►
From YouTube: 3/19/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
D
E
F
B
A
I
am
here:
can
you
please
mark
assemblywoman,
kasama
absent
excused?
I
see
we
have
assemblywoman
krasner
here
now,
so
please
mark
her.
As
present.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Everyone
on
the
committee
and
good
morning
to
those
who
may
be
joining
us
on
the
zoom,
as
well
as
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
page.
A
Welcome
to
the
assembly
committee
on
judiciary
and
day
47
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
on
this
morning's
agenda,
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
rules,
if
you're
joining
us
on
the
zoom
today.
Could
you
please
remember
to
mute
unless
you
are
speaking
that
will
help
with
the
audio
feedback
for
our
presenters
or
anybody
who
may
be
answering
questions
on
the
zoom
today?
If
you
could
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak
that'll
help
our
committee
secretary
prepare
the
minutes.
A
It's
not
a
natural
thing
to
do
so,
I'll
remind
you.
If
you
forget,
I'm
sure
that
somebody
will
forget
at
some
point
today,
so
no
pressure
with
that.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
okay,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
being
respectful
of
one
another,
the
legislative
institution
and,
most
importantly,
our
staff.
That
is
helping
us
make
these
meetings
happen.
Finally,
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
the
meeting,
including
laptops,
desktops
extra
monitors,
iphones
ipads.
A
So
with
that
behind
us,
we'll
move
on
to
our
agenda
committee,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda.
Today
we
are
going
to
take
those
two
bills
in
order.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
237
assembly
bill
237
revises
various
various
provisions
relating
to
real
property.
A
We
have
assemblywoman
howdagy
joining
us
today
to
present
the
bill
and
she
does
have
a
few
presenters
with
her
to
go
over
the
bill.
So
we'll
give
them
a
chance
to
make
their
presentation.
Then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
So
welcome
back
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
For
the
second
time
this
week,
assemblywoman
haudiki
and
please
proceed.
G
G
The
genesis
of
assembly
bill
237
was
a
result
of
assembly
bill
335
from
the
2019
session,
which
made
it
out
of
both
houses
with
unanimous
support.
Ab-335
was
introduced
in
partnership
with
the
community
association
management,
executive
officers
and
the
nevada
association
of
realtors,
something
we
worked
on
together
for
almost
18
months
assembly.
Bill
335
accomplished
two
things:
one:
it
streamlines
the
residential
selling
process
for
the
organizations
who
do
the
behind
the
scenes,
paperwork
and
two.
It
established
uniform
fee
caps
or
hoa
resale
packages,
hoa
demands
and
hoa
transfer
fees.
G
We
are
here
today
to
clean
up
language
regarding
the
hoa
portion
of
assembly
bill,
335.
ab237
will
add
in
language
to
clarify
that
association
management
companies
can't
charge
resale
closing
fees
other
than
those
in
statute.
Once
ab335
was
signed
into
law,
we
saw
junk
fees
begin
to
emerge.
Also
left
out
of
assembly
bill.
335
is
the
cpi
increase
of
no
more
than
three
percent
to
the
transfer
fee,
which
we
all
agreed.
We
would
add
to
the
resale,
demand
and
transfer
during
drafting.
We
added
it
to
the
demand
and
resale
and
accidentally
left
it
off.
G
The
transfer
cost
new
to
this
bill
is
an
enforcement
mechanism.
Ab-287
will
also
give
the
cic
commission
the
ability
to
impose
a
fine
of
not
more
than
250
dollars
for
the
associations
who
are
in
violation
of
the
fee
structure.
The
reason
we
added
this
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
some
associations
continue
to
charge
more
than
they
are
statutorily
authorized
to.
I
have
on
two
or
personal
occasions
signed
buyers
where
their
association
was
charging
a
hundred
and
150
dollars
more
than
what
they
were
allowed
to
on
the
transfer
cost
of
the
hoa.
G
This
will
give
the
cic
the
authority
to
enforce
the
laws
that
we
passed
in
this
body
in
2019.
care
and
members.
I
am
here
today
with
the
association
and
realtors
who
don't
normally
come
to
the
table
together,
but
the,
but
the
association,
management
companies
and
realtors
are
here
to
show
that
this
was
a
bill
that
we
all
worked
on
in
good
effort
together
for
many
years
and
want
to
make
sure
it's
fully
implemented
to
its
intent.
G
C
C
A
Thank
you
so
much
mr
justin
committee
members.
Before
we
move
on
I
neglected
to
mention
I
I
think
you
all
received
it
already,
but
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
on
nellis
from
assemblywoman
houdini
that
I
believe,
really
deals
with
just
section
one
of
the
bill
and
that
part
and
there's
a
second
part
of
the
bill
that
we'll
get
to.
So
if
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
to
see
that
for
members
of
the
committee
members
of
the
public,
that
is
up
on
nellis
under
the
exhibit
tab.
A
F
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
dave
tina
and
I
am
serving
as
the
legislative
chair
for
the
nevada
realtors
on
behalf
of
more
than
18
thousand
members
of
our
realtors.
We
are
pleased
to
have
the
opportunity
to
test
the
part
testify
in
support
of
ab237
and
the
intent
behind
it.
First,
let
me
thank
assemble
assemblywoman
mahadagi
for
bringing
this
important
legislation
forward.
It
is
import,
it
is
an
important
consumer
protection
bill
and
let
me
acknowledge
our
work
in
partnership
with
cameo
in
working
through
this
issue
with
us.
F
We
have
seen
and
support
the
proposed
amendment
being
brought
forward
by
the
assembly
woman.
It
reflects
the
discussion
we
have
had
over
the
interim
with
all
the
parties
involved.
I
would
like
to
take
this
the
rest
of
this
time
to
discuss
why
additional
fees
charge
for
hoa,
proud
resale
packages
are
probable
problematic.
From
a
consumer
point
of
view,
we
have
especially
seen
the
practice
of
excessive
fees
being
charged
by
consumer
to
consumers
by
smaller
management
associations.
F
F
So
thank
you
for
what
you
are
doing.
We
appreciate
the
hard
work
of
this
of
assembling
hattagy
has
done
as
well
as
our
partners
in
cameo
in
working
with
us
to
address
this
important
consumer
issue.
Tiffany
banks
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
realtors,
to
answer
any
technical
questions
you
may
have
on
the
language.
I
am
here
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
from
the
practitioner
point
of
view.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
mr
just
and
mr
tina
now
chair.
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
michael
buckley,
on
behalf
of
the
real
property
section
of
the
bar
to
walk
the
committee
through
the
remainder
of
the
bill,
the
real
property
section
of
the
bar
needed
a
vehicle
for
cleanup
language
to
their
section
of
the
nrs,
and
I
was
happy
to
provide
ab237
to
accomplish
this.
H
Thank
you
assemblywoman
and
mike.
My
name
is
michael
buckley
and
chair
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee.
First
of
all,
thank
you
very
much,
assemblywoman
hunter
gate
for
allowing
us
to
include
our
proposals
in
your
bill.
The
real
property
section
routinely
comes
up
with
a
bill
in
the
session.
What
happens?
H
Is
we
encounter
provisions
in
statutes
that
that
we
think
need
correction
and
we've
been
doing
this
for
many
many
sessions
now,
and
this
is
a
continuation,
and
I
would
say
also
that
in
particular
this
time
the
section
has
is
in
the
process
of
publishing
an
extensive
manual
on
real
estate
law
for
the
by
the
state
bar
and
so
in
preparing
that
manual
we've
come
across
a
number
of
just
most
of
these
things
are
changes.
H
The
section
doesn't
have
policy
positions,
so
our
our
job
is
our
our
goal
is
to
have
laws
that
read
and
make
sense
and
to
make
corrections
when
when
possible.
So
with
that
in
mind,
let
me
say:
there's
several
technical
changes
which
I'll
just
breeze
through
and
then
a
couple
more
that
probably
require
some
explanation.
H
Sections
two
four
and
five,
the
the
reference
to
article
two
of
chapter
116
has
another
statute
in
it.
So
we
just
corrected
that
reference
section.
Six,
this
their
the
the
amount
that
could
be
charged
was
changed
in
2019.
So
this
was
a
conforming
change
to
that
amount.
H
I
think
it
actually
was
mentioned
this
morning
when
the
chapter
116
was
originally
enacted.
It
referred
to
something
called
a
certificate.
Over
the
years,
chapter
116
has
been
amended
and
what
it?
What
now
is
delivered
on
a
resale
is
called
a
resale
package.
So
we
just
corrected
the
reference
where
there
was
a
reference
to
a
certificate
being
the
whole
resale
package.
H
We
just
changed
that
to
the
resale
package
rather
than
the
certificate
sections.
Eight
and
nine
are
a
little
more
than
technical,
but
and
and
require
some
explanation.
H
The
chapter
10
chapter
107
originally
referred
to
a
a
trustee
sale
occurring
in
accordance
with
the
execution
sales
statutes.
Nrs
40.430,
a
judicial
foreclosure,
still
refers
cross-references
to
an
execution
sale,
but
there's
a
difference
between
an
execution,
sale
and
a
judicial
foreclosure
in
an
execution
sale.
Somebody
has
a
judgment
against
a
person,
a
money
judgment
and
they
can
record
that
judgment
and
find
whatever
property.
H
The
judgment
debtor
owns
in
the
county
is
subject
to
is
subject
to
execution,
sale
and
so
there's
the
right
of
the
judgment
debtor
to
designate
which
property
can
be
sold.
H
So
what
what
we've
done
in
section
eight
is
that
in
a
non-in,
a
judicial
foreclosure,
sale
or
in
any
foreclosure
sale,
there
are
people
who
are
entitled
to
notice,
for
example,
junior
leanors
and
guarantors,
but
the
execution
sales
statutes
don't
refer
to
that
so
section
8
is
intended
to
make
sure
that
whoever
was
entitled
to
notice
in
a
mortgage
foreclosure
gets
notice,
and
that
was
missing
from
the
execution
sales
statutes.
H
So
we
added
a
reference
to
a
foreclosure
sale
in
section
nine,
as
I
mentioned
in
a
case
of
a
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust,
the
debtor's
already
agreed,
which
property
is
to
be
sold
if
the
if
the
borrower
defaults.
So
there's
no.
There's
no
reason
for
the
judgment
debtor
to
designate
which
property
is
to
be
sold.
In
fact,
in
chapter
107
and
106,
it
really
falls
to
the
lender.
H
So
if
more
than
one
person
owns
property-
and
they
can't
agree
what
to
do
with
the
property,
there's
a
procedure
in
nrs
for
partition
of
the
property
either
the
court
will
divide
the
property
or
sell
the
property
in
the
front
and
the
statute-
which
I
don't
think
has
been
amended
since
1911
refers
to
an
abstractive
title
and
abstracts
of
title
are
not
used
anymore,
but
is
used,
is
a
guarantee
would
be
a
litigation
guarantee.
H
There
is
an
exception
for
what
we
call
the
one
action
rule.
If
you
are
proceeding
under
the
uniform
commercial
code,
this
is
very
technical.
The
uniform
commercial
code
is
chapters
104
and
104a
of
nrs,
so
we
just
added
the
reference
to
104a
sections.
13
and
14
were
a
little
background
on
that
with
the
with
the
problem
with
mortgage
fraud
in
the
in
the
recession.
H
These
statutes,
both
of
these
statutes,
were
amended
to
require
an
assignment
of
a
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust
or
subordination
of
a
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust
to
be
recorded
before
that
it
just
said
they
may
be
recorded
this,
and
our
purpose
here
is
really
to
make
the
statutes
understandable
it
has
presently
written.
It
refers
to
a
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust.
Excuse
me,
a
mortgage
of
personal
property
or
crops
before
1935.
H
H
A
I
Cohen,
thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you
all
for
the
presentation.
My
question
is
about
in
section
nine,
the
the
sales
under
foreclosure
and
when
there
are
multiple
properties,
so
I
just
want
to
confirm.
I
Let's
say
you
have
a
creditor
that
has
you
know
five
properties
and
four
of
them
are
worth
the
value
of
the
fifth
one
and
and
all
that
together
you
know,
selling
either
the
group
of
four
or
the
one
would
cover
the
debt
and
the
creditor
doesn't
have
the
I'm
sorry,
the
debtor
doesn't
have
the
right
to
say.
I
H
Thank
you
so
michael
buckley's
responding
assemblywoman.
So
the
example-
I
guess
you're
saying
is
where
you
know
remember
we're
talking
about
a
deed
of
trust
or
a
mortgage
where
the
borrower
encumbered
these
properties
to
secure
the
debt
in
the
there's
actually
a
conflict
in
the
statute,
because
the
for
example,
the
execution
sales
statute
says
that
the
debtor
can
designate
which
parcel
is
to
be
sold.
H
The
mortgage
statute
and
mortgages
have
to
have
to
be
judicially
foreclosed.
The
mortgage
statute
in
the
in
the
statutory
covenants
actually
specifies
that
it's
the
lender.
That
decides
which
property
is
to
be
foreclosed,
though
we're
trying
to
make
a
consistency
between
a
statute
which
covers
a
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust
and
the
statute
that
covers
just
a
general
execution
sale.
I
guess
so.
I
mean
an
answer
to
your
question.
H
If,
if
you
have
a
mortgage-
and
there
are
multiple
properties
covered
by
that
same
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust,
the
debtor
doesn't
have
that
ability
to,
under
the
mortgage
or
deed
of
trust,
statutes
to
say
which
property
is
sold.
That
was
decided
at
the
beginning
of
the
when
the
lent,
when
the
loan
was
made.
H
A
Thank
you.
You
know
bills
like
this
I'll
say
on
the
2017
session,
a
former
assemblyman
elliott,
anderson
love
to
jump
into
these
bills
and
last
session,
former
assemblywoman
shea
bacchus
always
had
a
lot
of
questions
about
these
bills
and
I
don't
know
if
they're
watching
and
they
probably
are-
and
we're
certainly
missing
their
expertise.
But
mr
buckley,
I'm
going
to
take
a
couple
of
questions
on
section
9
and
try
to
see.
If
I
I
understand
what
we're
doing.
A
A
Let
me
know
if
I'm
on
the
right
track
here
so
section
9
we're
essentially
dealing
with
two
different
types
of
sales
of
property
and
I
believe
the
one
you
indicated
the
first
one
was
the
execution,
sale
and
so
the
way
I
understand
that
is,
if
somebody
owes
money
to
somebody,
so
that
person
would
be
the
the
debtor
if
they
owe
money
to
somebody
and
as
a
result
of
that
property
is
going
to
be
sold
to
satisfy
the
amount
of
money
that
they
owe.
A
H
Mr
chairman,
michael
buckley,
yes,
that's
correct,
you
know,
as
I
said,
if
you,
if
you
owe
somebody
money
and
then
you
go
to
court,
I
mean
in
the
judgment,
if
the
creditor
goes
to
court
and
gets
a
judgment
that
judgment
can
be
recorded
in
and
it's
a
lien
on
every
all
the
property
that
person
owns
and
that's
an
execution
skill
to
enforce
that
judgment.
And
that's
the
time
when
the
judgment
debtor
can
say.
Oh
sell
this
one,
not
that
one.
A
A
We
had
to
take
out
a
mortgage
and
get
a
loan
to
buy
the
home,
and
so
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
when
you
agree
to
that
and
you
sign
those
documents,
there's
a
provision
in
there
that
says,
if
you
default
on
the
mortgage,
then
you
know
that
property
that
you're
defaulting
on
is
the
one
that
is
going
to
be
sold,
but
obviously
that
goes
through
a
different
type
of
process.
It's
a
judicial
foreclosure,
but
that
would
be
the
reason
where
the
person
who
holds
the
property
couldn't
say.
A
H
H
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
mr
buckley.
Of
course
that's
normally
how
it
works,
and
I
guess
the
only
other
question
I
would
have
on
the
execution
sales
side
of
this
equation.
A
H
Mr
chairman,
michael
buckley,
again
my
knowledge
on
this
is
because
I
edited
the
chapter
on
attachment
and
judgment
and
execution
sales
in
our
practice
manual.
But
what
happens
is
the
sheriff
the
civil
office
of
the
sheriff's
division
handles
those
sales?
The
courts
are
not
involved
once
the
judgment's
issued
it's
covered
by
the
sheriff's
department.
A
Thank
you,
mr
buckley,
and
we're
looking
forward
to
the
publication
of
of
the
reference
manual.
You
you
referenced.
So
if
folks
here
are
on
judiciary
next
session,
you're
probably
going
to
get
a
copy
of
that.
So
you
can
dive
into
some
real
estate
law
because,
as
mr
buckley
stated,
we
we
usually
do
have
a
bill
or
two
in
this
topic
area
during
the
session,
and
I
believe
there
might
be
one
coming
from
the
senate
if
it
makes
it
over
as
well.
A
So
I'm
going
to
stop
asking
questions
for
the
moment
and
I'll
open
it
up
for
other
committee
members.
Does
anybody
else
have
questions
on
either
part
of
assembly
bill
237
either
the
first
part
dealing
with
hoa
resale
package
fees
or
the
second
part
dealing
with
real
property
and
real
estate,
I'm
going
to
give
folks
a
chance
to
raise
their
hands.
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
questions
at
the
moment.
So
I
want
to
thank
the
presenters
for
being
here
to
present
and
I'll.
Ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we're
going
to
take
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
concluding
remarks.
So
at
this
point,
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
237..
A
A
A
D
D
C
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
garrett,
gordon
spelled
g-a-r-r-e-t-t
last
name
gordon
g-o-r-d-o-n,
I'm
a
partner
at
the
law,
firm
of
lewis,
naroca
and
today,
representing
the
community
association
institute
and
its
300
members,
who
speak
for
over
3
000
community
associations
across
the
state.
We
want
to
put
on
the
record
our
support
with
the
amendment
of
the
proposed
bill.
I
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
bringing
the
amendment
and
the
bill
and
again
thank
you
for
everyone's
time
today.
Bye.
A
A
A
D
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
in
opposition.
I
will
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
neutral
again.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
guests
on
the
zoom
who
want
to
testify
in
neutral.
If
I'm
incorrect
simply
turn
on
your
mic,
and
let
me
know,
I
don't
see
that
happening
bps.
Could
we
go
back
to
the
phone
lines,
one
last
time
to
see
if
there's
neutral,
testimony
on
assembly
bill
237.
D
K
D
K
A
G
A
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
243
assembly
bill
243
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
administration
of
justice.
We
have
our
own
assemblyman
orient
liquor
here
to
present
the
bill
and
before
I
turn
it
over
to
him,
I
will
let
members
know
that
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
up
on
nellis
that
I
think
all
of
you
received
yesterday,
but
for
members
of
the
public
or
members
of
the
committee
that
want
to
check
that
out.
It's
under
the
exhibit
tab
on
nellis.
A
I
believe
mr
orenlicker
has
some
other
presenters
here
with
them
to
present
the
provisions
of
the
bill,
so
we'll
give
them
a
chance
to
do
that
and
then
I'm
sure
there'll
be
a
number
of
questions
on
this
bill.
So
assemblyman
assemblyman
orient
liquor.
Welcome
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
welcome
to
the
virtual
presentation
table
and
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
L
L
Okay,
we
thank
you
for
the
sorry
for
the
glitch.
My
thank
you
chair,
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
david
orient
liquor
representing
assembly
district
20
on
the
east
side
of
las
vegas
from
paradise
to
henderson.
L
So
there
are
three
principles
that
inspired
these.
As
I
say,
to
address
the
discriminatory
impacts
of
our
law
enforcement
system.
One
is
kids,
don't
think
like
adults
and
we
shouldn't
punish
kids
like
adults.
L
Two
justice
should
be
blind.
That's
a
long
venerable
principle
in
the
law,
as
exemplified
by
lady
justice,
and
then
when
legislating.
We
should
take
full
advantage
of
the
expertise
of
nevadans
I'll
now
go
through
the
three
parts
of
the
bill
with
the
three
principles.
First,
kids,
don't
think
like
adults,
as
we've
heard
during
discussion
of
other
bills,
children
are
not
mature
decision
makers
at
age
18,
their
their
judgment
is
impaired.
L
The
judge
should
take
into
account
the
fact
that
we
have
a
youthful
offender
right
now.
The
statute
says
up
to
age
18
and
this
assembly
bill
243
proposes
that
we
change
that
to
21
so
that
we
take
into
account
impaired
judgment
decision
making
up
to
age
21,
not
18.,
the
second
here's,
lady
justice
who
well-known
blindfolded
it's
his
ancient
roots,
this
principle
of
justice
being
blind
in
the
bible.
L
We
see
that
you
shall
be
partial
in
you
shall
not
be
partial
in
judgment,
hear
out
low
and
high
like
decide
justly
between
the
israelite
and
the
stranger
justice.
Justice
shall
ye
pursue,
and
we
need
to
be
very.
It's
such
an
important
principle
that
your
the
color
of
your
skin,
how
wealthy
you
are
none
of
that
should
be
taken
into
account
by
the
decision
maker,
while
justice
should
be
blind.
Unfortunately,
it
isn't.
L
And
so,
if
we
look
at
data
on
what
happens
in
our
law
enforcement
system,
minorities
are
more
likely
to
be
stopped
by
the
police,
they're
more
likely
to
be
arrested
by
police,
they're,
more
likely
to
be
charged
with
the
crime
when
they're
arrested,
they're
more
likely,
if
they're
charged
with
the
crime
to
be
charged
with
a
serious
crime
and
if,
after
being
charged,
they're
more
likely
to
be
convicted
of
a
crime
and
then
given
more
serious
sentence.
So
at
every
step
along
the
way,
we
see
racial
disparities
and
other
disparities
against
marginalized
groups.
L
L
Information
relating
to
a
suspect's
race
will
be
redacted
from
documents
reviewed
by
prosecutors
when
making
their
initial
charging
decisions,
they
don't
need
to
know,
and
they
shouldn't
know
the
suspect's
race
or
other
identity,
their
name
that
might
indicate
something
about
their
race
or
ethnic
background
prosecutors.
Don't
need
that
information,
so
this
bill
would
reject,
require
that
documents
reviewed
by
prosecutors.
L
L
So
that's
the
second
part.
This
would
only
be
done
now.
This
is
for
the
initial
charging
decision,
sometimes
witness
testimony
it's
important
to
be
able
to
know
identified
information.
So
after
the
initial
charging
decision,
the
prosecutors
would
be
able
to
look
at
identifying
information
for
purposes
of
witness,
corroboration
and
other
things,
but
for
the
most
part
that
won't
be
necessary.
L
The
charging
decision
without
the
identifying
information
will
be
sufficient.
Then
the
third
part
is
to
take
full
advantage
of
our
state's
criminal
justice
expertise.
We're
doing
some
very
important
things
this
session
to
address
the
inequities
in
our
law
enforcement
system
will
want
to
continue
that
effort
in
future
sessions,
and
we
have
nationally
recognized
experts
in
criminal
justice
in
nevada,
including
faculty
at
the
race,
gender
and
policing
program
at
unlv,
also
at
unr
and
other
of
our
institutions
of
higher
education.
L
L
Julianna
melendez
was
going
to
join
us
because
she's,
a
youth
legislator,
who
was
the
inspiration
for
the
blind
charging
part
of
this
due
to
technical
difficulties,
she's
not
able
to
be
here,
but
she
did
send
me
a
written
statement
so
I'll
read
that
read
her
written
statement,
then
we'll
hear
from
brooke
hopkins
who's,
we've
done,
research
on
disparities
and
police
in
law
enforcement
and
then
kendrick
as
another
co-presenter,
and
we
have
some
others
who
are
available
to
answer
questions
that
may
come
up
so
julianna
melendez,
who's,
a
valley,
high
school
student
and
nevada
youth
legislator.
L
Who,
as
I
said,
was
the
inspiration
for
the
blind
charging
provisions
of
this
bill
and
here's
what
she
would
have
said
if
she
could
have
joined
us
good
morning.
Members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
youth
legislator,
juliana,
melendez,
representing
senate
district
10..
I
am
here
in
strong
support
of
this
bill
due
to
the
fact
that
it
is
an
issue
close
to
both
my
heart
and
the
hearts
of
nevada
youth,
as
the
nevada
youth
legislature
is
allowed
to
propose
one
bdr
procession.
L
L
The
inspiration
behind
this
is
that
I
attend
valley
high
school
in
las
vegas,
made
up
over
92
percent
minorities
and
with
the
most
refugee
students
of
any
other
high
school.
My
peers
have
told
me
firsthand
that
they
are
over
policed
in
schools
and
those
who
have
encountered
juvenile
justice
system.
Personnel
have
told
me
that
they
felt
discriminated
against
because
of
the
color
of
their
skin.
L
L
I've
done
my
research
and
blind
charging
has
already
been
successfully
implemented
in
san
francisco,
so
it
is
a
very
realistic
proposal.
Please
strongly
consider
supporting
this
bill
as
it
affects
the
leaders
of
tomorrow,
just
as
much
as
the
leaders
of
today.
Thank
you
for
your
time,
so
thank
you,
julianna!
I'm
sorry!
You
couldn't
join
us
today,
but
I'm
grateful
for
your
bringing
this
idea
to
my
attention.
M
Well,
thank
you
so
much
and
good
morning,
my
name
is
brooke
hopkins
and
I'm
here
today
to
discuss
a
large
research
project
that
I
led
as
executive
director
of
the
criminal
justice
program
at
harvard
law
school
and
the
reason
this
was
a
study
of
massachusetts.
But
the
reason
that
it
is
relevant
today
is
that
we've
determined
that
initial
charging
decisions
were
a
key
driver
of
racial
disparities
in
incarceration
sentences
in
our
state,
and
so
that
is
very
relevant
to
the
to
the
race
blind
charging
provision
in
ab243.
M
Our
findings
are
consistent
with
the
research
of
others
who
studied
different
states
and
also
the
federal
system,
and
have
found
racial
disparities
in
charging
systems
in
charging
decisions,
decisions
throughout
the
country,
and
so
this
research
all
points
to
the
need
to
address
racial
disparities
at
that
charging
stage,
which
is
what
ab243
seeks
to
do.
So.
Let
me
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
our
study.
We
analyzed
all
criminal
cases
for
a
three-year
period
in
massachusetts.
M
This
was
motivated
by
by
the
knowledge
that
are
in
our
prisons.
People
of
color
are
vastly
over-represented,
which
is
true
across
the
country
as
well.
M
When
we
looked
at
latinx
defendants,
they
were
incarcerated,
their
sentences
were
for
148
days
longer
than
white
defendants,
but
when
we
controlled
for
initial
charge
severity
again
that
dropped
down
to
26
days
now
what
this
means,
what
this
regression
analysis
tells
us
is
that
the
initial
charging
decisions
were
playing
a
huge
role
in
creating
those
disparities
at
the
sentence
length
stage.
M
So
this
finding
in
itself
is
not
necessarily
surprising,
because
massachusetts
has
a
sentencing
scheme
which
is
similar
to
every
other
sentencing
scheme
that
I'm
aware
of
where
the
more
severe
your
charge
is
the
longer
your
sentence
is,
and
there
are,
of
course
other
factors,
but
that
is
the
key
factor.
M
So
it
makes
sense
that
there
is
a
correlation
between
the
severity
of
your
chart
and
the
length
of
your
sentence.
However,
we
were
controlling
for
initial
charge.
Right
and
sentences
are
based
on
your
final
conviction,
offense
right
your
sentence
based
on
what
you
were
actually
convicted
of,
not
what
you
were
charged
with
when
we
looked
at
final
conviction,
offenses.
What
we
found
is
that
they
were
of
similar
severity
across
race.
M
So,
although
defendants
of
color
were
charged
more
severely,
ultimately
they
were
convicted
of
offenses
that
were
about
the
same
level
of
seriousness
and
in
fact,
for
black
defendants.
Their
final
conviction,
offenses
were
actually
slightly
less
serious
than
white
defendants.
M
M
M
The
hope
is
that,
if
you
can
get
some
of
these
disparities
taken
care
of
at
that
initial
stage,
then
you
don't
have
the
as
that
of
a
problem
with
the
follow
on
racial
disparities
in
the
system
as
a
whole,
and
my
research
and
other
research
that
has
been
done
in
this
area
confirms
that
policies
that
address
this
disparities
in
this
initial
stage
would
be
beneficial.
So
I
thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
this
bill
and
for
your
time
today,.
A
L
N
Thank
you,
terry
yeager
and
good
morning,
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
other
jurisdictions,
have
already
begun
to
adopt
procedures
to
create
race-blind
charging
systems
during
the
presentations
by
law
enforcement.
Before
this
body,
you
were
provided
with
information
that
there
currently
are
racial
disparities
and
over-representation
of
minorities
within
our
criminal
justice
system.
Here
in
nevada,
this
bill
will
create
a
more
fair
and
equitable
system
to
ensure
that
we
reduce
the
discriminatory
impact
on
law
enforcement
and
charging
decisions
to
ensure
that
there
is
not
a
disproportionate
application
of
law
in
charging
documents.
N
N
As
you
heard,
the
what
would
occur
in
a
race-blind
charging
system
would
be
redactions
where
you
would
redact
the
personal
identifying
factors
of
that
individual
that
regarding
to
relate
in
the
defense
practice.
We
currently
engage
in
redaction
in
order
when
we
provide
discovery
to
our
clients,
for
example,
things
like
social
security
numbers.
We
don't
provide
that
out
to
ensure
that
it
doesn't
fall
into
the
wrong
hands,
and
so
that's
what
we're
just
asking
for
in
this
race
blind
charging
system
in
jurisdictions
where
they
have
paper
documents.
N
This
could
be
done
as
simply
as
with
pen
and
paper
sharpie
and
making
photocopies.
Luckily,
for
a
lot
of
jurisdictions
in
nevada,
we
receive
documents
through
pdf,
and
so
you
can
do
it
through
adobe
acrobat.
There
are
other
charging
softwares
that
could
be
utilized.
However,
at
this
time
it
just
the
simple
redaction
tools
that
are
free
on
adobe
acrobat
could
be
utilized
and
should
be
utilized.
N
N
A
L
Yes,
thank
you,
so
we're
working
from
the
conceptual
amendment
that
I
send
out
and
that's
posted
on
nellis.
So
the
first
part
sections
two
through
five.
I
believe
this
creates
the
task
force
to
advise
the
advise
us,
through
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice,
going
forward
to
study
different
aspects
of
our
law
enforcement
system
and
make
sure
that
we
have
policing
done
in
a
racially
unbiased
way
and
and
improve
the
fairness
of
our
system.
L
And
then
the
second
part
is
section
seven
to
raise
the
age
from
18
to
21
for
a
youthful
offender
for
purposes
of
sentencing,
and
we
already
we
now
currently
for
offenders
under
18
who
are
sentenced
in
the
as
an
adult.
Their
youth
is
can
be
taken
into
account
at
the
judge's
discretion
and
and
a
reduction
in
their
sentences
can
can
be
allowed,
and
this
would
raise
the
age
from
18
to
21
and
then
the
final
sections
talk
about
the
redaction
of
the
identifying
information.
A
Thank
you
so
much
assemblyman
and
thank
you
to
your
co-presenters
who
were
presenting
with
you
this
morning.
I
did
want
to
let
the
committee
know
just
a
couple
of
things
I
neglected
to
mention
the
powerpoint
presentation
that
assemblyman
or
liquor
presented
is
up
on
nellis
as
well
under
the
exhibit
document,
as
is
the
testimony
from
youth
legislator
melendez
that
is
provided
in
writing.
So
we're
sorry
couldn't
be
with
us
this
morning,
but
we
appreciate
your
work
on
this
and
your
comments
and
we
do
have
your
comments
as
an
exhibit.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
on
your
bill
here.
Assemblyman
orrin
liquor.
Well,
I
agree
with
some
of
the
intent
of
our
most
of
the
intent
of
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
here.
I
could
just
start
with
this
section
regarding
the
task
force.
As
you
know,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
acaj
right
now,
and
that
is
already
a
committee
that
is
made
up
of
20.
E
I
think
24
26
individuals
and
I'm
looking
at
this,
like
sub-committee
type
task
force
that
would
be
appointed
by
the
commission
and
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
this
would
work,
how
you
came
up
with
this
equally
long
list
of
like
individuals
that
would
be
that
would
be
consistent
of
the
task
force.
E
Just
I
I'm
seeing
this
logistically
as
being
like
with
the
acha
turning
into
a
like
50
to
60
person
like
commission
and
board.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
that
makeup
came
out,
how
you
decided
to
place
it
within
the
statute
regarded
to
the
ac
aj
and
if
you
could
just
kind
of
enlighten
me
on
some
of
that.
L
Thank
you
for
your
question.
Vice
chairwin,
david
licker,
for
the
record
I'll,
give
a
bit
of
an
answer
and
then
I'll
ask
dimitri
shailen
and
addy
rolneck.
Who
are
some
of
the
authors
of
this?
I
idea
so
in
terms
of
the
size
and
adding
to
the
commission.
L
I
I
would
think
of
this
as
we
have
this
advisory
commission
and
I've
been
on
a
lot
of
boards
that
can
always
benefit
by
having
kind
of
like
subcommittees
that
specialize
in
certain
things
and
can
study
an
issue
more
intensively
than
the
whole
board
can
and
then
the
subcommittee
can
report
back
to
the
full
board.
So
I
would
think
of
this
task
force
as
a
specialized
advisory
body
to
the
full
commission
that
can
draw
on
the
expertise
of
academics
and
practitioners
in
the
state,
and
then
they
can
report
to
the
commission
and
and
provide
more.
O
When
we
were
looking
at
the
composition
of
the
task
force,
our
agenda
was
the
skill
mix,
the
kind
of
expertise
that
will
help
us
to
address
the
package
of
reforms
we
have
in
mind,
and
we
proceed
on
the
assumption
that
the
problems
we
face
with
police
operations
are
systemic,
it's
hard
to
pick
up
one
area
and
try
to
fix
it
without
addressing
other
areas,
and
by
combining
this
various
expert
skills,
we
believe
we
should
be
able
to
provide
a
comprehensive
analysis
of
what
we
have
in
place
right
now
and
suggest,
based
on
best
practices
in
various
jurisdictions,
what
we
can
do
to
improve
the
operations
in
our
state.
A
And
mr
shaylin,
I
didn't,
could
you
just
let
us
know
who
who
you're
with
or
who
you
represent.
O
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
my
name
is
addie
rolnick.
I
am
a
professor
at
boyd
school
of
law
and
a
member
of
the
race,
gender
and
policing
program
there
and
so
just
to
speak.
In
answer
to
the
question
directly,
the
this
task
force
is
conceived
in
part,
so
to
be
primarily
a
task
force
made
up
of
academic
and
policy
expert.
J
It
is
meant
to
address
a
sort
of
a
vacuum
at
the
state
level
of
of
a
academic
type,
think
tank
for
lack
of
a
better
word.
So
an
academic
focused
organization
in
in
watching
some
of
the
process
last
summer,
in
particular,
there's
a
lot
of
interest,
a
widespread
interest
in
enacting
reform
and
enacting
reform
quickly,
but
so
I'm
a
member
of
the
national
academy
of
sciences
committee
on
reducing
racial
disparities.
J
Right
now-
and
I
can
tell
you
from
that-
experience
that
it's
reforms
that
are
adopted
quickly-
often
we
don't
know
what
they'll
do.
We
don't
know
how
they
interact
with
other
reforms
and
sometimes
they
can
go
in
the
wrong
direction.
So
it
was
meant
to
focus
on
the
need
for
kind
of
sustained
study
and
comparison
of
potential
reforms
and
then
to
advise
the
other
bodies
that
would
be
involved.
It's
it
has.
J
It
has
a
membership
that
encompasses
a
number
of
different
actors,
but
it's
primarily
composed
of
academics,
as
opposed
to
primarily
composed
of
system
actors,
which
is,
I
think,
a
better
description
of
the
advisory
commission
and
so
we're
hoping
to
sort
of
fill
that
advisory
gap.
E
You
know
I
I
just
I
just
have
concerns
like
I.
I
can't
even
imagine
like
logistically
how
a
commission
of
like
26
people
would
like
come
together
to
be
able
to
and
under
open
meeting
laws
to
be
able
to
even
appoint
these,
like
11
12
members
of
this
thing.
I
also
have
some
concerns.
I
understand
the
you
know,
policy
aspect.
You
know
I'm
curious
if
there
are
other
states
that
you
know
put
in
statutes
some
of
these,
like
think
tanks.
I
have.
E
You
know
to
be
a
part
of
that,
like
even
policy
conversations,
so
I
do
have
some
concerns
when
it
comes
to
that
chair.
I
do
have
a
question
about
another
section.
I
know
this
bill
is
pretty
comprehensive
and
has
several
different
topics.
Would
you
allow
me
some
leeway
to
ask
a
question
in
another
section
of
this
bill.
A
E
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
my
my
next
question
has
to
do
with
some
of
this
nanding
language.
I
appreciate,
and
I
agree
with
the
blind
evaluation
and
blind
screening
of
some
of
these.
I
know
when
this
topic
was
first
approached
and
I
was
it
was
discussed
with
me.
I
believe
I
spoke
with
miss
bacon
about
it.
E
E
E
We
are
also
have
like
all
voluntary
statements
to
my
knowledge
are
done
in
handwriting,
and
so
how
are
these
law
enforcement,
like
screening
agencies,
supposed
to
enact
this
blind
screening
process
when
you
don't
have
everything
electronically,
because
I
know
that
some
of
the
programs
that
miss
bacon
had
informed
me
about,
were
you
know
they
sounded
great
and
they
worked
in
a
completely
electronic
database
and
you
would
be
able
to
insert
those
things
pretty
seamlessly.
But
what
do
we
do
with?
Which
I
think
is
a
large
percentage
of
people
still
using
handwritten
documents.
E
N
Terry
yeager
kendra
virtue
for
the
record
through
youtube
vice
chair
noen.
I
would
just
note
that,
as
defense
attorneys
also
sometimes
receive
well,
we
do
receive
those
probable
cost
sheets
or
the
witness
statements
that
are
in
hand
that
are
hand.
Written
we've
had
conversations
with
attorneys
in
rural
jurisdictions
who
do
receive
those
paper
copies
and
what
they
do
when
they
have
to
do.
Redactions
is
just
use
a
sharpie
or
a
pen,
and
then
it
will
redact
the
material
and
make
a
photocopy
and
send
that
photocopy
off.
N
So
there
are
other
tools
that
can
be
utilized
and
the
way
that
we
receive
those
documents
in
washoe
county
at
least,
is
that
it
is
that
pdf.
So
it's
still
that
handwritten
documentation
that
then
you
could
put
into
the
adobe,
acrobat
and
and
redact
that
way.
E
E
A
Thank
you
vice
chair,
and
you
know
we
can
always
come
back
if
you
have
some
additional
questions.
I'll
go
next
to
assemblyman
o'neill,
who
I
had
a
conversation
with
this
morning,
and
I
think
he
has
a
few
questions,
but
maybe
before
we
do
that
assemblyman,
if
you
could
hold
up
for
just
a
second,
it
looks
like
I
overlooked,
assemblyman
or
liquor
wanted
to
say
something
in
response
to
the
last
question.
Please
go
ahead.
L
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
yeager.
L
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
mary
bacon,
I
think
is
with
us,
wanted
to
add
anything
to
respond
to
vice
chairwin
and
before
that,
on
your
first
thing
about
the
appointments,
if
there's
a
better
appointer
than
the
commission,
I'm
certainly
that's
easy
to
fix
and
and
also
one
of
the
things
that
this
has
been
important
to
me
since
I
came
to
unlv
is
we
are
a
state
institution
and
it's
important
that
we
be
available
as
a
resource
to
policy
makers
and
building
bridges
between
our
experts
policy
experts
and
our
policy
makers,
I
think,
is
very
important
and
other
states
a
good
model
for
this
is
in
texas
every
every
two
years
because
they
meet
as
we
do
every
other
year.
L
They
commission
a
study
by
the
at
university
of
houston,
the
the
health
policy
experts
to
study
an
important
health
policy
issue
and
to
report
to
the
legislature.
So
I
think
we
the
the
more
that
we
can
build
bridges.
As
I
say,
between
our
policy
experts
and
our
policy
makers.
I
think
that
that
will
be
very
important
for
the
state.
So,
thank
you
for
this
indulgence
and
mary.
Are
you
here.
G
I'm
here,
yes,
thank
you.
This
is
mary
bacon
and
to
respond
to
vice
chair
newman's
question
that
technology,
I
think,
is
still
something
on
the
table
for
the
future,
but
I,
as
of
right
now,
what
can
be
implemented
is
redacting,
as
attorneys
redact,
a
significant
number
of
documents
that
they
turn
over
anyways.
So
it
certainly
does
not
foreclose
upon
that
happening
in
the
future,
and
personally,
I
still
hope
that
that
is
able
to
come
to
fruition.
One
day.
A
P
It
basically
is
a
member
of
11
people,
and
I'm
going
to
be
honest
from
my
position-
has
implicit
bias
already,
there's
no
mention
of
the
district
attorney's
office
being
a
member
of
the
court
tour.
These
are
all
part
of
criminal
justice
system
and
it
only
has
one
member
of
the
legislature
who
appoints
that.
Is
it
a
democrat
republican,
a
non-party.
P
I
mean,
I
see
more
questions
in
this
and
to
me
building
upon
windset
the
size
it
could
be
reduced.
Several
of
these
people
to
me
are
overlapping,
so
why
were
the
courts
and
the
da's
left
out?
As
my
first
question
seems
to
me
they
would
be
an
important
part
of.
O
This
perhaps
I
could
add
a
word
on
that
subject,
if
I
may,
I'm
dmitry
schallen
director
of
the
unlv
center
for
democratic
culture.
First
of
all,
our
proposal
for
the
task
force
on
police
accountability
is
modeled
on
similar
task
forces
created
in
other
counties
and
states.
So
it
is
fairly
common
these
days
to
have
such
a
body
examining
best
police
practices
and
proposing
reforms
to
legislators.
Second,
the
exact
composition
of
the
task
force
is
open
to
deliberation.
O
It
could
be
reduced
indeed,
and
as
assemblyman
orton
liquor
emphasized,
it's
the
issue
of
dividing
labor
and
having
best
possible
skill
mix.
I
should
point
out
that
we
do
have
various
representatives
of
police
force
and
people
representing
experts
in
the
syria,
for
instance,
adam
garcia,
head
of
the
police
service
of
southern
command,
who
oversees
police
training
in
southern
nevada
advised
our
group,
and
he
should
governor
decide
so
would
be
a
member
of
this
committee.
O
As
for
adding
representatives
from
a.g
office,
of
course
we're
all
for
it.
So
we
are
prepared
to
leave
it
to
legislators
and
to
governor's
office,
to
optimize
the
skill
mix
and
to
finalize
specific
members
of
this
committee,
pursuing
some
of
the
suggestions
that
the
vice
chair
just
made
and
others
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
L
No,
I
yeah
I'll
just
thank
you.
Sherry
yeager,
as
professor
schallen
said,
we're
definitely
open
to
you
know,
suggestions
on
how
to
improve
the
task
force.
As
you
see,
the
conceptual
amendment
has
changes
from
the
original
bill
and
this
is
certainly
a
work
in
progress
and
we
I'm
happy
to
to
consider
other
suggestions
to
make
sure
we
have
the
best
composition
and-
and
so
please
let
me
members
of
the
committee
assemblyman
o'neill
and
others
assembly
vice
chairwin
and
others
who
have
ideas.
P
I
appreciate
that
openness
to
revisions
or
amendments
to
the
proposed
bill,
foreign
record.
The
next
part
I'd
like
to
ask
is,
I
forget,
the
young
lady's
name
from
massachusetts.
P
We
talked
about
lady
justice
being
blind,
and
what
I
heard
and
what
I
read
in
mr
orlicker,
sent
out
an
article
in
the
new
york
times
is
that
they
may
be
charged.
Somebody
maybe
have
extensive
charging
versus
another
person,
but
at
the
end,
when
it
comes
to
conviction
which
is
what
dictates
sentencing
they
seem
to
balance
out
and
in
the
one
study
is
actually
done
by
two
different
individuals
independently.
P
M
Hi,
this
is
brooke
hopkins
well
in
in
I'm
not
sure
exactly
which
study
you're,
referring
to
in
our.
N
M
M
Yes,
okay,
so
in
our
study
we
found
that
the
final
conviction
offenses
were
of
similar
severity,
but
the
sentences
for
defendants
of
color
were
much
longer,
so
that
is
where
and
and
that
the
disparity
in
sentence
length
can
be
traced
back
to
the
initial
charges.
So
the
initial
charges
were
playing
a
larger
role
than
any
other
factor.
We
did
look
at
criminal
history
that
played
almost
no
role
in
racial
disparities.
It
was
really
the
initial
charging
decision
that
was
driving
the
the
significant
sentence,
disparity
at
the
very
end
of
the
process.
P
I'm
still
confused
and
so
they
charged,
but
it
and
racially
you're,
saying
they
charge
more
severely
with
racial
people
of
color.
But
at
the
end
the
conviction
and
the
sentencing
did
not
have
any
racial
bias
in
it
is
that
I'm
confused.
M
No,
that's
incorrect,
the
conviction,
offenses,
worse
of
similar
seriousness.
The
sentences
were
longer
and
the
way
that
happens.
We
don't
know
this
for
sure,
but
one
very
common
hypothesis
is
that
most
the
vast
majority
of
cases
in
the
criminal
system,
our
convictions
are
obtained
through
plea
deals
and
what
happens
is
if
you
charge
somebody
with
multiple
sentencing
enhancements
charges
that
carry
mandatory
minimums.
M
Get
defendants
to
agree
to
a
longer
sentence
if
the
initial
charges
are
carry
a
potentially
longer
sentence,
so
it
is
likely,
through
the
plea,
bargaining
process,
that
those
initial
charges
are
impacting
the
sentence
length
at
the
end.
A
And
if,
if
miss
professor
hopkins,
if
you
could
just
remember
to
state
your
name
before
you
speak
and
assemblyman
o'neill,
if
you
have
a
copy
of
that
study,
feel
free
to
submit
it.
But
I
don't
know
that
anyone's
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
questions
about
it
are
going
to
be
productive.
P
Actually
part
of
what
mr
orenlicker
produced
in
the
new
york
times
article
that
he
sent
out
last
night
when
it
said
that
it
failed
to
show
that
any
implicit
biases
in
the
what
do
you
call
it
again,
redacting
of
racial
information
on
initial
charging?
P
So
the
only
other
thing
I'm
not
going
to
take
up
time.
I'm
beginning
to
think,
though,
if
I
may
make
a
statement
that
we
made
a
mistake,
the
country's
made
a
mistake.
I
keep
hearing
how
18
year
olds,
19
20
year
olds
should
not
be
held
responsible,
yet
we
let
them
go
to
war
force
and
we
let
them
vote.
Maybe
we
should
start
thinking
about
changing
some
of
those
laws
and
protecting
us
better.
P
A
Thank
you
assemblyman
and
I'll
just
note
for
committee
members
and
members
of
the
public.
There
has
been
a
reference
to
a
new
york
times
article.
Unfortunately,
we
can't
put
that
on
the
website
due
to
copyright
issues.
So
if
you're
interested
in
finding
that
article,
you
know
I'm
sure
a
google
search
would
would
produce
it,
but
unfortunately
we're
not
allowed
to
put
that
up
on
the
website
due
to
those
issues
assemblyman
or
liquor.
I
noticed
that
you
had
unmuted
and
raised
your
hand.
Did
you
want
to
respond
at
all
in
any
way
to
assemblyman
o'neill's
question.
L
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
david
orton.
Looking
for
the
record
assembly
district
20.,
the
study
that
assemblyman
o'neill
is
referring
to
was
done
in
a
jurisdiction
where
they
weren't
seen
by
just
racial
disparities
in
charging,
and
so
the
algorithm
didn't
make
a
difference
because
they
weren't
having
the
problem
that
we're
seeing
generally
where
we
do
know
there
as
a
in
most
jurisdictions.
A
I
Thank
you,
chair
and,
and
I
don't
know-
maybe
we
also
have
there's
also
a
a
united
states.
Sentencing
commission
study
from
2017
that
that
is
key
finding
says
that
black
male
offenders
continue
to
receive
longer
sentences
than
similarly,
similarly
situated
white
male
offenders.
So
maybe
we
can
also
add
that
as
an
exhibit
and
obviously
there's
other
findings
in
there
that
kind
of
go
that
that
line.
I
But
my
question
is
getting
back
to
the
task
force
and
I
guess
it's
more
of
a
recommendation
that
assemblyman
or
liquor
that
you
consider
also
some
other
very
in
the
task
force
such
as
some
geographic
variables
in
nevada,
including
specifically,
including
someone
from
the
rurals
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
that
considered,
because
obviously
there
are
issues
all
throughout
the
state,
and
so
if
you
could
just
address
it,
if
that
was
considered.
L
Yeah
we've
tried
to
respond
to
all
the
suggestions.
David
aren't
looking
for
the
record
and
we
haven't
gotten
to
all
of
them.
So
we'll
aim
for
a
work
session
to
have
a
a
better
list
of
commission
members,
and
I
appreciate
your
suggesting
that
and
I'll
follow
up
with
you
and
others
to
make
sure
we
incorporate
all
the
good
ideas
for
the
commit
composition
of
the
commission
or
task
force.
I
Thank
you
and
then
share
with
your
indulgence.
I'd
just
like
to
send
out
a
a
a
special
recognition
to
my
fellow
valley,
viking.
Miss
melendez
really
appreciate
the
work
she
did
and
I'm
sure
our
other
grad
from
valley
in
the
legislature
assemblywoman
torres
would
would
back
me
up
on
that.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
opportunity
and
good
morning,
everyone.
I
have
a
question
of
regarding
section
8
on
the
amendment
section,
8
sub
2
c.
When
we
talk
about
race
to
be
redacted
and
then
the
other
things
name,
language
spoken
physical
description,
things
like
that
it.
What
about
sex
are
we
is
it
your
hope
at
some
point,
I'm
just
curious
to
what
what
identifiers
could
be
implied
as
implicit
by
it?
This
does
law
enforcement.
Are
they
softer
on
women?
I
L
Assembly
menorah
david
orton,
looking
for
the
record,
that's
a
very
good
question
and
I'm
not
sure
about
the
answer.
If
kendra
or
mary
would
like
to
weigh
in
that's
fine,
but
something
I'll,
certainly
look
at.
I
I
Law
enforcement
in
the
courts,
and
I
I'm
having
a
hard
time
connecting
the
dots
from
at
charging
that
we're
saying
the
charging
officer
or
person
has
some
sort
of
implicit
bias.
That's
going
to
go
down
the
line
to
the
sentencing
side,
and
so
who
is
guilty
of
the
bias,
the
charging
person,
the
judge
and,
and
I
and
while
I
can
appreciate
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish.
I
I
think
this
is
this.
Is
why
we're
here?
How
do
we
get
from
point
a
to
point
b?
And
I
don't
know
that
this
is
how
we
do
it
by
taking
away
some
identity,
because
I
know
that
if
I
were
say
say
I
worked
at
a
business
and
there
was
a
robbery
and
I
had
a
call
to
say
and
identify
the
suspect
I'm
going
to
identify
their
their
sex,
their
color,
their
height
their
weight.
All
these
things
to
help
identify
that
person.
I
When
I
make
that
call
and
say
what
their
race
is,
it's
not
racially
motivated.
It's
not
some
angst,
it's
just
to
help
identify
the
subject
so
and
the
other
part
of
this
that
I'm
wondering
about.
When
we
talk
about
it,
the
charging
point
how
much
of
the
of
the
charging
is
reflecting
the
environment
at
the
moment,
the
intensity
of
the
of
the
crime
or
the
suspected
crime
or
the
suspect
and
the
interchange.
That's
going
on
that
it's
more
an
emotional
situation
than
it
is
saying
the
race
of
the
person
is
my
bias.
I
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman,
and
I
think
before
I
take
the
next
question,
I'd
like
to
go
to
miss
bacon
to
perhaps
address
some
of
those
concerns
about
the
initial
charging.
I
had
a
conversation
with
her
a
while
back
and
I
think
she
did
a
pretty
good
job
of
explaining
that
so
miss
bacon.
If
you
could
maybe
address
that
topic,
I
think
it'd
be
helpful.
G
Thank
you,
assemblyman
and
through
you
to
the
assemblywoman
first.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
make
clear
that
nobody
is
quote
guilty
of
implicit
bias.
We
all
have
implicit
biases
so
for
better
or
worse.
I
I
certainly
think
we're
not
trying
to
make
a
judgment
here.
I
think
it's
just
factually.
Unfortunately,
what
has
happened.
They've
done,
studies
on
district
court,
judges
and
federal
judges
and-
and
the
only
thing
they
found
is
essentially,
we
all
have
implicit
biases.
G
So
I
don't
think
anyone
is
guilty
of
anything
and
certainly
isn't
trying
to
do
anything
intentionally
we're
just
trying
to
correct
for
something
that
is,
unfortunately
there
that
results
in
unfair
outcomes
as
far
as
identifiers
things
like
hair,
color
and
eye
color
can
certainly
add
to
to
racial
perceptions.
Only
because
if
I'm
stating
that
the
suspect
is
blonde
hair
and
blue
eyes,
that
can
give
you
a
different
idea
of
who
that
suspect
may
be.
Instead
of,
if
I
said
you
know,
he
has
very
dark
eyes
and
black
hair.
G
So
that's
what
that
is
trying
to
account
for
as
far
as
the
gender
question,
my
understanding
is
that
at
least
currently
this
is
focused
on
race
and
to
correct
racial,
implicit
bias,
but
assembly,
manure
and
linear,
who
probably
speak
to
that
a
little
bit
more
clearly
and
then
was
there
another
question.
I
No-
and
I
appreciate
you
coming
on-
I
think
I
think
mine
was
more
of
more
commentary
than
the
initial
question
about
about
gender,
but
thank
you
so
much.
G
Yes,
and
as
just
one
last
follow-up,
when
you
said
that
you
you
know,
if
you
were
in
a
bank
and
it
was
robbed
and
you
were
reporting-
you
know-
I
was
just
in
this
bank
and
it
was
robbed
and
the
suspect
is
a
six
foot,
two
white
gentleman
180
pounds
that
would
all
obviously
be
hugely
helpful
and
we
need
to
catch
that
suspect.
That
makes
sense.
The
difference
is
in
the
blind
charging.
You
would
still
be
able
to
identify
that
suspect
for
the
police.
The
police
would
still
hopefully
arrest
that
suspect.
G
Just
the
charging
attorney
would
say
the
suspect
you
know
alleged
went
into
the
bank
blah
blah
blah
robbed.
It
three
witnesses
identified
suspect
one
as
that,
as
the
person
who
robbed
the
bank,
the
police,
later
rapper,
apprehended
the
suspect
to
rob
the
bank
and
go
from
there.
So
it's
not
like
we
would
lose
any
information
in
the
policing
process
or
ability
to
catch.
That
suspect
from
your
description
and
obviously,
if
you're
reporting
a
a
crime,
we
need
all
of
that
information
to
get
that
person
immediately.
G
The
difference
is
just
the
charging
attorney
would
just
say
this.
The
witnesses
identified
the
suspect
they
would
not
say
the
witnesses
identified.
The
six
foot,
two
white
180
pound,
gentlemen.
A
B
Good
morning,
sherry,
yeager
and
committee,
and
thank
you
assemblyman
or
liquor
for
taking
on
this
very
challenging
issue.
We
appreciate
your
courage
and
fortitude
and
bringing
this
forward
I
am,
I
did
submit
to
you
earlier
today-
some
suggestions
that
I
hope
that
we
can
discuss
later
and
they
do
include
suggestions
about
including
folks
from
the
rural
communities
and
from
other
disciplines.
B
I
just
want
to
clarify-
which
I
think
may
be
a
little
lost
in
this-
is
that
this
subcommittee
to
the
larger
committee
that
is
already
existing
is
really
meant
to
be
a
academic
look
at
this
issue
as
opposed
to
how
the
current
committee
is
set
up.
Am
I
correcting
my
understanding.
L
David
orient
lecter
for
the
record,
that's
correct
one
you
may
think
about
this.
Is
you
have,
as
you
say,
the
larger
commission,
and
this
would
be
kind
of
like
a
technical
advisory
task
force
to
provide.
J
Thank
you,
chairman
addie
rolnick
from
unlv.
I
so
there's
been
a
number
of
questions
and-
and
I
appreciate
this
question
about
the
focus
of
this
task
force,
but
a
number
of
questions
about
the
composition,
and
so
I
wanted
to
clarify
two
aspects
of
those
questions.
So
one
is
on
the
there's,
a
lot
of
suggestions
for
particular
voices
that
might
be
good
addition,
so,
for
example,
someone
with
expertise
in
policing
in
rural
areas
or
community
members
from
certain
areas.
So
those
are
good
suggestions.
J
I
don't
know
that
there's
anything
magical
about
the
precise
current
list,
which
is
to
say
that
my
understanding
is
that
everyone
involved
is
open
to
some
discussions
about
exactly
how
different
voices
and
perspectives
would
be
represented.
But
to
your
larger
question,
I
think
you
are
correct,
so
this
is
not
meant
to
duplicate
other
bodies.
J
The,
for
example.
The
advisory
commission
is
mostly
made
up.
It
helps
to
think
of
when
you
think
of
policing.
For
example,
you
can
think
of
system
actors
right
if
you're
thinking
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
then
you
can
think
of
people
in
the
community.
What
we
might
call
community
members
who
are
impacted
by
the
system
and
then
you
can
sort
of
think
of
academics
or
policy
analysts
outside,
and
so
the
our
existing
mechanisms
draw
heavily
on
the
system
actors,
so
their
representation.
We've
had
questions
about
the
district
attorney
about
law
enforcement
representatives.
J
J
So
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
conversations
that
could
be
had
about
precisely
the
makeup
of
the
commission,
but
the
purpose
of
the
task
force.
But
the
purpose
of
the
task
force
is
to
be
a
research
body
and
an
academic
and
policy
advisory
body.
So
to
to
look
into
these
questions,
we
can
harness
significant
the
ability
to
do
significant
research
and
the
time
to
do
significant
research
if
it's
primarily
composed
of
academics
and
it's
not,
it
can
take
input
from
those
involved
or
having
a
stake
in
how
the
system
works.
J
But
it's
designed
to
actually
do
something
different
than
some
of
these
other
bodies,
so
that
might
speak
to
some
of
the
other
questions
that
we've
had
about.
Why
certain
people
aren't
included
or
does
it
duplicate
what
is
already
there?
It's
meant
to
do
something
different,
so
you're,
correct.
B
If
I
could
just
expound
a
little,
I
I
think
that,
although
this
might
appear
to
be
unwieldy,
if
you
look
at
it
as
if
they
were
in
in
a
part
of
the
existing
committee,
I
think
that
the
role
that
professor,
I'm
sorry,
assemblyman
or
liquor
is
trying
to
get
at
is
is
notable,
and
I
think
that
it
is
an
important
perspective
because,
as
ms
walnut
has
said,
that
the
current
status
is
always
people
who
are
part
of
the
system
and
when
we
bring
other
voices
in
who
aren't
in
it
who
aren't
affected
by
it.
B
It
is
helpful
for
them
to
see
from
a
distance
what
is
happening
and
sort
of
look
at
it
as
an
overview,
and
I
think
that
there
is
some
benefit
to
us
using
our
wonderful
educational
institutions
to
help
us
get
some
insights
on
what
we
can
do,
and
I
don't
believe
that
that
has
any
type
of
innate
bias
in
that
it's
just
academic,
and
we
hope
that
that
the
academic
process
will
help
us
inform
better
solutions.
B
I
did
have
one
more
question:
if
somebody
could
help
me
clarify
that
initial
charging
document
are.
Is
it
a
consistent
form
that
is
used
throughout
all
of
our
law
enforcement
agencies?
Do
they
have
a
a
form
that
they
use
where
we
could
quickly
redact
information
so
that
we
could
have
this
blind
charging?
B
I
I
know
it's
unwieldy,
and
I
know
that
it's
at
this
point.
Without
software
it
could
be
a
little
time-consuming,
but
first
is
their
one
form
and.
B
Is
anybody
counting
up
the
cost
in
life
what
it
means
when
a
person
is
overcharged-
and
I
think
that
that's
being
missed
in
this
and
and
I'd
like
to
speak
to
that
when
a
person
is
overcharged
in
the
beginning
of
their
of
this
process?
B
If
they
don't
have
the
wherewithal,
either
with
legal
counsel
or
their
own
innate
or
self-understanding
of
how
to
get
this
system
to
work,
they
could
be
charged
on
something
that
could.
B
Hugely
ruin
their
life
and-
and
I
think
there
has
to
be
some
real
honest
discussion
about
what
that
means
at
the
beginning,
to
be
severely
overcharged
and
then
have
to
fight
to
bring
the
charges
down
to
what
is
reasonable
when
that
shouldn't
be
the
case
at
all
that,
we
should
be
that
that
we
know
that
there's
bias
here-
and
this
is
very
frustrating
to
me
personally,
because
I
I
know
this
exists,
and
maybe
people
don't
understand,
but
I
think
that
we
would
have
an
honest,
real,
honest
conversation.
B
There's
been
plenty
of
studies
that
showed
that
this
has
a
real,
life-changing
effect
on
people.
Black
people,
brown
people
overcharging
is
a
huge
thing
and
if
those
charging
statements
can
be
redacted
to
make
this
playing
field,
even
if
I
have
to
use
whiteout
and
a
marker
to
save
somebody's
life,
then
we
should
use
white
out
and
a
marker.
A
A
N
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record
through
terry
yeager,
to
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong,
unfortunately,
no
they're,
not
all
the
same,
and
just
to
clarify
it's
not
just
one
document
that
the
district
attorneys
would
get
and
I'm
sure
they'll
expand
on
this
in
their
testimony.
But
the
probable
cause
reports
of
the
police
reports.
They
are
different
by
jurisdiction.
N
A
Q
Thank
you,
mr
yaeger.
I
appreciate
it
and
there's
never
been
anything
patient
about
me,
but
I'm
wondering
I
actually
have
a
kind
of
a
two
connected
questions
here
on
the
charging
everybody
keeps
saying:
well,
it's
a
white
out
in
a
you,
know
a
sharpie
and
then
copy
the
paper.
Q
Q
So
while
you
put
that
person
in
jail
waiting
arraignment
because
you
haven't
brought
the
charges
yet
he's
just
under
arrest
on
suspicion
of
how
long
do
we
wait,
while
we
redact
all
this
and
let
a
bureaucratic
government
run
it
through
their
steps
to
make
sure
everything
is
redacted,
and
how
do
we
affect
this
person's
right
for
a
speedy
trial?
Q
Also,
the
second
part
of
my
question
is:
I
know
that
district
attorneys
use
their
own
investigators
so
when
they
see
something
they
they
will
send
that
investigator
out
and
maybe
look
at
more
charges
etc
than
what
the
charging
officer
gave.
So
since
that
investigator
works
for
the
district
attorney
office,
who
is
the
charging
officer
as
put
in
this
statement
here?
Q
K
O
L
Assemblywoman
or
liquor,
thank
you
for
your
question
and
I'll
invite
miss
berkshire
as
she
would
like
to,
but
the
bill
itself
only
requires
redactions
from
documents,
because
this
assembly,
when
wheeler
points
out
it,
would
be
much
more
challenging
to
redact
a
videotape.
L
It's
my
understanding
that
it's
an
uncommon
situation
where
the
the
video
footage
is
viewed
before
the
charging
decision.
But
if
we
understand
we
might
not
be
able
to
reach
100
of
cases,
but
if
we
can
reach
99
percent
or
95
percent,
I
think.
K
N
And
kendra
burchie
for
the
record
just
to
add
to
that
cherry
or
through
you
to
assemblyman
wheeler.
Regarding
the
issue
of
the
the
bail
hearings,
just
for
your
information,
the
bail
hearings
according
to
valdez
jimenez
should
actually
occur
prior
to
that
charging
decision.
So
that
would
get
the
72-hour
hearing
and
that's
something
that
we'll
be
hearing.
I'm
sure
more.
N
We
discussed
in
our
presentation
that
the
issue
of
prompt
is
still
up
for
debate,
but
the
the
way
that
the
system's
supposed
to
work
is
that
that
person
is
supposed
to
be
able
to
have
their
valdes
him
in
his
their
bail
hearing
prior
to
even
when
the
the
district
attorney
has
made
that
final
charging
decision.
N
Q
Hey
thank
you
the
way
I
understand
it.
I
know
we
have
a
chairman
here
who
deals
who
dealt
in
this
quite
a
bit,
so
maybe
he
can
set
me
straight,
but
the
bail
hearing
is.
You
have
to
have
initial
charges
for
the
bail
hearing,
otherwise
the
bail
cannot
be
set
to
the
crime
and
then
from
there.
Of
course
they
go
on
with
other
charges.
A
Sometimes
it
depends-
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
to
that,
because
I
I
haven't
practiced
in
that
area
in
a
while,
but
I
I
believe
we
might
have
someone
on
the
phone
in
testimony
who
can
address
that
question.
Assemblyman
wheeler,
I
will
just
say
to
answer
your
first
part
of
your
question.
We
have
differences
around
the
state,
that's
going
to
surprise
nobody,
but
in
clark
county
in
particular,
they
have
dedicated
attorneys
and
all
they
do
is
work
in
screening,
which
basically
means
they
review
arrest
reports
and
they
make
all
the
charging
decisions.
A
So
they
have
dedicated
folks
and
that's
their
whole
job,
so
they
wouldn't
have
an
investigator
who
was
making
that
determination.
Now
I
can't
speak
to
the
rest
of
the
state.
I
believe
the
rest
of
the
state
doesn't
have
the
luxury
of
that
many
employees
to
be
able
to
dedicate
folks
to
the
the
charging
decisions.
So
that's
certainly
something
that
has
to
be
taken
into
account
if
this
bill
were
to
move
forward.
A
I
That's
okay,
mr.
D
Hi,
thank
you
so
much
chair
of
some
of
the
wind
gonzalez
assembly
district
16
for
the
record.
Is
there
any
point
throughout
the
process
where
a
district
attorney
will
get
a
case
and
then
they
can
go
back
and
change
the
charges.
So,
while
the
intent
is
to
provide
no
racial
discrimination,
you
know
as
a
district
attorney.
If
I
get
a
case,
is
there
any
point
where
in
that
process
I
can
change
and
then
will
I
know
the
person's
race
at
that
point
when
that
happens,
if
that
makes.
D
N
Yes,
kendra
burchie
for
the
record
for
you,
terry
yeager,
to
assemblywoman
gonzalez
and
I'm
sure
the
district
attorneys
will
hit
on
this
more.
But,
yes,
they
can
change
and
amend
charges
and
that
can
be
done
even
as
late
as
at
the
preliminary
hearing.
So
they
do
have
that
ability.
And
yes,
you
are
correct
that
they
would
presumably
know
the
person's
race
at
that
point,
if
they're
doing
it
like
during
the
hearing.
D
So
in
the
places
where
they
have
implemented
this,
have
they
seen
that
that
happen
where
they
can
go
back
and
change,
and
then
you
know
people
of
color
are
disproportionately
impacted
more
like.
Are
we
seeing
that
trend
at
all
by
any
chance.
A
G
Of
course,
thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
and
to
you
through
assembly
to
the
assemblywoman.
I
wanted
to
make
an
initial
note
on
the
video
in
other
jurisdictions.
My
understanding
is
that
if
the
police
wanted
to
provide
a
video
in
advance,
they
could
say
simply
in
the
police
report
and
the
video
identifies
the
suspect.
G
So
then
you
know
they.
The
charging
attorney
has
the
benefit
of
knowing
okay,
there's,
also
a
video
that
identifies
the
suspect
and
as
assemblyman
orrin
licker
stated.
Obviously
that
could
be
reviewed
later
and
or
this
could
you
know
if
we
reach
99
or
98?
That
would
still
be
quite
good
and
then,
as
to
the
next
question,
district
attorneys
certainly
maintain
the
ability
to
change
the
charge.
G
Well,
we
received
ten
more
witness
statements
that
positively
identified
this
person
as
compared
to
you
know.
We
had
two
rocky
witness
statements
before
that
alone
interrupts
a
lot
of
that
implicit
bias.
So
this
certainly
doesn't
change.
If
someone
is
racist
or
trying
to
do
something,
yes,
the
system
can
be
gained,
but
this
a
lot
of
the
intent
of
the
bill,
at
least
from
my
understanding,
is
interrupting
that
implicit
bias,
and
you
are
more
likely
to
interrupt
that
bias.
A
Thank
you
before
we
move
on
to
testimony
committee.
I
had
a
few
questions.
I'm
going
to
call
this
the
shotgun
round,
because
I
think
this
will
be
simple
questions,
but
I
wanted
to
help
with
some
of
the
legislative
intent.
So
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
ask
in
the
task
force
we're
talking
about.
Do
we
anticipate
that
all
the
members
who
would
be
appointed
would
be
nevada
residents?
A
Some
of
them
are
specified
as
certain
people
who
obviously
would
live
in
nevada,
but,
for
instance,
we
have
a
social
scientist
with
the
research
experience
in
hate
groups,
and
so
I'm
just
curious.
If
we
have
folks
who
would
fit
some
of
these
categories
in
nevada
or
if
not,
it
was
the
intent
to
perhaps
go
outside
of
the
state's
borders
to
find
those
individuals.
O
Mr
chairman,
I
can
address
this
question
for
the
record.
This
is
professor
shaolin.
Yes,
we
do
have
some
specific
individuals
in
mind
who
have
published
on
the
interfaces
between
the
police
and
some
of
the
extremist
groups,
with
lots
of
important
data
who
is
a
member
of
a
department
at
the
university
of
nevada.
O
A
You
once
again:
yes,
thank
you
for
that
response
and
then
sticking
on
the
task
force.
When
I
look
down
at
section
5,
it
talks
about
what
the
task
force
is
tasked
to
do,
and
I
see
reference
to
statewide
guidelines
examining
guidelines,
and
so
my
question
there
is
was
the
intent
that
this
task
force,
whatever
they
came
up
with,
would
it
have
the
force
of
law
and
policy,
or
would
that
then
be
up
to
the
decision
makers
in
the
state
to
decide
whether
to
implement
guidelines
that
were
produced
from
the
task
force.
J
I
can,
mr
chairman,
I
can
speak
to
this
if
no
one
else
wants
to
so
so
it's
a
it's
a
record.
The
task
force
would
make
recognition.
J
I'm
sorry
addy
rolney,
the
the
the
idea
is
that
the
task
force
would
make
recommendations,
not
that
it
would
pass
laws
or
or
identify
anything
that
had
the
force
of
law,
so
it
it
would
do
careful.
Research.
J
And
that
research
would
then
be
able
to
be
a
resource
for
lawmakers.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
go
ahead.
O
For
the
record,
dimitri
shaolin,
we
are
investigating
best
practices,
and
so
we
will
be
able
to
provide
legislators
with
good
quality,
valid
information
for
decisions
they
are
to
make
so
as
academics
as
experts
in
the
area
of
policy,
policing,
accountability,
we
should
be
able
to
provide
expertise
which
otherwise
might
not
be
available.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
that
clarification.
This
will
be
the
last
question
and
then
I'll
just
have
a
comment
before
we
move
on.
So
when
we
go
to
section
seven
of
the
bill,
that's
the
section
where
we're
changing
the
age
from
18
to
21,
where
a
court
is
to
consider
youthfulness
of
particular
individuals
and
also
has
the
discretion
to
depart
from
a
mandatory
minimum
by
35
percent.
A
So
maybe
it's
just
a
wording
question,
but
the
way
that
the
law
stands
now
that
provision
in
section
7
provides
for
applies
to
individuals
who
are
under
the
age
of
18.
So
of
course,
they're
referred
to
as
juveniles
that
language
is
being
stricken
and
we're
going
to
21
and
now
we're
using
the
phrase
youthful
and
mature
adult
offenders
or
youthful
adults.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
we
should
still
use
the
word
juvenile.
A
I
mean
I
just
want
to
get
the
intent
on
the
record
that
the
intent
isn't
to
say
we're
only
going
to
look
at
this
for
individuals
between
18
and
21..
I
think
the
intent
was
if
you're
under
21,
then
you
should
get
this
consideration.
So
I
just
wanted
to
ask
assemblyman
or
liquor.
Was
that
your
intent,
that
the
current
practice
will
continue
we're
just
augmenting?
Who
gets
the
consideration.
L
Assemblymen
aren't
looking
for
the
record,
your
your
characterization
is
correct,
and
so,
if
we
need
to
revise
the
language,
we'll
do
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
then
just
the
comment
that
I
had.
I
don't
think
it
really
needs
a
question,
but
when
we
talk
about
the
blind
sentencing
in
the
amendment
on
page
three
of
the
amendment,
there's
some
new
language
being
added,
where
the
identifying
information
that
would
be
deleted
includes
the
location
of
arrest,
violation
and
or
residence.
A
I
think
I
I
understand
the
intent
behind
location
of
arrest
and
or
residence,
but
it
does
seem
to
me
that
the
location
of
the
violation
might
be
something
pertinent
for
a
charger
to
to
have
in
front
of
them,
and
I'm
just
thinking
about
an
example.
You
know
if
someone
goes
into
a
commercial
establishment
and
and
starts
sort
of
randomly
committing
crimes,
that's
very
different
than
you
know,
if
there's
an
individual
confrontation
out
in
front
of
somebody's
yard.
So
I
don't
think
we
need
to
discuss
that
any
further.
A
But
I
think
I
might
want
to
consider
keeping
location
of
the
violation
and
as
something
that
might
be
pertinent
to
a
charging
decision.
So
I'll.
Just
simply
make
that
suggestion
and
committee
we've
taken
about
an
hour
of
questions.
So
I
think
it
is
time
to
move
on
to
some
testimony
because
we
do
have
folks
who
are
interested
in
this
bill
so
to
the
presenters
and
those
who
helped
answer
questions.
Thank
you
for
being
here
with
us.
We'll
ask
you
to
hold
tight
for
a
little
bit
while
we
go
to
testimony
on
the
bill
itself.
A
A
N
Yes,
I
just
want
to
add
to
kendrick
burchie
for
the
record
with
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office.
Our
office
supports
this
bill.
We
really
appreciate
the
assemblyman's
hard
work
on
ensuring
that
we
take
the
great
criminal
justice
reforms
that
we
made
last
session
and
continue
them
this
session
into
a
different
aspect
of
the
criminal
justice
system.
We
do
believe
that
the
task
force,
as
well
as
the
blind
charging
decisions,
will
help
to
curb
the
implicit
bias,
to
make
our
system
more
fair
and
equitable
and
to
rebuild
trust
in
our
criminal
justice
system.
A
D
D
C
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
committee
members.
This
is
nick
schipec
and
I
c-k-s-h-e-p-a
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
are
testifying
in
strong
support
of
ab243
today
and
thank
assemblyman
orton
liquor
for
bringing
this
spell
one
of
the
oldest
and
most
recognizable
symbols
of
justice
is
that
of
lady
justice,
blindfolded
with
a
balanced
scale
in
one
hand
and
the
sword
in
the
other.
She
symbolizes
the
ideal
system
of
justice.
Unfortunately,
we
have
not
reached
that
ideal
system
of
justice.
C
The
system
is,
in
fact,
so
far
from
blind
that
youth
legislator
melendez,
has
spent
months
working
on
this
bill
at
her
young
age.
She
has
become
acutely
aware
that
the
justice
system
designed
to
protect
her
acts
as
a
steel
trap
for
black
and
brown
community
members,
disproportionately
punishing
them
for
behavior
no
different
than
their
white
counterparts.
C
The
opposition
will
say
that
that
the
implementation
of
this
bill
will
be
hard,
that
it
will
be
tedious
and
time-consuming
and
that
it
will
cost
more
than
we
think.
While
these
are
valid
points,
we
must
take
a
step
back
and
ask
the
community
how
hard
it
is
to
continue
with
disparate
sentencing,
based
on
rate,
ask
how
tedious
it
is
to
navigate
a
system
life
with
racial
bias.
We
must
ask
what
has
been
lost
to
an
unblind
system
of
justice
and
how
much
this
system
has
cost
the
community.
C
I
ask
you
to
place
the
needs
of
the
community
on
one
side
of
lady
justice's
scale
and
the
bureaucratic
difficulties
of
the
da's
office
on
the
other
side
and
see
which
way
it
tips.
Lastly,
we
must
be
honest
in
every
conversation
about
reform
the
community,
the
defense
bar
and
the
advocates
are
always
greatly
outnumbered
by
law
enforcement.
We
ask
that
you
support
this
bill,
support,
impacted
communities
and
support
blind
justice.
Thank
you.
D
C
Good
morning
my
name
is
desean
jackson,
d-a-f-h-u-n
j-a-c-k-s-o-n
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
committee
members.
Again,
my
name
is
deshawn
jackson.
I
serve
as
the
director
of
children's
safety
and
welfare
policy,
with
the
children's
advocacy
alliance
and
on
behalf
of
the
children's
advocacy
alliance,
I
speak
in
support
of
ab-243.
C
D
E
To
address
the
systemic
racism
and
clear
disparities
in
the
criminal
justice
system
that
over
criminalize
communities
of
color,
and
while
we
still
appreciate
the
legislature
having
introduced
the
number
of
police
reform
measures,
this
session
120
days
is
obviously
not
enough
to
solve
a
problem.
Ab243.
R
D
F
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
john
piro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
hearing
this
bill
and
just
bring
a
few
issues
to
light.
The
review
journal
just
published
an
article
on
civilian
review
boards,
and
this
is
why
that
task
force
proposed
that
ab243
is
necessary.
F
F
The
question
that
needs
to
be
asked-
and
I
think,
has
come
to
light
recently-
is
who
is
watching
the
watchmen,
and
this
bill
provides
for
somebody
to
watch
the
watchmen.
It
is
no
longer
okay
for
them
to
police
themselves
and
say
there
are
no
problems,
but
then
secondarily,
say
well.
Everybody
is
really
upset
with
law
enforcement.
It's
time
for
us
to
address
that,
and
I
believe
the
task
force
would
do
that.
The
other
two
parts
of
this
bill
are
very
important
as
well.
In
2016.
F
We
all
realized
that
over
racism
is
way
bigger
of
a
problem
than
we
all
thought,
but
we
all
knew
that
implicit
racial
bias
was
hiding
within
the
crevices
blind
charging
helps
us
work
on
that
issue
and,
as
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
said,
it's
a
small
cost
to
pay
to
work
on
justice
and
to
address
mr
o'neill's
question
assemblyman
o'neill's
question:
if
our
study
finds
out
that
we're
doing
things
right
then
good
for
us
that
shouldn't
stop
us
from
studying
the
issue,
though.
F
Lastly,
the
part
of
the
bill
deals
with
youthful
offenders
and
recognizes
them
as
use
and
gives
the
judges
permission
to
do
that.
That
is
also
a
good
policy.
Thank
you
for
hearing
this
bill
and
I
urge
its
passage.
D
K
K
Assemblyman
orton
liquor
and
the
presenters,
including
mary
bacon
and
addie
rolnick,
for
bringing
this
bill
and
doing
a
great
job
in
presenting
it.
K
This
morning,
I'd
like
to
lead
my
remarks
this
morning
by
pointing
out
that
on
august
6
2020,
the
state
of
nevada
adopted
scr1,
a
resolution
that
urged
public
action
and
recognized
racism
as
a
public
health
crisis,
namely
that
resolution
provides
that
systemic
racism
and
structures
of
racial
discrimination
create
generational
poverty
and
perpetuate
debilitating
economic,
educational
and
health
hardships
and
disproportionately
affect
people
of
color,
causing
the
single
most
profound
economic
and
social
change
challenge
facing
nevada,
and
we
believe
that
assembly
bill
243,
seeks
to
address
several
aspects
of
this
underlying
institutional
racism
address
in
s
br1.
K
Now
we
believe
that
it
is
very
well
established
that
black
and
african
americans
are
subject
to
higher
levels
of
criminalization
and
harsher
collateral
consequences
and
sentencing
in
comparison
to
their
other
counterparts.
The
lvmba.
It
is
clear
that
implicit,
racial
bias
and
prejudice
to
prosecutors
in
the
criminal
charging
system
have
exacerbated
the
despaired
effect
of
the
criminal
justice
system
on
black
and
brown
communities.
K
D
S
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e-g-r-a-n-t
my
brother
was
killed
by
police
in
reno,
hogtied
and
fixated
to
death
during
a
mental
health
crisis.
I'd
like
to
thank
the
sponsors
of
this
bill
and
all
involved
in
its
creation.
I
support
this
bill
fully,
especially
since
the
amendment
includes
someone
directly
impacted
by
police
violence
who
lives
in
nevada.
S
Some
some
families
truly
hope
some
something
to
families
truly
hope
for
is
change
not
just
talking
about
it,
but
taking
actual
impactful
steps
towards
that,
and
I
feel
this
bill
does
that
and
some
victims
want
to
be
a
meaningful
part
of
that
change.
I
have
seen
the
success
of
advisory
boards,
such
as
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice
and
recommendations
made
to
your
legislature
by
them.
S
The
idea
that
a
task
force
will
be
there
to
hold
law
enforcement
agencies
accountable
and
not
leave
it
up
to
the
agencies
themselves
is
a
huge
step
towards
greater
transparency
and
provides
hope.
I
also
believe
this
suggested
make
up
for
the
board
will
provide
various
impactful
insight.
I
also
support
and
appreciate
race
blind
charging
system.
Just
it
should
be
an
even
playing
field
for
all.
If
you
need
an
impacted
nevadan,
I
can
direct
you
towards
many.
Thank
you
again
for
sponsoring
this
bill
and
please
support
it.
D
D
F
However,
today
I
am
testifying
in
my
personal
capacity
as
an
attorney
who
has
practiced
almost
exclusively
for
five
years
over
five
years
regarding
federal,
indian
and
tribal
law,
and
that's
why
I
believe
it's
important
that
we
include
a
legal
scholar
with
indigenous
indigenous
people
as
part
of
the
task
force
and
why.
I
also
think
it's
important
that
we
include
someone
who's
familiar
with
issues
related
to
police
relations
with
minority
communities,
especially
those
in
indian
country.
F
In
particular,
I
have
experience
working
on
a
case
with
my
own
tribe
and
the
office
of
the
tribal
attorney
where
we
had
a
county
sheriff,
try
to
enforce
civil
regulatory
laws
over
our
members
now
under
certain
laws,
they're
not
able
to
do
that
and
although
we
thought
the
case
would
be
easily
resolved,
what
ended
up
happening
was
the
local
law
enforcement,
the
state
law
enforcement,
challenged
the
creation
and
existence
of
our
reservation
boundaries
that
caught
us
completely
off
guard,
and
we
didn't
understand
why
they
took
that
position.
F
F
We
believe
that
the
creation
of
a
task
force
or,
I
believe,
the
creation
of
a
task
force
that
includes
people
that
have
experience
in
indian
country
again,
like
a
legal
scholar
with
indigenous
people,
could
help
address
these
issues
going
forward.
So
these
types
of
issues
don't
happen
with
tribes
in
nevada.
F
Criminal
justice
issues
can
also
be
addressed
in
a
good
way
and
best
practices
can
be
developed
when
states
have
a
good
understanding
of
indian
country
and
tribes
in
the
state
can
work
together,
and
this
would
allow
for
more
consistent
and
fair
application
of
law
enforcement
in
an
indian
country,
and
I
believe
that
this
is
best
accomplished
by
creating
bridges
between
policy
experts,
including
those
in
indian
country
and
regarding
indian
country
and
the
policy
makers.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
D
C
Today,
black
people
are
three
times
as
likely
to
be
arrested
for
marijuana
possession
as
white
people.
In
some
counties.
This
is
much
higher.
For
instance,
the
most
recent
numbers
from
douglas
county
show
that
black
people
are
22
times
more
likely
to
be
arrested
for
marijuana
possession
as
white
people.
C
D
Thank
you
chair.
We
are
currently
taking
testimony
for
ab243,
please
press
star
9,
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
again.
We
are
taking
testimony
for
ab243
in
support.
Please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
caller
with
the
last
three
digits:
zero.
Three
seven,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes
and
they
begin.
R
T-O-N-J-A-B-R-O-W-N
good
morning,
members
of
the
judiciary,
we
are
in
strong
support
of
this
bill.
Under
section
seven,
we
would
like
to
see
the
word
retroactively
to
be
applied
retroactively.
R
I
will
say
that
you
know
we,
you
know
nowadays
we
know
a
lot
about
mental
health
issues.
20
30
40
50
years
ago.
C
R
Didn't
and
we
have
individuals
still
serving
time
in
our
prisons,
who
have
who
had
gone
misdiagnosed
for
many
many
years
and
are
who
have
been
in
for
decades
and
how
does
that
compare
to
what
the
current
situation
would
be
if
this
bill
passes
and
moves
forward
without
making
it
retroactive?
R
Also
with
the
I'm
not
sure
if
you
are
familiar
with
the
case,
and
I
think
this
should
be
part
of
the
task
force
into
looking
into
cases
and
trying
to
figure
out
some
things,
not
just
dealing
with
the
law
enforcement.
I
want
to
refer
to
the
david
webb
case.
I
don't
know
if
you
are
familiar
with
it,
but
it
was
a
case
here
in
carson
city
some
years
ago,
where
a
black
man,
david
webb,
was
arrested
by
the
police.
The
police
were
had
a
suspect.
He
was
described
as
being
black.
R
They
came
across
mr
david
webb.
He
was
apprehended
put
in
jail
and
shortly
thereafter
the
police
realized
that
they
actually
had
the
wrong
guy
in
jail.
So
he
went
to
the
district
attorney
here
in
carson
city
and
at
the
time
it
was
the
chief
deputy
district
attorney
ann
langer.
She
informed
the
officers
they
would
not.
R
He
would
not
be
released
unless
he
signed
a
waiver
not
to
sue
the
city
for
his
false
arrest,
mr
webb
flat
out
refused
and
ultimately
he
did
sue
and
he
they
did
settle
and
they
actually
did
get
the
actual
suspect
anyways.
Now
this
district
attorney
or
as
chief
deputy
d.a,
is
now
the
story
county
district
attorney.
So
I
think
we
should
be
looking
at
civil
lawsuits
where
things
like
this
happen
and
then
do
a
comparison
with,
for
example,
that
district
attorney
and
how
she
proceeds
to
charge
certain
individuals.
A
R
Yes,
okay
and
then
also
under
section
4
2h.
It
says
an
individual
impacted
by
police
violence,
it
doesn't
say
it
has
to
be
in
nevada
and
if
that's
the
case,
I
would
strongly
recommend
that
miss
anne-marie
grant
apply
for
that
position.
I
think
she'd
be
wonderful.
Also.
I
think
they
should
do
a
comparison
like
I
said,
make
this
retroactive,
because
maybe
it
will
help
those
individuals
who've
been
in
for
40
years,
who
were
17
or
18
19
years
old,
a
chance
the
opportunity
to
get
out.
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps,
I'm
going
to
close
testimony
in
support
of
the
bill.
I
will
now
open
up
testimony
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
243..
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
joining
us
today
on
the
zoom
who
is
in
opposition
but
bps.
I
think
we
have
some
folks
on
the
phone
who'd
like
to
offer
opposition
testimony.
So
please,
let's
go
there
and
take
the
first
caller.
D
D
R
When
the
concept
of
the
bill
was
first
brought
to
us.
It
was
with
the
idea
that
stanford
had
a
free
char
software
program
that
could
facilitate
so-called
blind
charging
by
making
redaction
automated,
but
it
quickly
became
apparent
that
the
software
requirements
and
specifications
are
not
something
that
any
nevada
district
attorney's
office
can
need.
R
And
importantly,
stanford's
study
using
an
implicit
bias
algorithm
failed
to
demonstrate
any
statistically
different
racial
outcomes
after
implementation
of
line
charging.
When
we
asked
about
that,
the
explanation
was
essentially
that
san
francisco
prosecutors
are
more
enlightened
or
more
sensitive
to
the
issue
of
implicit
bias
than
nevada
prosecutors.
There
is
no
support
for
this
hypothesis.
R
We
take
our
oaths
as
prosecutors
very
seriously
and
are
ever
mindful
that
it
is
our
duty
to
protect
the
safety
of
our
community,
including
every
member
of
our
community,
regardless
of
race,
creed,
ethnicity
or
religion.
We
are
all
nevadans
and
we
take
the
issue
of
implied
implicit
bias
very
seriously,
but
this
bill
does
not
simply
require
that
da's
and
city
attorneys
engage
in
race
plant
charging.
R
It's
requiring
us
to
engage
in
evidence-blind
charging,
and
I
say
that
because
prosecutors
are
not
allowed
in
making
your
initial
charging
decision
to
consider
critical
information
such
as
the
criminal
history
of
the
arrested
person,
witness
statement,
body,
worn,
camera,
footage
and
surveillance
footage.
We
can't
even
know
what
the
person
was
booked
on
reasoned
case
evaluation
and
prosecutorial
discretion.
Just
can't
occur
in
this
informational
vacuum,
so
we
will
have
to
make
a
full
case
evaluation.
R
A
second
time
with
the
previously
redacted
information
included
record,
any
changes
in
our
charging
decision
and
offer
an
explanation
for
those
changes.
This
will
happen
in
each
case.
Support
staff
will
spend
many
hours
each
day,
combing
through
police
reports
and
pre-trial
assessments
to
redact
all
the
required
demographic
information.
R
We
do
not
have
the
time
or
the
personnel
to
do
this,
but
using
adobe
acrobat
we
used.
We
did
some
test
runs
on
how
long
it
would
take
an
experienced
secretary
supervisor
to
redact
the
information
contemplated
by
the
bill,
and
this
was
sort
of
in
line
with
some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
so
I'll
quickly
give
a
couple
of
examples.
R
R
Another
felony
robbery
took
25
minutes
a
murder,
30
minutes
a
misdemeanor
domestic
battery
also
took
30
minutes.
These
time,
redactions,
as
I
said,
were
prior
to
the
additional
requirements
in
the
amendment,
which
also
require
reduction
of
the
officer's
name,
arresting
charges
etc
in
just
washoe
county.
These
redactions
would
have
to
be
done
on
an
average
of
9584
cases
per
year.
It's
my
understanding
that
in
clark
county,
the
redaction
process
would
be
applied
to
about
35
000
cases
per
year,
and
please
keep
in
mind
when
the
defense
discussed
the
issue
of
redaction.
R
They
are
typically
redacting
information
like
social
security
numbers,
etc.
They
are
not
redacting
all
the
additional
information
required
by
this
bill
in
washoe
county
we
have,
we
will
have
to
create
a
screening
division
and
get
rid
of
our
lateral
prosecution
model.
R
We
think
this
model
protects
our
community
better
because
the
same
prosecutor's
assigned
to
offenders
each
time
they
offend,
which
elim
better
informs
the
prosecutor
in
their
charging
decisions
and
plea
negotiations
with
that
defendant,
but
with
this
bill,
ddas
who
charge
cases
also
cannot
cover
valdez
to
menace
hearings
and
detention
hearings,
because
they
will
see
defendants
in
person
and
learn
the
arresting
officer's
identity,
booking
charges
and
the
defendant's
criminal
history
etc.
Prior
to
charging,
this
means
our
ddas
aren't
fundable
and
we're
going
to
need
more
of
them.
R
This
bill
is
well-meaning,
it
is
an
academic
exercise,
but
it
is
utterly
and
unworkable
in
nevada,
district,
attorney's
offices,
justice
delayed
is
just
as
denied
and
the
deleterious
effects
on
our
ability
to
do
our
job
and
meet
constitutional
and
statutory
deadlines
will
be
severely
hobbled.
This
is
not
a
money
committee,
so
I
will
refrain
from
discussing
the
fiscal
implications
of
these
owners
requirements.
R
I'm
almost
done,
but
I'd
like
to
again
reiterate.
We
take
this
issue
of
implicit
bias
very
seriously,
but
we
do
not
have
the
privilege
of
operating
in
the
world
of
academia
of
studies
and
hypotheses
we
operate
in
the
world
of
devastated
victims
shattered
lives
near
impossible,
caseloads
and
constitutional
and
statutory
deadlines
that
are
non-negotiable.
R
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
noble.
I
gave
you
a
little
bit
more
time,
but
I
will
note
that
we
have
several
other
callers
in
opposition,
so
for
future
callers.
If
you
could,
please
try
to
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes.
That'll
allow
us
to
get
through
everybody
before
we
move
on
bps,
please,
let's
take
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
D
R
Walsh,
j-e-s-s-I-c-a-w-a-l-s-h-
and
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
in
opposition
to
av-243.
I
am
in
charge
of
our
case
assessment
unit
and
oversee
those
making
charging
decisions
with
our
office.
I
first
want
to
thank
assemblyman
lecter
for
meeting
with
representatives
of
our
office
to
discuss
this
bill.
I
also
want
to
let
the
committee
know
that
we
did
meet
with
alex
trollis
wood,
the
executive
director
of
the
stanford
computational
policy
lab
who
developed
the
blind
charging
program.
Additionally,
we
read
his
study
on
his
implicit
bias
algorithm.
R
R
My
screening
deputies
make
thoughtful
fact-based
charging
decisions
after
reviewing
photos
and
videos,
reading
victim
statements
talking
to
officers
and
yes
reading
the
declaration
of
arrests.
Additionally,
some
of
the
information
to
be
redacted
in
the
conceptual
amendment
are
often
elements
of
the
crime
itself.
It
could
be
entirely
inappropriate
and
unethical
in
some
cases
to
make
even
an
initial
charging
decision
without
being
provided
that
information.
R
Our
submissions
process
is
not
compatible
with
the
program
that
would
automatically
redact
the
information,
as
it
does
not
work
with
a
pdf
leaving
us
to
make
the
required
redactions
manually.
Considering
all
that
we
review,
there
is
no
way
the
county
district
attorney's
office
could
undertake
the
requirements
of
ab243
without
a
significant
investment
in
new
staff.
We
do
not
feel
that
this
is
a
significant
investment.
R
Is
good
policy,
considering
there's
no
evidence
that
we
are
engaged
in
biased
charging
decisions,
the
same
deputies
who
screen
the
cases
are
also
the
deputies
who
currently
appear
in
the
initial
appearance
court
in
las
vegas
justice
court.
Our
office
has
taken
great
efforts
to
expedite
our
charging
decisions
to
coincide
with
initial
appearance
court,
resulting
in
approximately
20
percent
of
offenders
being
released
within
one
day
of
their
arrest.
R
R
D
C
C
The
executive
branch
encompasses
the
responsibility
to
carry
out
enough
for
enforced
laws,
and,
while
there
may
be
overlap
between
the
branches
to
some
degree,
one
branch
may
not
directly
interfere
with
the
essential
functions
of
another.
The
decision
to
whether
to
prosecute
or
not
has
been
called
a
special
province
or
core
function
of
the
executive
branch
and
so
long
as
the
prosecutor
has
probable
cause
to
believe
that
the
defendant
committed
an
offense.
The
decision,
whether
or
not
to
prosecute
and
what
charge
to
file
generally
rests
entirely
with
the
prosecutor.
C
Well,
meaning,
as
it
may
be,
this
bill
would
represent
a
direct
interference
with
those
core
duties
of
the
executive
branch,
as
it
would
regulate
how
a
prosecutor
could
initially
read
information,
and
then
it
would
dictate
what
mental
impressions
a
prosecutor
must
write
down
on
every
file.
Allah
should
not
interfere
with
this
deliberative
process
and
dictate
how
a
prosecutor
notates
his
or
her
mental
impressions
in
a
case
which
would
constitute
work
product
and
wouldn't
be
discoverable
anyway,
to
justify
directly
intervening
with
the
screening
process.
C
The
bill
promotes
blindness
as
a
means
to
counteract
discriminatory
decision-making,
but
just
saying
something
doesn't
make
it.
So
where
is
the
proof
of
discrimination
in
the
screening
process
in
nevada,
while
discrimination
in
our
country
is
certainly
real?
There
is
no
showing
that
there's
any
discrimination
in
the
case
assessment
process
and
any
prosecutorial
office
in
the
state
and
no
court
has
ever
found
such
of
course
a
prosecutor's
discretion
is
not
subject.
It
is
always
subject
to
constitutional
constraints
and
there's
always
legal
remedies.
C
S
C
Extra
steps
to
an
internal
process
will
just
slow
everything
down.
We
have
an
obligation
to
review
the
entire
report.
We
don't
want
to
guess
when
making
these
decisions
holding
back
information
such
as
the
location
of
the
crime
or
the
crime
even
itself
would
not
promote
a
fair
legal
process.
Since
you
need
to
review
the
unredacted
report
to
make
sure
you
even
have
jurisdiction
to
file
the
charge
and
know
what
charge
you're
filing
we
want
to
do.
The
right
thing.
Blind
justice
is
a
symbolic
goal,
but
it
would
not
be
served
by
this
bill.
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments,
your
testimony,
mr
skiffaloqua
bps.
Let's
take
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
Please.
D
C
K
C
Questions
must
be
asked
and
answered
regarding
the
motivations
for
why
any
and
all
of
the
expertises
that
were
selected
were
chosen
to
make
up
that
board.
It
also
appears
that
not
enough
input
from
nevada
law
enforcement
was
heard
prior
to
the
drafting
of
this
bill
affected,
stakeholders
should
be
brought
in
for
additional
input.
C
F
A
D
K
K
I've
been
a
prosecutor
for
almost
30
years,
and
I've
been
a
prosecutor
for
the
city
for
almost
24
years.
I
can
say
unequivocally
that
race
and
ethnicity
have
no
place
in
making
charging
decisions
in
criminal
cases,
and
I
can
assure
you
that
our
office
does
not
consider
these
factors
in
making
our
charging
decisions,
our
office
processes
and
screens
about
five
thousand
violent
cases
a
year,
including
battery
domestic
violence,
cases
about
2500,
dui
cases
and
thousands
of
other
misdemeanor
offenses
in
the
city.
K
When
we
screen
a
case,
we
are
only
looking
for
the
elements
of
the
alleged
defense
and
whether
they've
been
met.
We
currently
have
difficulty
keeping
up
with
our
screening
because
of
our
large
caseload
and
meeting
upcoming
court
dates
this
bill
and
the
proposed
amendment
will
make
that
task
even
more
difficult.
K
K
K
All
of
these
cases
will
have
to
be
screened
twice.
The
amendment
to
the
bill
requires
that
the
location
of
the
event
be
redacted,
and
we
will
not
even
know
that
we
have
jurisdiction
in
the
matter
and
we'll
have
to
guess
as
to
the
proposed
charges
that
the
officer
is
presenting,
as
I
indicated
at
the
beginning,
race,
ethnicity
and
physical
descriptors
should
play
no
role
in
determining
the
filing
of
criminal
charges
in
a
criminal
case.
K
D
R
Chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
callie
wilson
with
the
city
of
reno,
we
are
in
opposition
today,
as
we
have
a
limited
concern
about
how
the
charging
system
may
inadvertently
increase
and
duplicate
clerical
work
for
our
police
department.
We
met
with
assemblyman
orrin
licker
and
appreciate
his
willingness
to
consider
an
amendment
to
address
this
concern
and
we'll
be
getting
that
over
to
him.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
work
with
him
and
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
today.
Thank
you.
D
F
Good
morning,
chairman
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley
e
r,
I
e-r-I-c-s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y
for
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association.
You've
heard
the
logical
explanations
proposition
thus
far,
so
we
agree
with
those
and
and
how
chaotic
it
would
be
to
implement
the
provisions
of
this
bill
and
the
bias
and
unbalanced
nature
of
the
task
force
proposed.
Nevada
law
enforcement
leaders
are
supportive
of
the
good
public
policy
being
proposed.
This
session,
such
as
the
oversight
provided
by
assembly
bill
58
and
are
also
supportive
of
transparency
for
law
enforcement
agencies.
F
A
D
D
D
C
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
community,
my
name
is
aj
d
lap
with
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
and
that
last
name
is
phonetically,
spelled
david,
easy,
lincoln,
adam
paul.
The
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
is
opposed
to
ab243
in
its
introduced
form
or
with
the
amendment.
Unfortunately,
specifically
section
4
is
our
issue.
Las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
known
as
lvmpd,
is
in
full
support
of
continued
efforts
by
the
community.
We
serve
to
provide
quality,
constructive
feedback
as
to
how
to
best
serve
our
community
members.
C
It
is
the
goal
of
lvnpd
to
be
the
safest
community
in
america.
This
goal
can
only
be
attained
through
partnerships
with
our
community
members.
However,
lvmpd
does
not
support
the
creation
of
the
task
force
described
in
section
four
lvmpd
echoes
many
of
the
concerns
of
co-chair
win.
It
is
the
position
of
lvmpd
that
the
task
force
appears
to
create
a
conflict
between
the
already
well-functioning
well-led
and
well-community
representative
advisory
commission
to
the
administration
of
justice
and
its
subcommittees.
C
As
we
all
know,
nevada
is
a
very
unique
state.
We
have
a
very
condensed
and
large
population
in
southern
nevada,
and
yet
some
of
the
most
remote
and
small
communities
in
the
country
and
everything
in
between
it
seems
because
of
this
great
consideration
has
to
be
taken
to
all
legislation,
ensure
that
the
needs
of
the
state
as
a
whole
can
be
met
with
that
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
conclude
my
testimony.
A
Thank
you
bps,
so
that
worked
out
nicely.
We
had
22
minutes
of
supportive
testimony
and
22
minutes
of
opposition
testimony.
I
will
now
close
opposition
testimony.
Let's
see
if
there's
anybody
neutral
in
on
assembly,
bill
243,
there's
nobody
on
the
zoom
bps.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
phone
line?
Who
is
in
the
neutral
position.
A
N
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record
again,
I
just
want
to
thank
assemblyman
orton
liquor
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
As
we
heard,
this
is
extremely
good
policy
to
ensure
that
we
are
charging
in
a
way
that
is
racially
neutral.
What
we
heard
is
that
there
aren't
studies
indicating
that
there
is
an
issue
in
nevada.
However,
as
assemblywoman
cohen
mentioned
in
her
remarks
to
we
do
know
from
the
studies
done
from
cji
that
there
is
an
issue,
and
we
believe
that
this
is
one
of
the
ways
to
address
this
issue.
N
A
L
You
cherry
yeager
members
of
the
committee
for
hearing
today,
as
I
indicated,
we're
interested
in
working
with
everybody
to
make
sure
we
get
this
right.
L
There
is
a
problem.
We
don't
doubt
the
good
faith
and
efforts
of
our
law
enforcement
officials
in
nevada,
but
we
have
ample
data
indicating
that
race,
infects
law
enforcement
decisions
and
and
very
unfair
ways,
and-
and
we
need
to
address
that-
we
know
that
blacks
and
other
minorities
are
sentenced
more
harshly.
L
That's
clear
and
we
know
that
charging
decisions,
unfair
charging
decisions
are
a
key
factor
in
that,
and
you
know
I'm
glad,
as
miss
kifalaqua
pointed
out
that
there
are
remedies
for
we
can
try
to
hold
people
accountable,
but
it's
far
more
important
to
prevent
the
harms
as
assembly
women
summers
armstrong
pointed
out,
there
are
real
people's
lives
that
are
devastated
because
of
unfair
charging
decisions.
L
We've
done
our
tests
and
it
doesn't
take
a
lot
of
time
we're
happy
to
work
with
the
district
attorney's
offices
to
make
sure
they
can
implement
this
in
a
in
a
simple
non-burdensome
way,
because
we're
confident
it
can
be-
and
it's
critical,
that
we
have
a
fair
justice
system
that
people
are
not
treated
differentially
because
of
their
race
or
ethnic
origin,
and
and
we
will
work
to
make
sure
that
happens
on
the
task
force
again,
we'll
work
to
make
sure
we
have
the
right
membership,
but
it
is
a
critical
resource
that
we
can
draw
on
for
our
activities
going
forward.
L
A
A
That
brings
us
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
bring
up
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
committee
bps.
Let's
go
to
the
phone
lines
please
and
see.
If
there's
anybody
with
public
comment
this
morning,.
D
C
K
C
Quarter
million
nevadans
will
be
at
risk
of
eviction.
We
need
a
work
session
on
ab141
and
a
hearing
for
ab161
moving
these
bills
forward
will
ensure
we
are
able
to
protect
nevada
and
families,
keep
them
in
their
homes
and
secure
their
right
to
due
process.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
have
a
great
weekend.
A
D
Yes,
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
five
five
six,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
S
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
my
brother
was
killed
by
reno
police
today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
eric
scott
eric
scott
was
killed
on
july
10
2010,
while
leaving
a
costco's
in
las
vegas
by
lb,
mpd
officer,
william
mosher,
who
fired
two
rounds,
joshua
officer,
joshua
stock
and
thomas
mendiola
also
fired
eric
was
hit
a
total
of
seven
times
a
costco
loss
prevention
supervisor
claimed
eric
had
a
gun
in
his
waistband
and
costco
prohibits
weapons.
S
The
loss
prevention
staff
also
said
that
eric
did
not
threaten
anyone
inside
the
store,
didn't
act
violently
and
didn't
remove
the
gun
from
his
waistband.
A
handgun
was
later
found.
Still
in
its
holster
on
the
ground,
mosher
testified
officer.
Mosher
testified.
He
didn't
recall,
ordering
eric
to
drop
the
gun
eric,
who
is
now
outside
the
store
and
would
have
been
within
his
constitutional
rights.
According
to
your
state.
Second
amendment
laws
to
possess
that
gun,
but
a
911
recording
did
record
that
mosher
did
command
eric
to
drop
the
weapon.
S
E
S
Any
aggressive
movements,
in
fact
moshe,
instructed
eric
to
drop
the
gun.
Eric
was
surrounded
by
three
officers.
He
turned
around.
He
was
compliant,
he
was
told
to
drop
the
gun
and
he
did
exactly
that
and
was
executed
for
it.
Eric
was
the
second
community
member
killed
by
officer
mosher,
I'd
like
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
eric
scott
as
a
human
being.
S
Eric
was
a
veteran
who
attended
the
u.s
military
academy
at
west
point
graduated
in
the
top
10
of
his
class
and
was
a
commissioned
u.s
army
officer
in
may
of
1994.
He
subsequently
served
as
an
m1a1
tank
platoon
leader
with
the
first
cavalry
he
left
active
duty
during
the
post-cold
military
drawdown
and
embarked
on
a
successful
career
in
medical
and
real
estate
sales.
He
was
transferred
to
las
vegas
in
1999,
working
in
cardiovascular
sales
for
boston,
scientific,
while
working
full-time.
S
He
obtained
a
master's
in
business
administration
from
duke
university's,
fuqua
school
of
business,
then
branched
into
real
estate.
Eric
was
involved
in
a
number
of
major
projects
in
las
vegas.
He
is
loved
and
missed
by
his
parents,
bill
and
linda
scott
and
his
brother,
kevin
scott,
and
so
many
others.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability
from
law
enforcement.
Thank
you.
A
D
A
Thank
you
bps
for
all
your
help
today
in
managing
that
testimony
committee
members,
if
you'll
just
hold
tight
for
one.
Second,
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
have
any
other
committee
business
before
us
this
morning
before
we
adjourn.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We
do
have
one
more
item
of
business
before
us
and
that
is
a
committee
bill.
Draft
request.
Introduction,
as
this
is
our
first
one
of
the
session.
Let
me
just
go
over
that
process
very
quickly.
There
are
certain
bill
draft
requests
that
have
to
be
introduced
through
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
A
So
what
we
will
be
voting
on
today
is
to
introduce
that
bill,
and
that
means
it
will
go
to
the
floor,
get
an
actual
bill
number
and
then
it
will
come
back
to
the
committee
for
potential
action,
whether
it
mean
a
hearing
or
not
a
hearing
before
it
moves
on
through
the
process.
So
again,
an
affirmative
vote
today
just
allows
the
measure
to
be
drafted
it
doesn't
it
doesn't
indicate
that
you're
going
to
support
the
measure
if
and
when
we
actually
hear
it.
A
A
I
think
I
have
a
motion,
a
motion
from
assemblyman
wheeler.
We
have
a
second
from
vice
chair
wynn,
any
discussion
on
the
motion
before
we
take
a
vote.
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Madam
secretary,
could
we
please
do
a
roll
call
vote
and
members
if
you
are
in
favor?
Please
say:
yes,
if
you
are
opposed,
please
say
no.
E
L
P
L
Q
A
It's
perfectly
fine.
I
understand
the
motion
does
carry
all
those
present
voted
in
favor
and
committee
members,
we'll
report
that
bdr
down
to
the
floor
so
hopefully
that'll
get
introduced
today
and
you'll
have
a
chance
to
look
at
that.
It
looks
like
it
relates
to
the
state
board
of
parole,
commissioners
and
some
of
their
duties,
so
hopefully
we'll
have
a
chance
to
look
at
that
soon.
Thank
you
for
doing
that.
Committee.
A
We'll
have
probably
several
more
of
those
next
week
to
introduce
in
the
committee
with
that
order
that
matter
of
business
behind
us
anything
else
from
committee
members
this
morning
before
we
talk
about
next
week.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything.
Obviously,
committee
has
been
a
really
really
long
week
in
assembly.
Judiciary
just
want
to
express
how
much
I
appreciate
all
of
you
helping
us
through
this
week
and
your
thoughtful
questions
in
preparation
in
terms
of
next
week.
We
have
a
meeting
on
monday,
but
we
will
not
meet
until
10
a.m.
So
that
is
the
good
news.
A
We
have
one
bill
that
will
be
hearing
on
monday
and
then
we
don't
have
agendas
out
yet
for
the
rest
of
the
week,
but
I
do
anticipate
we're
going
to
have
committee
every
day
next
week.
I
just
don't
know
what
time
we're
going
to
meet
and
how
many
bills
we're
going
to
do
so
we'll
continue
to
work
that
out
based
on
bills
that
are
introduced
on
the
floor
today.
So
with
all
of
that,
thank
you
committee.
A
I
hope
everyone
has
a
wonderful
weekend
and
before
I
adjourn
I
did
want
to
say
happy
birthday
to
former
assembly,
judiciary,
chair
and
current
speaker,
fryerson
he's
not
with
us
in
the
building
today,
but
it
is
his
birthday.
So
if
you
are
watching,
we
hope
you
have
a
great
birthday
and
I
hope
you
all
have
a
great
weekend
I'll
see
you
back
here
in
this
committee
at
10
a.m.
On
monday
morning,
this
meeting
is
adjourned.