
county,
so
we
will
go
back
and
revisit
this
in
the
context
of
what
we've
just
learned
and
get
back
to
the
committee.
So
thank
you
for
your
indulgence,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
A
K
K
Some
information
that
I
have
is
that
a
great
majority
of
these
actions
are
settled
at
the
administrative
level,
such
as
the
medical
rights
commission,
and
never
end
up
in
litigation,
and
I
think
that
if
there's
more
time
for
the
administrative
remedies
to
work
their
course,
which
usually
are
not
the
three
four
you
know
five
year
time
period
but
sometimes
are
then
I
think
we
might
see
less
litigation,
and
I
might
allow
mr
kemp
to
jump
in
mr
chair.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you,
chair
jeff.
You
come
for
the
record
and
thanks
to
senator
warren
shaw
for
bringing
the
bill,
and
I
pretty
much
ditto
what
he
has
to
say
and
and
this
will
give
an
opportunity
for
parties
to
try
and
resolve
their
differences
at
the
administrative
level
without
having
to
rush
out
to
the
courthouse
to
meet
a
a
deadline
before
that
process
is
finished,
and
so
I
encourage
the
committee's
support
for
sb
107..
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
too.
So
much
appreciate
you
being
here
and
presenting
the
bill.
Mr
kemp.
We
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day
and
again
it
was
good
to
see
you
in
assembly
judiciary.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
107
that
takes
us
to
our
second
bill
listed
on
the
agenda.
I'm
going
to
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
317
in
its
first
reprint
senate
bill
317
revises
provisions
relating
to
juvenile
justice.
A
K
Thank
you
very
much
chair
james
orenshaw,
state
senate
district
21
and
I'm
very
lucky
to
have
on
zoom
matt
richardson
in
las
vegas
and
to
present
senate
bill
317.
K
chair
members
of
the
committee
senate
bill
317,
in
my
opinion,
is
about
fairness.
Imagine
if
you
or
one
of
your
loved
ones,
your
family
members
were
arrested
and
accused
of
a
crime
and
you
you
know
you
fought
the
charges
and
you
either
won
a
trial
or
they
were
dismissed.
K
And
you
know
the
justice
system
worked
and
you
weren't
guilty
and,
and
you
weren't
convicted,
but
imagine
that
trying
to
you
know
rebuild
the
other
parts
of
your
life
all
fall
apart
and
you
might
be
subject
to
losing
your
apartment,
losing
your
home,
your
credit
being
ruined,
so
that
you
know,
if
you
try
to
get
a
new
apartment
or
try
to
you
know,
buy
a
car
rent,
a
car
everything
you
need
to
do
to
be
able
to
function
and
get
back
on
your
feet.
K
Suddenly
it's
taken
away
from
you
senate
bill
317
tries
to
ensure
that
for
juvenile
justice
officers,
detention
staff,
those
who
work
with
children-
that
if
they
do,
pursue
their
right
to
fight
these
allegations
and
they
succeed
either
they're
dismissed
or
they
win
at
trial
or
there's
no
punitive
action
similar
to
the
current
language
in
nrs,
289
that
they
are
eligible
for
that
back
pay
and
that
hopefully
they
can
land
on
their
feet
and
they
won't
be
facing
destruction
of
so
much
of
the
rest
of
their
lives.
Even
if
the
criminal
charge
they
prevailed
over
that.
O
Thank
you.
My
name
is
matt
richardson.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
chair
and
also
the
committee
on
judiciary,
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
today
on
senate
bill
317..
The
bill
intends
to
clarify
and
guarantee
rights
that
are
given
under
nrs
289.092,
and
these
are
for
officers
that
fall
now
under
nrs
62g.
O
Now
the
officers
they're
quasi
law
enforcement,
social
worker
mentor
caseworkers,
and
they
tirelessly
connect
families
in
need
with
anything
that
they
might
work
for
the
family
to
get
on
the
right
track.
Now
my
peers
and
the
officers
I
work
with
are
outstanding
individuals.
O
O
We
also
may
be
falsely
accused
by
someone
we
may
or
may
not
know,
and
there
could
be
mistaken,
eyewitness,
identification
or
false
or
misleading
forensic
science
and
working
through
our
due
process
and
and
system
juvenile
probation
officers,
juvenile
probation
supervisors
and
employees
of
juvenile
services
should
be
given
the
rights
that
other
officers
have
now.
This
writes
only
upon
the
outcome
of
the
criminal
prosecution
if
the
charges
are
dismissed,
the
employees
found
not
guilty
at
trial
or
the
employee
is
not
subjected
to
punitive
action
and
connects
connection
with
the
alleged
misconduct.
O
Nrs
289.092
gives
this
very
right
to
other
officers.
However,
the
language
is
slightly
different:
nrs
289.092
states.
If
a
law
enforcement
agency
suspends
an
officer
without
pay
pending
the
outcome
of
a
criminal
prosecution,
the
law
enforcement
agency
shall
award
the
officer
back
pay
for
the
duration
of
the
suspension.
O
The
difference
is
the
word
suspends
the
county
and
our
agency
director
do
not
find
the
word
suspends
as
carried
over
to
our
department
of
juvenile
justice
services.
Therefore,
we
would
like
to
codify
in
law
that
the
employee
of
juvenile
justice
services
is
given
a
right
under
the
strict
guidelines
of
nrs62g
already
afforded
to
others
under
nrs
289.092.
O
Now
this
is
not
a
scenario
that
falls
into
the
solution.
Looking
for
a
problem,
this
has
already
happened
to
a
djs
employee,
an
employee
who
worked
for
the
department
was
charged
with
a
crime
after
the
resolution
of
his
case,
in
which
he
was
cleared
of
any
charges,
djjs
waited
several
months
before
bringing
the
employee
back
to
work.
He
was
out
over
seven
months
of
work
without
pay.
O
We
also
agree
that
officers
should
be
held
accountable
if
they're
found
guilty
you're
likely
to
hear
my
director
profess
that
he
wants
officers
held
account
accountable
again
we're
talking
about
officers
who
charges
are
dismissed,
found
not
guilty
or
the
employee
is
not
subjected
to
punitive
action
again.
This
is
a
bill
that
is
already
given
to
officers
under
nrs
289.092.
A
I
Thank
you
so
much
chair.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
orangeville
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
I
think
you
touched
on
one
employee
experiencing
this,
but
I
was
just
curious.
Maybe
how
often
this
was
happening.
O
To
the
matt
richardson
to
the
chair
to
senator
gonzalez,
you
know
I'm
not
aware
of
all
the
personnel
actions,
because
discipline
is
a
matter
of
confidential.
I
do
know
of
the
one.
This
is
a
bill
that
has
not
62g
has
not
been
around
for
a
long
time.
I
believe
this
came
about
in
either
2013
or
2015
when
62g
was
enacted,
but
I
do
know
of
the
one
case
in
which
an
officer
was
out
or
an
employee
was
out
over
seven
months.
K
And
sheriff
I
might
james
orange
all
state
senate
district
21,
certainly
while,
while
the
juvenile
probation
officers,
juvenile
detention
staff,
are
much
like,
we
think
of
law
enforcement
officers.
What
I
have
observed
you
know,
working
as
a
juvenile
public
defender,
is
that
very
many.
K
Many
of
these
people
really
are
also
acting
as
social
workers
and
mentors
and
do
try
to
help
be
there
for
kids
in
very,
very
scary
situations.
I
certainly
want
to
compliment
clark
county
and
mr
martin,
mr
wellahan,
because
I
think
that,
even
though
so
many
act
as
as
officers,
they
also
are
there
helping
kids
get
birth
certificates,
helping
them
try
to
get
into
a
credit
recovery
for
high
school
program
trying
to
get
into
drug
treatment
programs.
So
they
do.
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
follow-up
chair.
Thank
you.
Assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
their
record.
In
your
experience.
When
folks
have
these
allegations,
is
it
dealing
with
children
that
they
work
with?
Is
it
like
outside
stuff.
O
Yes,
matt
richardson
to
the
chair
to
senator
our
assemblyman
gonzalez.
It's
a
combination
of
both
62g.
They
could
be
charged
either
in-house
or
on
personal
conduct.
62G
doesn't
differentiate
where
the
charges
would
originate
at.
I
K
Mr
terrify
might
jump
in
james
orange
I'll,
send
it
21..
While
I
don't
have
that
data
in
front
of
me,
I
think
that's
something
we
certainly
could
try
to
get,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
put
on
the
record
that
senate
bill
317,
while
it
talks
about
trying
to
make
the
officer
whole
after
the
charges
have
either
been
dismissed
or
they've
been
acquitted
at
trial
or
the
lack
of
any
punitive
action
that
there's
nothing
in
this
bill.
K
In
my
opinion,
that
would
would
prevent
suspension
of
the
officer
until
the
charges
are
dealt
with.
In
fact,
I
think
it
brings
more
clarity,
because
in
section
one
we
do
also
clarify
that
the
180-day
period
to
resolve
the
charges
it
begins
after
arrest,
which,
prior
to
that
the
statute
did
not
have
that.
So
I
do
think
that
adds
extra
clarity
to
the
statute,
but
again,
there's
nothing
here.
That
would
prevent,
in
my
opinion,
suspension
of
the
officer
pending
resolution
of
those
charges.
D
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
I
have
a
question
about
in
both
sections
the
sub
6
and
6a,
stating
that
the
charges
against
the
employee
are
dismissed.
My
concern
is,
is
what
happens
if
it's
a
case
where
there's
state
adjudication
and
then
dismissal?
D
In
those
cases,
people
are
basically
admitting
that
they've
that
this
is
has
happened,
but
yet
we're
treating
them
as
if
they've
gone
to
court
and
had
an
actual
trial
and
the
case,
the
charges
have
been
dismissed
or
the
charges
were
dismissed
because
the
d.a
decided
they
didn't
have
the
wherewithal
to
to
prosecute
that
type
of
thing.
K
This
language
parallels
the
language
at
nrs
289.00
and
while
I
certainly
do
not
interpret
that
language
dismissed
as
taking
some
kind
of
a
plea
offer
or
something
that
would
lead
to
a
dismissal
pending
some
kind
of
plea
negotiation.
I
don't
know
if
the
courts
have
ruled
on
that.
Yet,
but
that's
certainly
not
how
I
I
read
it
not
my
intent
and
if
mr
richards,
if
you'd
like
to
jump
in
to
clarify,
please
feel
free.
O
Thank
you,
mr
orange.
This
is
matt
richardson
to
the
chair
to
the
assembly,
one
yeah,
the
language
parallels,
six,
nrs,
289.092
and,
and
we're
only
talking
about
charges
that
fall
under
the
62g.
O
When
you
look
up
62g,
you
will
see
that
there
is
just
a
certain
set
of
charges
that
an
employee
is
placed
on
leave
without
pay
and
it's
those
charges
where
they
are
removed
from
work
until
the
resolution
of
the
court,
the
court
case,
and
then
in
this
circumstance
you
know
the
charges
have
to
be
dismissed,
found
not
guilty
or
not
subjected
to
punitive
action
to
be
brought
back.
O
So
if
they
did,
let's
say,
flee
to
a
lesser
charge,
but
that
charge
still
falls
under
62
g,
then
they
would
be
dismissed.
You
know
they
would
be
terminated
from
their
employment.
You
know,
so
this
really
only
deals.
If
you
know
you're,
you
are.
The
charges
are
dismissed,
not
guilty
or
not
subjected
to
punitive
action.
So
just
because
you
plead
to
a
lesser
charge
does
not
mean
that
you
would
fall
under
this.
This,
our
senate
bill,
317.
K
D
Thank
you
for
that.
That
was
going
to
be
my
next
question
because
I
did
pull
up
62g,
but
hadn't
found
that
yet,
okay,
so
we're
talking
about
murder,
manslaughter
felony,
with
involving
the
use
of
force,
assault
with
intent
to
kill
or
commit
sexual
assault
or
mayhem
battery
with
substantial
bodily
harm
battery
domestic
violence
that
is
punishable
as
a
felony.
D
And
then
a
few
others,
okay,
I
guess
I
will
just
look
through
those.
Well
I
mean,
I
guess
I
do
I
do
see
you
could
go
to
drug
court
just
to
be
clear.
You
know
also
abuse
and
neglect
of
a
child,
including
without
limitations,
a
violation
of
any
provision
of
nrs,
200,
508
or
200
2083,
or
contributory
delinquency,
and
then
distribution.
D
K
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
cohen
again,
my
the
way
I
interpretation
interpret
the
existing
two
nrs28
nrs289.092.
Is
that
a
plea
offer,
I
don't
believe,
is
having
the
charges
dismissed
and
some
state
adjudication.
I
know
that's
a
fairly
new
statute,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
been
any
court
rulings
on
that.
That's
certainly
not
how
I
read
it
and
if
I'm
incorrect
I
am,
I
could
reach
out
to
a
lifeline
to
our
either
legal
or
try
to
get
some
more
information
at
a
future
date.
For
you.
D
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
quick
question.
I
guess
some
clarity
for
for
myself.
In
the
example,
mr
richardson,
that
you
used
of
the
officer
who
or
the
employee
who
was
off
for
seven
months,
was
he
off
for
seven
months
because
of
the
entire?
D
O
O
For
the
record
here
to
to
the
assemblyman
the
the
particular
case
that
we're
talking
about
his
case
actually
resolved
in
just
within
a
few
months
and
the
department
elected
to
bring
him
back
several
months
after
the
case
was
concluded.
O
D
O
Matt
richardson
for
the
record
to
the
chair
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblyman.
I
believe
that
the
way
that
the
bill
is
written
is
it's
for
the
time
that
he's
placed
on
unpaid
leave,
leave
without
pay
and
so
that
it
would.
It
would
cover
the
entire
time-
and
it's
just
important
to
note
we
we
did
or
were
successful,
to
work
with
the
department
to
allow
an
employee
to
use
their
vacation,
sick
or
compensatory
time
in
lieu
of
being
placed
in
the
leave
without
pay.
O
So
you
know
just
just
so
just
to
say
that
the
employee
wouldn't
be
completely
without
funds
for
that
time,
but
it's
going
to
be
used
rather
quickly.
You
know,
seven
months
is
a
long
time
to
go.
Without
you
know
any
money
and
seven
months
worth
of
vacation
or
any
other
time
stored
up
is
that's
quite
an
amount
of
time.
So
we're
really
just
talking
about
the
time
that
an
employee
would
be
without
pay.
D
One
less
thank
you
and
then
so
I
guess
I.
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
why,
after
they
are
eligible
to
return
back
to
work,
would
we
I
guess,
would
they
remain
on
leave
without
pay
for
several
additional
months?
That
you
know
would
then
need
to
be
compensated
as
well.
O
Again,
matt
richardson
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblyman.
You
know,
I
don't
know
why
the
department
wouldn't
bring
him
back
as
soon
as
he's
eligible
to
be
brought
back.
You
know
that's
that's
kind
of
a
department
decision
why
they
would
leave
somebody
in
limbo,
like
that
I
mean
I
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
if,
if
they
choose
to
leave
them
in
that
leave
without
pay
status,
I
mean
they
should
be
compensated
since
they
were
put
in
leave
without
pay
for
charges
that
they
are
now
found
not
guilty
or
been
dismissed.
H
K
Thank
you
chair
james
orange,
also
21,
assemblyman,
o'neill.
That's
a
question.
I
believe
clark
county
will
be
testifying
in
opposition
and
I
think
that
they
could
probably
be
better
suited
to
answer
that.
I
know
that
the
provisions
of
nrs
289.092,
which
mirror
the
provisions
here
in
senate
bill
317,
apply
to
law
enforcement
officers.
Those
were
enacted
in
2019,
so
those
apply
statewide
to
all
loan
law
enforcement
officers
as
to
how
clark
county
or
any
other
county
you
know
would
treat
other
employees
who
are
not
law
enforcement
officers.
K
K
And
well,
what
I
said
james
original
center
21
is
that
these
juvenile
probation
officers,
juvenile
detention
officers
that
they
do
sometimes
act
like
social
workers
like
mentors
to
kids.
So
in
my
opinion,
they
have
kind
of
a
quasi-social
worker
role.
But
in
most
cases
I
would
say
that
they're
very
what
we'd
call
law
enforcement
officers,
because
they're
working
in
a
detention
center
or
supervising
children
on
juvenile
probation.
H
O
Matt
richardson
for
the
record
to
the
chair
to
the
assemblyman.
We
are
category
two
peace
officer,
sir.
H
H
K
Well,
I
can't
speak
for
the
agency,
but
senate
bill.
317
would
certainly
try
to
protect
employees,
who
you
know,
pursue
their
their
right
to
being
innocent
until
proven
guilty
and
follow
the
route
of
the
criminal
justice
system
and
either
have
the
charges
dismissed
or
acquitted
a
trial
or
there's
been
no
punitive
action.
They've
exercised
their
right
and
the
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
try
to
protect
them
and
make
them
whole
because
they
have
not
been
found
guilty
by
the
criminal
justice
system.
H
K
A
You're
welcome
assemblyman
o'neal
and
we
do
have
folks
from
the
agency
who
will
be
speaking
in
opposition
they're
with
us
on
the
zoom.
So
I
think
they'll
be
able
to
answer
a
lot
of
those
questions,
so
I
know
you're
listening,
but
if
you
could
be
cataloging
those
questions
and
be
prepared
to
answer
those,
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
M
Thank
you
chair.
I'm
going
to
yield
to
the
next
assembly
person
with
questions,
I'm
very
interested
to
hear
comments
from
clark
county
and
I
may
have
a
question
or
two
then
thank
you.
A
D
Could
you
just
just
for
a
point
of
reference
like
over
the
last
10
years?
Has
there
been
one
person
that
was
reinstated
and
the
others
you
know
they
they
lost
in
their
in
their?
You
know,
lawsuit
against
the
juvenile
justice
service
or
they
were
charged.
How?
How
often
does
it
happen
that
somebody
is
charged
and
then
found
innocent
is?
Is
this
a
big
problem.
K
And
james
orange
hall
said
it
21.
I
believe
it's
a
big
enough
problem
that
this
legislation
is
important
to
try
to
make
sure
that
the
same
protections
in
nrs
289
that
other
law
enforcement
officers
have
to
try
to
be
made
whole
if
they
have
denied
the
allegations
against
them.
The
criminal
allegations
and
if
they've,
either
been
dismissed,
been
acquitted
at
trial
or
there's
been
no
punitive
action.
K
If
we
clarify
that
those
also
apply
to
these
juvenile
justice
officers
as
to
the
numbers
as
to
how
many
officers
may
have
had
arrests
or
been
charged
or
for
what
I'd
like
to
defer
to
mr
richardson
and
if
he
doesn't
have
that,
then
perhaps
the
the
county
testifying
opposition
may
have
that
but
chair.
If
I
could
defer
to
mr
richardson
on
that.
O
This
matt
richardson
to
the
chair
to
the
assemblywoman
now
to
be
exact.
I
can't
give
you
exact
numbers.
I
only
know
certain
cases
and
off
the
top
of
my
head.
O
O
We've
had
employees
that
have
been
charged
and
just
leave
the
agency,
because
the
way
that
the
law
62
is
written
and
it's,
I
think
it's
very
important
to
note
that
this
62g
hasn't
been
around
for
that
long,
that
actually
details
that
these
employees
will
be
treated
a
certain
way
that
fall
under
these
being
after
being
charged
with
these
crimes
be
treated
a
certain
way.
So
this
these
laws
haven't
been
around
very
long
and
we're
just
now
starting
to
get
some
of
the
ramifications
of
the
law.
O
That's
why
we
brought
this
forward
and
so
that
these
officers
will
fall
or
be
care.
The
laws
clarified
and
guaranteed
for
other
rights
that
are
under
nrs
289.092.
O
So
and
so
just
to
summarize,
yes,
there
has
been
cases
and
again
we're
just
looking
for
the
same
rights
guaranteed
under
nrs289
for
officers
that
fall
under
the
provisions
of
62g.
K
And
mr
chair,
if
I
might
jump
in,
I
think
I
could
clarify
a
little
bit
for
some
of
them
in
kasama
and
also
for
assemblyman
o'neill
james
orange
I'll,
send
it
21.
if,
let's
say
even
if
this
were
to
pass
and
if
an
officer
is
convicted
of
one
of
those
enumerated
crimes
under
62.
G.223
62g
.225
specifically
lists
the
process
by
which
an
agency
could
terminate
that
officer's
employment,
because
they'd
be
prohibited
from
being
employed
in
that
juvenile
justice
organization.
If
there
is
a
conviction
for
one
of
those
enumerated
offenses.
I
Thank
you,
chair
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
I
just
had
a
clarifying
question
so
in
the
amendment
I
noticed
that
in
section
I
think
it's
five
section,
two
subsection
five
section
b,
the
the
sentence
about.
If
the
employee
is
placed
on
leave
without
pay,
the
employee
may
elect
to
use
sick
leave.
So
I
think
earlier
you
stated
that
employees
do
use
that,
and
I
noticed
that
it
was
deleted
in
this
amendment.
So
I'm
just
wanting
to
clarify.
I
So
when
an
employee
is
on
leave
without
pay,
are
they
able
now
to
elect
their?
You
know,
sick,
leave,
annual
vacation
compensation
time.
O
Matt
richardson
through
the
chair
to
the
assembly
woman.
Yes
right
now,
the
department
does
let
an
employee
use
their
leave
instead
of
going
on
the
leave
without
pay.
H
K
Thank
you
chair
james
orange,
all
state
senate
district
21.,
the
current
language
at
62
g,
I
believe,
places
the
the
the
employee
on
leave
without
pay,
and
so
the
issue
here,
if
this
passed
was
that
if
they,
you
know
pled
not
guilty
denied
the
allegations
and
if
they
they
won,
they
were
quidditch
trial
or
the
district.
The
prosecutor
district
attorney
city
attorney
decided
to
dismiss
the
charges
where
there
was
no
punitive
action
from
the
agency.
K
They
would
have
a
right
to
that
back
pay
and
the
bill
does
clarify
that
there
they
would
have
180
days
after
the
arrest
to
resolve
this.
Prior
to
that.
That
was
not
listed
in
the
statute,
so
I
do
believe
that
that
is
one
additional
positive
thing.
This
bill
does
in
clarifying
that
that's
the
time
period.
They
have
to
get
this
resolved.
K
I
don't
believe
so
online
if
I'm
incorrect.
Mr
richardson,
please
if
I
could
use
that
zoom
lifeline
chair,
please
correct
me.
If
I
miss
speaking.
O
Yes,
the
matt
richardson
for
the
record
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblyman.
It's
really
up
to
the
department,
usually
upon
an
arrest
the
department
will
place
then
we'll
leave
without
pay
I'll.
Let
the
department
speak
on
that
behalf,
but
that's
the
normal
practice
that
we've
experienced.
H
A
Okay,
do
we
have
additional
questions
from
the
committee?
I
don't
see
additional
questions.
Thank
you
senator
orrinshaw
and
mr
richardson.
There
were
a
number
of
questions.
We
appreciate
you
presenting
the
bill
on
answering
those
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
wrap
up
after
we
take
some
additional
testimony
on
the
bill
at
this
time.
I'm
going
to
open
hearing
for
testimony
and
support
on
senate
bill
317
and
its
first
reprint.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
carson
city
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support,
miss
brown,
welcome
and
please
go
ahead.
Q
Good
morning,
mr
chair
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
we
would
support
this
bill.
I
see
different
areas
and
I'm
thinking
outside
the
box
because
of
personal
experiences
and
why,
as
a
child
and
how
a
false
accusation
could
come
about,
especially
with
dealing
with
children.
I
just
kind
of
want
to
put
this
in
the
back
of
your
mind,
because
it's
in
my
mind,
although
it
may
or
may
not
have
anything
to
do
with
the
ex
bill.
Q
But
in
part
when
I
was
a
young
child,
there
was
a
a
friend,
a
friend
who
made
in
false
allegations
against
a
father's
a
friend's
father.
Q
He
wound
up
going
to
jail
and
later
on,
she
admitted
that
she
had
lied
about
it
because
her
parents
were
going
through
a
divorce
and
it
was
a
way
to
get
the
attention
and
I'm
not
saying
that
this
is
going
to
happen
and
does
happen.
But
I
can
see
other
areas
and
where
children
we'll
manipulate
the
system,
we'll
make
up
things
and
people
will
get
falsely
accused
and
should
that
happen
and
a
person
get
arrested
and
they
the
charges
are
dismissed.
Q
They
should
be
given
the
opportunity
to
get
their
job
back
all
money
back,
including
any
sick
leave
any
vacation
pay.
They
may
have
lost
on
top
of
it,
so
yeah.
We
would
support
this.
It
should
be
treated
equally
as
the
officers
if
they
are,
if
they're
are
found
not
guilty
of
their
charges.
They
get
paid
should
apply
to
the
juvenile
justice
system,
those
children
working
with
the
staff
members
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
A
G
C
Good
morning
my
name
is
darren.
Damaya
first
name
is
d-a-r-r-e-n
last
name
d-I-m-a-y-a.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
chair
and
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
senate
bill
317
I'd
like
to
express
my
support
for
senate
bill
317
on
behalf
of
the
juvenile
justice
supervisors
association.
Thank
you.
G
C
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
rick
mccann,
r-I-c-k-m-c
capital
c-a-n-n
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers
and
a
member
of
the
nevada
law
enforcement
coalition.
We
are
here
today
in
support
of
sb
317,
as
can
be
seen
in
the
amendment.
This
bill
has
been
reduced
to
accommodate
the
stakeholders
and
what
is
left
is
simply
a
part
of
the
bill
that
creates,
as
senator
orange
all
stated,
fairness
for
our
juvenile
justice
officers
and
supervisors.
C
As
mr
richardson
stated,
nrs
289.092,
which
is
part
of
the
police
officer
bill
of
rights,
applies
the
same
protection
for
peace
officers
who
are
quote
suspended
without
pay
and
a
quote
pending
the
outcome
of
a
criminal
case.
This
bill
317
applies
the
same
protection
for
juvenile
justice.
Folks
who
are
placed
quote
on
leave
without
pay
under
quote
now,
make
no
mistake:
they're
the
same
thing
just
spend
it
without
pay,
leave
without
pay
same
thing.
The
department
of
juvenile
justice
services
simply
calls
it
something
different.
C
A
N
This
must
be
clark
county
day
because,
in
addition
to
senator
lauren
shaw
most
of
the
presenters
on
zoom
and
myself,
we
are
all
well,
I
guess,
I'm
a
former
clark
county,
employee
but
clark
county
employees
to
some
extent
again,
as
I
stated,
we
do
oppose
sb
317
has
written
and
is
amended
as
well.
I
do
want
to
thank
also
senator
orrinshaw
for
spending
some
time
with
us
and
trying
to
address
some
of
our
concerns.
N
However,
they
were
not
all
mitigated.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
agree
upon
is
to
strike
the
word
arrangement
or
arrangement,
I'm
sorry
arraignment
in
the
bill
and
clarify
that.
Essentially,
as
I
say,
the
clerk
starts
after
a
rest,
so
that
180
days
it's
not
just
something
that
just
lives
out
there
without
a
quote
start
date
per
se
or
the
start
date
would
be
really
delayed
in
time.
N
I
do
want
to
state
also
that
nrs62g
was
amended
first,
at
least
for
this
section
of
it
back
in
2013
under
assembly
bill
211,
and
then
it
was
amended
again
in
2017
under
assembly
bill
411,
and
so
since
that
time.
That
is
what
we
have
been
living
under
now.
There's
this
current
amendment
that,
as
I
stated
we
do
oppose
in
its
current
amended
form
with
me
today
to
talk
in
more
detail
because
I'm
not
an
expert
in
this
area
either
and
via
zoom
from
las
vegas.
N
I
do
have
our
clark
county
department
of
juvenile
justice
services,
director,
chuck
martin
and
our
assistant
director
mike
willihan,
and
I
think
that
they
will
be
able
to
answer
all
of
your
questions
that
you've
posed
and
any
additional
questions
that
you
may
have.
As
you
hear
them
speak,
and
so
I
have
been
communicating
with
them
to
ensure
that,
hopefully
they
can
answer
those
questions
with
that
chair
yeager,
if
at
all
possible,
we
can
go
through
zoom
to
las
vegas.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
R
You
can't
hear
me:
okay,
thank
you,
chairman
assembly,
judiciary
members.
My
name
is
jack
martin
and
I
currently
serve
as
director
of
the
clark
county
department
of
duty
services,
just
as
a
little
back
story
here
a
couple
of
sessions
ago.
The
legislature
recognized
that,
in
order
to
protect
children
and
in
the
care
and
custody
of
not
only
the
department
of
juvenile
justice
services,
but
the
department
of
family
services,
our
local
child
welfare
agency,
that
employees
regularly
working
with
children
needed
to
be
held
to
a
higher
standard
of
time.
R
So
these
aren't
jaywalking
charges
prior
to
that
legislation.
When
we,
when
we
initially
stepped
onto
this
field
here
within
our
own
department,
we
had.
We
had
employee
staff
members
that
had
sexual
assault
charges
currently
on
their
on
their
roles.
We
had
domestic
violence
charges.
Other
charges
that
were
listed
in
nrs60
tv,
sp
217
continues
the
existing
statutory
language
prohibiting
the
employees
from
working
with,
ultimately
not
convicted
of
a
charge
that
resulted
in
their
leave
of
absence
that
the
county
would
be
liable
for
all
backspace.
R
While
that
employee
was
all
part
clark,
county
has
no
control
over
a
staff
being
arrested
for
a
crime.
I
I'm
not
there
when
they're
arrested
for
a
crime
when
a
domestic
violence
or
murder
is
occurring,
the
department
or
the
county
is
there
to
be
a
party
of
that.
We
have
no
control
over
when
the
district
attorney
may
file
against
the
employee,
because
the
county
doesn't
start
or
control
the
filing
date
to
start
the
court
process
does
not
control
the
setting
of
future
court
dates.
R
Postponements
plea
deals,
counseling
order,
dismissals
or
reduction
to
a
crime
not
covered
by
the
statute.
The
county
has
no
control
over
whether
a
victim
will
even
show
up
at
a
hearing
simply
put
victims.
Often
times
of
domestic
violence,
don't
show
up,
don't
show
up
to
testify,
and
I
keep
hearing
this
guilt
or
innocence.
Well,
because
a
a
victim
of
domestic
violence
doesn't
come
and
testify
again,
which
is
obvious,
which
is.
Sadly
a
pattern
are
often
taken
with
domestic
violence.
R
Cases
doesn't
advocate
that
that
aggressor
or
that
domestic
violence,
person
person
who's
committing
domestic
violence
doesn't
advocate
them
from
any
guilt.
Just
because
there's
innocence
or
you
know,
charges
drop,
there's
other
issues
that
come
here
and
I'm
bothered
that
we're
that
we
continue
to
have
that
conversation.
R
It
is
because
the
county
doesn't
control
any
aspect
of
this
other
than
protecting
the
children
in
my
custody.
That's
the
only
aspect
that
I
control
over
this
outside
of
outside
of
the
the
criminal
field.
I'm,
I
guess
I
guess
I'm
I
guess
I'm
I
guess
I'm
a
little
disturbed.
Those
charges
are
pretty
serious.
R
We've
negotiated
with
staff
to
to
use
their
agreed
time.
The
bill
would
allow
we've
allowed
on
numerous
occasions
for
staff
to
go
past
180
days.
You
know
as
a
as
a
courtesy
to
our
staff,
the
case
that
keeps
getting
referred
to
here
that
I
keep
hearing
over
and
over
again.
R
We
had
no
control
over
this
game
and
I
would
if
we're
referring
to
a
different
case,
I'd
love
for
mr
richardson
to
come
here
and
have
a
conversation
with
us,
because
I'm
not
aware
of
any
case
where
we
didn't
return,
somebody
to
work
immediately
when
we
were
where
we
were
where
we
were
required
to
so
peace
officers
and
dji
guests.
Employees
should
be
helpful
at
higher
standards
due
to
their
ability
to
remove
the
freedoms
of
liberties
of
you.
R
We
are
peace
officers,
so
these
same
charges
that
I
just
listed
off
right
here.
If
we
were
to
remove
the
liberty
from
my
child,
would
they
be
given
the
same?
The
the
same,
the
the
same
protections
under
a
law
that
we're
talking
about
here
for
peace
officers.
R
You
know
and
just
as
a
this
is
a
side
note,
I'm
I
am
responsible
as
much
or
I
I
fall
under
this
law
too.
So
I'm
not
creating
a
law
that
I'm
not
willing
to
live
by
or
professing
against
the
law
that
I'm
not
happily
and
willing
to
live
up.
Never
had
a
domestic
violence
charge,
never
murdered.
Anybody,
never
involuntarily
murdered
anybody,
but
I
I
have
a
hard
time
understanding
whether.
R
The
gig
is,
but
I
don't
know
as
of
as
of
right
now,
sp
317
as
it
would
be
written
because
the
employee
has
no
incentive
to
resolve
it.
On
numerous
occasions
we've
had
you
know,
officers
kick
cases,
the
opposed
phone
cases
call
the
phone
cases.
R
So
at
some
point
so
now
our
taxpayers
are
now
responsible
for
a
legal
proceeding
which
is
not
in
the
behavior,
which
is
not
in
the
control
of
the
department,
but
in
all
the
legal,
all
of
the
legal
ramifications,
all
of
the
legal
departments
that
are
operating
through
that
now
the
department
is
in
the
county
to
be
held
responsible
for
that
and
paying
back
that.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
for
your
ability
and
satisfied.
Mr
willahan
deals
with
this
on
a
daily
basis.
R
This
is
his
world,
so
if
anybody's
got
any
specific
questions,
I
heard
some
questions
about.
The
this
only
covered
dj
has
no.
They
cover
the
department
of
human
justice
services
and
department
family
services.
It
handles
child
work,
child
working
organizations
within
within
clark
county.
If
there's
any
other
questions,
please
I'd
be
more
than
what
I
wanted
to
answer.
That
myself
and
mr
wheeler
here
at
your
disposal,
thank
you
chairman.
A
M
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
for
acknowledging
me
again
and
thank
you,
mr
martin,
for
your
testimony.
Impassioned
as
it
was.
I
just
want
to
clarify
something
because
the
the
language
is
very
broad
and
it
I
I
think
I
could
I'm
starting
with
a
statement.
I
could
kind
of
get
it
if
we
were
speaking
of
behavior
or
accusations
that
were
bridged
against
someone
lodged
against
someone,
I
should
say
as
part
of
their
job,
but
but
this
is
so
broad.
M
This
could
be
something
outside
of
the
work
life
that
could
happen
and,
and
we
would
still
be
offering
these
benefits.
So
my
question
is
just
confirm.
What
I
think
I
heard
is
that
if
a
person
has
an
accusation-
and
they
are
on
leave
without
pay
or
suspension
without
pay,
their
job
is
protected
until
the
conclusion
of
the
matter
and
if
they
are
found
not
guilty,
they
can
come
back
to
work
and
begin
where
they
left
off
earned
their
purse
their
benefits.
Everything
am
I
hearing
you
correctly.
S
S
The
employee
receives
a
form
that
allows
them
whether
or
not
they
want
to
elect
to
use
their
time,
so
they
determine
whether
they
want
to
use
their
time
or
not.
So
they
don't
use
the
time.
That's
their
choice
so,
and
I
want
to
kind
of
go
back
to
what
director
martin
was
saying.
Oftentimes
cases
are
dismissed,
they're
fled
down,
duis
often
are
dismissed
or
reduced
to
reckless
driving.
They
pay
fines.
So
innocence
is
not
the
truth
and
the
aspect
of
did
the
incident
occur.
It
did
so
we're
not
talking
about
innocence.
S
So
if
the
case
is
dismissed
and
that
the
charge
is
no
longer
covered
under
one
of
these
under
the
62g,
then
we
would
return
them
to
work
immediately.
They
have
to
provide
crew
from
either
the
the
judge
or
the
minutes
from
the
court
record
to
show
that
whether
they're
telling
me
is
accurate
and
then
they
will
be
returned
to
work
that
next
day
or.
M
M
Okay,
okay,
you
just
opened
up
a
whole
can
of
worms
right
there,
so
you
said
that
they
can
choose
to
use
their
time.
That
was
the
first
thing
you
said,
and
that
is
if
they
have
accumulated
vacation
or
sick
time
or
comp
time,
they
can
use
that
to
be
paid
during
the
interim,
while
their
case
is
being
resolved.
S
M
S
Michael
had
for
the
record,
the
law,
a
third
state,
a
minimum
of
about
180
days
across
the
holder
position,
the
department
has
not
started
the
foxhole
fee
on
people
if
the
charges
haven't
been
filed.
So
we've
been
fair,
especially
with
some
of
the
dui
cases,
when
the
labs
take
a
long
time
to
get
the
toxicology
report
back.
So
some
of
these
people
that
have
stayed
over
the
six
months,
we
we
make
sure
that
they
don't
ask
for
postponements
and
push
the
clock
back.
If
they
do,
then
we'll
start
the
clock.
S
But
if
the
clock
we
used
to
give
an
opportunity
to
go
to
court
first.
M
Thank
you
chair,
one,
more
follow-up,
please.
So
I
think
that
assemblywoman
cohen
alluded
to
this
earlier,
and
that
is
yours.
You
spoke
specifically
about
a
dui
charge
and
that
it's
not
necessarily
the
person
is
found
innocent
but
that
their
charge
could
be
played
down.
They
could
be
sent
it.
Can
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
they're
innocent?
S
J
You,
mr
chairman,
mr
martin,
I'm
trying
to
wrap
two
things
together
here:
there's
there's
criminal
liability
and
then
there's
out
of
policy
for
the
for
the
department,
and
so
if
someone
were
to
create
an
infraction
that
was
out
of
the
department's
policy
and
also
be
charged
criminally
and
by
this
bill.
J
If
you
do
your
investigation,
for
instance,
and
you
find
that
the
infraction
was
completely
out
of
policy
and
a
firing
offense
or
a
suspension,
offense
some
kind
of
disciplinary
offense,
but
the
court
finds
that
the
same
infraction
did
not
rise
to
the
level
or
there
was
not
enough
evidence,
etc
and
dismisses
the
case.
J
S
Michael
wheelham,
for
the
record,
with
this
new
current
law
that
we
would
have
to
pay
them,
we
do
have
the
option
of
doing
an
investigation,
but
our
process,
currently
is
we've
been
in
compliance
with
the
law
given
180
days
and
waited
for
some
quote
results.
But
we
do
have
a
case
pending
that
we're
14
months
into
we're,
not
expecting
an
answer
from
the
arbitrator
for
two
months
where
the
charge
was
dismissed,
that
the
conduct
was
so
egregious
off
duty
that
we
terminated
the
employee.
S
D
Thank
you,
sherry
yeager!
Thank
you,
mr
martin,
so
I
I
you
kind
of
were
breaking
up
during
your
testimony,
so
I
just
I'm
just
trying
to
clarify
if,
if
this
is
what
you
said
under
62
g
.223,
if
somebody
is
charged
with
say
sexual
assault
or
battery,
that
constitutes
domestic
violence
that
is
punishable
as
a
felony
and
the
person
that
was
the
the
victim
they
were
raped,
or
they
were
the
victim
of
domestic
violence.
D
S
Michael
we'll
have
for
the
record
that
that
that
is
correct.
So
we've
got
a
current
case
that
constitutes
domestic
violence
that
has
a
kicking
down
on
the
door,
involvement
with
a
knife
choking
with
a
ten-year-old
and
eight-year-old
on
9-1-1
screaming
for
the
police,
on
the
call
that
the
charge
was
dismissed
because
the
victim
would
not
testify,
which
is
common
case.
We're
talking,
35
of
domestic
violences
are
reduced
or
people
don't
show
up
often
times
with
the
we've
had
nine
duis.
S
None
of
them
have
gone
to
trial,
they've
all
been
reduced,
so
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
dui
didn't
occur.
We
had
a
gentleman
that
left
the
party
smashed
his
car
into
another
car
had
to
get
job
for
life
out,
he
was
drunk
the
charge
was
dismissed.
He
was
returned
to
work
so
the
law
when
you're
talking
dismissal
versus
innocence
or
guilt.
S
We
feel
differently.
Someone
asked
earlier.
There
was
13
cases
since
2014.,
nine
of
them
were
dui.
One
was
for
murder
and
career
domestic
violence.
D
Assemblywoman
kasama
district
2..
I
have
a
question
so
we're
referring
to
that.
This
is
the
same
language
as
nrs,
289
289.092
for
other
law
enforcement,
and
so
my
my
question
is
in
that
section.
D
If,
if
the
crime
that
they're
charged
with
is,
is
it
the
same
for
the
other
departments
where
it
would
include
off-duty
charges,
or
is
it
only
for
the
other
department's
charges
that
happen
while
they're
on
duty?
Because
it
seems
to
me
that
if,
if
this
only
applied
to
while
you
were
on
duty,
then
it's
it's
in
the
course
of
your
line
of
work
and
if
the
charges
appear
there,
then
it
would
make
sense
for
back
pay.
D
R
Chad,
martin
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Through
you,
chairman
yeager,
I
can
speak
to
other
law
enforcement
departments
that
come
to
speak
for
our
department
and
our
department.
This
has
to
do
all
with
all
on
and
off
duty
behaviors
by
all
of
our
staff
and
also
dfs
staff,
child
serving
agents.
D
H
S
Michael
wheelham,
for
the
record,
we
have
approximately
430
staff.
230
are
sworn
peace
officers,
so
we
have
approximately
200
that
aren't
sworn
peace
officers.
289
were
not
applied
to
at
rise.
289.
Those
the
62
62
g,
does
apply
to
every
person
that
works
in
this
department.
So
the
same
we've
given
the
same
benefits
towards
our
civilian
staff
as
we
do
our
peace
officers.
H
So
let
me
ask
you
another
question:
there's
often
a
timeline
between
an
incident
and
the
filing
of
criminal
charges
during
that
time
lag
is
the
officer
in
this
case
suspended
without
pay
suspended,
with
pay
left
on
work
status,
active
work
status?
What
happens
to
them
between
that
during
that
interim
period,.
S
Michael
wheelham
for
the
record,
in
that
circumstance,
60
g
would
apply
so,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
give
them
a
letter
from
the
time
of
arrest.
So
from
the
time
of
arrest,
we
allow
them
to
use
their
time
for
election
time,
so
that
would
be
able
to
eat
individual
staff.
Their
suspension
under
our
cpa,
is
a
punitive
action.
Under
this
the
standard
of
52
degree.
It's
not
a
suspect.
It.
H
H
R
This
is
jack
martin
for
the
record
from
the
minute
you
are
arrested.
You
are
not
working.
You
have
the
option.
You
have
the
option
to
use
the
time
during
that
period
until
until
the
until
the
charges
are
brought
forward,
but
from
the
minute
you're
arrested.
That's
where
mr
wheeler
described
where
we
give
the
employee
a
letter.
We
inform
them
they're
only
without
pay
they're,
given
the
option
to
use
time
or
not
use
time,
but
no,
they
are
not
working
during
that
time
period.
A
Thank
you
and
I
think,
we'll
have
to
leave
it
there
for
questions
given
the
time
we
are
at
this
morning,
but,
mr
martin,
mr
willahan,
thank
you
for
presenting
committee.
If
you
do
have
additional
questions
for
them,
or
any
of
our
other
presenters
would
ask
you
to
take
those
offline
again
appreciate
it,
so
I
don't
think
we
have
additional
opposition
testimony
on
the
zoom.
We
are
still
on
opposition
testimony.
Mr
ortiz,
do
you
have
anything
else?
You
wanted
to
add.
N
Chair
yeager
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
alex
ortiz
with
clark
county
again.
I
do
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
I
do
also
want
to
thank
senator
orrinshaw
for
working
with
us
or
trying
to
work
with
us
and
the
proponents
of
this
bill.
I
will
say
a
couple
of
things.
One
is
please
you
can
reach
out
to
me
at
any
time
with
any
additional
questions
you
have
on
this
and
we
will
do
our
best
to
respond
as
quickly
as
possible
with
some
additional
information
number
one
number
two.
N
I
did
learn
something
today
that
we
need
to
get
better
audio
visual
equipment
down
in
clark
county,
so
I
do
apologize
for
I
even
had
a
hard
time
hearing,
but
I
do
apologize
for
that.
The
other
thing
is
that
it
seems,
like
I
come
to
this
committee
opposing
things
so
hopefully
someday.
I
will
come
supporting
a
bill
at
some
point
in
the
future,
and
that
said,
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
G
A
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close,
neutral
testimony
I'll
invite
senator
orange
all
back
to
the
table
for
concluding
remarks
and
senator
orrinshaw.
We
did
have
one
additional
question
that
was
posed
and
I
wanted
to
ask
you
that,
and
the
question
was
whether
this
bill
senate
bill
317
only
applies
to
clark
county
or
does
it
apply
statewide
to
all
juvenile
justice
agencies
and
employees.
K
Thank
you
very
thank
you,
chair
james
orange
I'll,
send
it
21
the
way
senate
bill
317
is
currently
drafted.
It
amends
62g
the
part
of
62g
dealing
with
counties
over
700
hundred
thousand
population,
so
this
bill
is
specific
to
clark
county.
I
thank
the
chair.
Thank
all
the
members
for
all
the
attention
and
the
good
questions.
I
do
believe
that
this
legislation
is
very
similar
to
senate
bill
242
of
the
2019
session
that
enacted
nrs289.
K
That
said
that,
if
law
enforcement
officers
are
accused
of
a
crime
and
if
they
are
either
acquitted,
the
charges
are
dismissed
or
there's
no
punitive
action
taken.
They
would
have
a
right
to
be
made
whole
and
not
face
possible
financial
and
personal
ruin,
even
if
they
they
exercised
their
right,
declared
their
innocence
and
they
were
found
innocent.
This
parallels
that
I
just
briefly
want
to
point
the
committee
that
this
language
does
also
include
on
page
three,
the
language
we've
added
that
that,
even
if
the
charges
were
let's
say,
there'd
been
no
charges
filed.
K
If
there
were
some
kind
of
an
incident
that
happened
on
the
job
and
if
the
employee
was
subjected
to
punitive
action
in
connection
with
the
alleged
misconduct,
I
believe
that
this
would
also
preclude
them
from
back
pay.
The
way
I'm
reading
the
intent.
So
certainly
if
there
was
even
something
and
no
criminal
charges
were
filed.
I
believe
that
that
could
potentially
preclude
that
employee
from
back
pay
if
the
agency
did
subject
them
to
punitive
action,
so
I
do
believe
that
that
would
take
care
of
those
concerns.
K
I
was
able
to
work
with
clark
county
prior
to
the
assem,
the
hearing
in
the
senate,
and
we
were
able
to
achieve
consensus
on
section
one.
We
were
not
able
to
achieve
consensus
on
the
latter
sections,
I'm
committed
to
try
to
keep
working
with
them
and
with
the
stakeholders
and
I'd
love
to
bring
an
amendment
to
you
that
would
have
consensus
of
everyone
and
I'll
keep
working
for
that,
but
I
do
believe
even
in
this
form,
this
is
very
fair
legislation
that
tries
to
help
protect
innocent
people.
O
Yes
chair:
this
is
matt
richardson
for
the
record,
just
just
two
things
to
clear
up.
You
know,
mr
william
was
speaking
about
a
domestic
violence
case
in
which
a
witness
didn't
show
up.
Actually
the
charges
on
that
case
were
dismissed
at
a
preliminary
hearing,
so
just
for
complete
accuracy,
and
I
want
to
thank
assemblyman.
We
are
mr
o'neill
and
the
reason
why
is
this
is
exactly
why
we're
here
he
kept
on
saying
that
hey
is
the
employee
suspended.
O
You
know
once
these
charges
are
filed
or
are
they
suspended?
You
know
after
arrest.
That's
the
whole
problem
is
the
language
is
suspended.
Now
our
agency
doesn't
see
say
that
we're
suspended,
they
just
say
we're
placed
on
leave
without
pay.
But
when
you
look
at
nrs
289.092,
they
used
the
same
language
that
that
the
assemblyman
was
using
that
were
suspended
and
really
just
the
the
I
guess,
the
nuances
of
that
language
are
exactly
why
we're
here
and
just
to
clarify
so
and
then
and
then
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear.
O
Also,
you
know
employees
that
are
found
guilty.
You
know
we.
We
don't
think
that
they
should
be
working
with
this
either,
and
you
know
we
are
here
for
the
children,
but
again
we're
talking
about
employees
that
are
wrongfully
charged.
You
know
that
they're
misleading
forensic
science
mistaken
eyewitness
id
those
types
of
things
and
again
we're
just
looking
for
the
same
rights
under
nrs
289.092.
A
A
A
Oh
one,
second,
then
just
one
second,
please
senator
so,
just
as
by
way
a
reminder,
we
were
up
to
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment
and
public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
We
will
start
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city,
senator
orrinshaw.
Please
go
ahead.
K
K
If
you
ever
walked
into
his
assembly
office,
he
had
the
words,
I
believe
the
children
are
our
future
painted
behind
his
desk
and
and
he
meant
that
I
got
to
serve
on
a
school
justice
partnership
committee
with
him
working
with
jack
martin,
mr
willihan
and
many
others
judge
voy,
trying
to
see
if
we
could
reduce
kids
being
arrested
at
school,
for
you
know
small
time
offenses
and
prevent
them
having
that
entry
into
the
juvenile
justice
system,
you
know,
bridget
duffy
was
on
that
committee.
We
all
worked
very
collaboratively
on
that
clark.
K
County
school
district
was
wonderful
in
naming
tyrone
thompson
elementary
school
down
in
in
our
county,
which
is
a
wonderful
tribute
to
this
wonderful
man,
senator
marcia
washington.
I
think
she
was
our
our
representative
there
on
the
senate
side,
who
testified
before
the
school
board,
and
I
appreciate
her
doing
that,
and
I
miss
him
very
much
and
for
those
of
you
who
didn't
get
to
know
him,
he
was
truly
wonderful
and
for
those
of
us
who
did,
I
think
we
thinking
about
him.
I
know
it
makes
me
feel
how
noble
this
is.
What
we're
doing
here.
A
Thank
you
for
your
public
comments.
Senator
orrin
shaw,
we'll
stay
here
in
carson
city
for
public
comment.
Miss
brown.
Would
you
like
to
give
public
comment
this
morning?
Okay,
no
public
comment
from
miss
brown.
I
don't
see
additional
public
comment
here
in
carson
city
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
we
have
public
comment
there?
Please.
G
R
P
Reno,
police
and
marshall
county
sheriff's
office,
washoe
county
sheriff's
office
sergeant
jason
wood
is
on
administrative
leave
after
his
second
dui
sergeant
was
arrested
for
dui
on
friday
april
30th.
He
was
booked
into
the
washer
county
jail
shortly
before
midnight
on
friday
and
charged
with
dui
going
1-10
miles
per
hour
over
the
speed
limit
and
failure
to
maintain
lanes,
wood
was
arrested
for
dui
previously
in
march
of
2016..
P
P
In
august
of
the
same
year,
sergeant
wood
initiated
the
traffic
stop
of
kyle
jimbleman
that
resulted
in
an
officer-involved
shooting
in
kyle's
death
in
2017
ward
released
his
canine
on
a
man
after
he
surrendered
to
the
police.
The
video
of
the
attack
of
the
community
member
went
viral
and
had
well
over
a
million
views
in
the
taxpayers
of
washoe
county
had
to
foot
that
bill
for
the
lawsuit
sergeant.
Wood
also
shot
and
killed.
Robert
hampton
on
11
4
2014.
P
P
Promoting
a
bad
cop
to
sergeant
washer
sheriff
darren
balaam
recently
said
it's
past
time
we
hold
law
enforcement
officers
who
counter
shot
profession
and
oath
accountable
for
deplorable
actions.
It's
time
for
him
to
do
that
within
his
own
department.
I
think
nrs289
needs
an
overhaul
completely.
Thank
you.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps
appreciate
it.
I
will
close
public
comment
anything
else
from
committee
members
this
morning.
I
don't
see
anything
else.
A
couple
reminders
for
the
committee
tomorrow
we
are
taking
our
committee
photo,
so
please
be
in
this
room
at
8
15
tomorrow
and
wear
your
best
because
you
will
be
memorialized
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
photo,
so
the
photo
will
be
at
8
15.
The
meeting
is
going
to
start
at
8
30
and
we'll
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda
tomorrow.
A
I
believe
we'll
be
able
to
get
through
those
in
a
timely
fashion
and
then
thursday
we
have
three
bills,
but
we
will
be
starting
at
nine
o'clock
on
thursday
and
friday
is
still
up
in
the
air
to
be
determined.
So
I
hope
all
of
you
have
a
really
wonderful
day
and
may
the
fourth
be
with
you
we'll
see
you
back
here
in
this
committee
meeting
at
8
15
tomorrow
morning.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.