►
From YouTube: 4/21/2021 - 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
D
A
A
We
do
have
a
quorum
so
good
morning
to
everyone
here
on
the
committee
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city
and
to
those
who
are
on
the
zoom,
as
well
as
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
We
have
arrived
at
day
80
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature,
which
means
we
are
two-thirds
of
the
way
there.
A
Speaking
for
those
who
are
on
the
zoom,
if
you
could
please
mute
yourself
as
well
when
you're,
not
speaking
and
most
importantly,
if
you
could
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
particularly
when
you're
answering
questions
that'll
help
us
prepare
accurate
committee
minutes.
In
addition,
we
expect
courtesy
and
respect
and
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
So
please
don't
see
stay
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
with
those
matters
behind
us,
we're
going
to
move
to
our
agenda
members
we're
going
to
take
the
bills
in
the
order,
as
listed
on
the
agenda
this
morning.
So
I'm
going
to
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
7
in
its
first
reprint.
That
bill
makes
various
changes
to
the
jurisdiction
of
certain
courts.
A
Certain
courts
relating
to
certain
orders
for
protection,
where
the
adverse
party
is
a
child
under
18
years
of
age.
I
believe
we
have
judge
sarah
gosa
with
us
and
mr
mccormick
with
us
both
here
on
the
zoom
good
morning,
welcome
to
assembly,
judiciary
and
please
proceed
with
your
presentation.
Then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some.
E
Existing
law
provides
for
several
different
types
of
protective
orders.
Some
of
those
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
justice
courts,
for
example,
protective
orders
against
stalking
and
harassment,
harassment
in
the
workplace
and
orders
for
the
production
of
minors.
Others,
depending
upon
population,
fall
within
the
district
court's
jurisdiction,
for
example,
protection
against
domestic
violence
and
protection
against
high-risk
behavior.
E
Though
that's
not
an
exhaustive
list.
This
particular
bill
addresses
a
gap
that
the
court
feels
needs
clarity,
while
our
existing
laws
address
the
subject
matter
of
the
different
types
of
protection
orders,
it
does
not
address
the
personal
jurisdiction
over
the
adverse
party
against
whom
the
protection
order
is
sought.
E
Particularly
juveniles,
though
not
a
large
number
of
cases
by
any
means,
the
law
is
simply
just
not
clear
and
which
court
should
handle
that
application
for
protection
order,
where
the
adverse
party
is
a
juvenile,
and
this
bill
is
intended
to
clarify
that
jurisdiction
should
lie
with
the
district
court.
As
that,
court
should
have
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
a
juvenile.
E
One
of
the
issues
that
arises
is
that
our
one,
our
customer
needs
to
know
where
to
file
the
particular
application
and,
in
general,
a
violation
of
such
a
protection
order
would
be
handled
as
either
a
new
criminal
matter
which
would
be
handled
as
a
juvenile
delinquency
matter
or
the
court
could
handle
that
as
a
matter
of
contempt,
because
contempt
carries
the
possibility
of
jail
time.
E
We
feel
the
law
should
be
clear
that
these
should
again
fall
within
the
district
court
rather
than
the
justice
court
who
does
not
handle
juvenile
matters,
especially
when
the
possibility
of
jail
time
is
presented
section.
One
of
the
bill
makes
this
jurisdictional
clarification.
It
allows
the
district
court
to
appoint
counsel
for
a
juvenile
adverse
party.
It
provides
for
the
manner
of
service
of
an
order
of
protection.
E
It
also
provides
for
the
automatic
ceiling
of
the
protection
order
record
and
that
does
not
exist
in
the
justice
court
type
protection
orders.
Should
the
adverse
party
wish
to
seal
the
record
prior
to
the
automatic
date
identified
in
this
bill
at
the
age
of
21?
There
already
exists
a
procedure
for
the
adverse
party
to
request
ceiling
prior
to
that
date.
Under
nrs
62h
130.
A
F
Questions.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
john
mccormick
for
the
record.
I
don't
have
any
specific
remarks
at
this
point.
We'd
be
happy
to
answer
questions.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
am
just
curious
because
this
is
not
my
my
wheelhouse,
as
I've
began
seeing
a
lot
in
this
committee.
What
happens
now
so
I'm
imagining,
because
it's
not
put
in
statute.
People
are
going
to
different
places
or
is
it
different
in
in
different
counties
or
what's
it
look
like.
E
Now,
john,
do
you
want
me
to
handle
that
question
sure
this
is
judge
saragosa
again
you're
exactly
right?
It
happens
differently
in
all
the
jurisdictions.
I
can
tell
you.
We've
we've
encountered
a
scenario
in
in
the
south
where
we
received
a
case
with
a
juvenile
adverse
party,
and
one
of
our
judges
wrote
an
order
transferring
that
matter
to
the
juvenile
division
of
the
district
court,
and
then
it
got
sent
back
to
us
saying
no
we're
like.
We
don't
have
jurisdiction
over
this.
E
It's
a
juvenile
and
the
juvenile
court
gets
it
and
says
we
don't
have
jurisdiction
over
this.
It's
a
stalking
and
harassment
tpo.
So
if
there's
that
kind
of
I
don't
know
we
don't
we
don't
know
the
the
judiciary
doesn't
know
where
the
legislature
wants
those
cases
to
lie.
We've
now
kind
of
had
months
of
talking
this
out.
There
was
a
similar
bill
last
session,
where
we
needed
to
tweak
it
a
little
bit.
E
We
brought
it
back
this
time
after
discussion,
and
now
we
have
discussed
with
the
juvenile
delinquency
judges
within
the
eighth
judicial
district
court,
as
well
as
the
second
judicial
district
court
and
across
the
judiciary.
We
feel
that
this
is
an
appropriate
resolution
to
the
issue.
E
D
D
F
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
john
mccormick,
for
the
record.
We
when
this
was
written,
I
kind
of
stole
from
ohio,
and
that's
that's
how
they
had
it.
We
don't
have
a
a
particularly
strong
opinion,
either
way
on
that.
I
think
the
the
court
has
the
authority
to
appoint
council
as
they
they
see
fit,
and
since
this
is
not
a
delinquency,
proceeding
the
actual
petition
for
the
protection
protective
order
is
a
civil
proceeding.
F
There's
not
the
requirement
under
gideon
that
that
council
be
appointed,
so
we
we
left
it
permissive
in
the
statute.
There's
also
some
concern
from
the
public
defenders
offices
about
this
and
it's
my
understanding
that
the
washoe
county,
pd
and
the
clark
county
pd,
don't
necessarily
agree
on
this,
so
we
thought
it
best
to
leave
it
permissive.
F
F
Hopefully
they
would
have
a
parent
or
guardian
with
them,
but
generally
in
that
circumstance
I
think
the
court
the
courts
would
default
to
appointing
counsel
for
a
child.
F
Again,
john
mccormack
for
the
record
yeah.
I
don't
believe
that
that
we
would
the
judiciary
would
have
necessarily
an
issue
with
that.
Again.
I
think
the
the
concern
would
come
from
the
public
defender's
offices.
A
And
before
I
go
to
our
next
question,
because
it's
on
this
line
of
questioning,
let
me
just
ask
this:
if
you
guys
know,
I
mean
how
many,
how
many
cases
are
we
talking
about
where
we
have
minors
involved
in
orders
for
protection?
Are
we
talking
a
handful?
Are
we
talking
hundreds?
Thousands?
If
you
could
give
me
any
sense,
I
know
judge
saragosa.
You
obviously
are
down
in
clark
county
and
that's
where
the
bulk
of
the
population
is.
But
if
you
have
some
insight,
I
think
that
might
help
us
on
this
council
question.
E
Yes,
chair
yeager,
this
is
judge
sergus,
again,
you're
correct
it's
a
small
number
and
we're
talking
a
handful.
E
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair
general,
for
the
record
again,
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
anecdotally,
it's
a
very
small
number
across
the
state
in
rural
counties.
It
it's
an
issue
because
there
are
so
few
and
there's
no
statutory
guidance
on
who
should
do
it,
and
so
it
happens
so
rarely
that
that
folks
are
like
what
are
we
supposed
to
do
so
again,
I
think
anecdotally,
across
the
state.
There's
not
a
very
high
number
of
these
cases.
H
Thank
you
chair,
and
thank
you
again
for
bringing
this
back.
I
know
that
it
was
brought
in
2019
and
it
clearly
is
a
large
topic
that
has
lots
of
different
stakeholders
involved
and
gets
very
complicated
very
quickly.
H
E
And
if
I
may
comment
on
that,
briefly,
the
there
is
a
specific-
and
this
is
a
very
unique
area-
there's
a
specific
mechanism
and
statute
that
allows
for
a
an
adult
or
parent
guardian
of
a
minor
to
file
an
application
for
the
protection
of
a
minor,
but
that
statute
actually
states
that
it
has
to
be
filed
against
an
adverse
party
who's
over
the
age
of
18..
E
So
that
kind
of
gap
is
there
uniquely
as
well,
and
this
particular
bill
would
also
kind
of
cover
that,
because
it
would
now
make
it
clear
that
if
the
adverse
party
is
under
18,
it
would
go
to
the
district
court.
But
the
justice
court
currently
doesn't
hear
those
if
there
was
a
parent
seeking
protection
of
their
minor
child
against
another
minor
child.
They
couldn't
file
in
justice
court
because
of
that
statute,.
H
And
then
just
a
another
question
regarding
that,
so
would
the
parent
now
has
the
ability
to
file
that
tpo
on
behalf
of
their
minor
child?
Is
that
correct,
yes,
and
then
for-
and
I
know
that
this
was
an
issue,
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
clarified
or
how
this
has
come
about,
but
I
know
that
as
it
currently
stands,
it's
an
interesting
situation.
So
if
I
go
get
a
tpo
against
another
child
on
behalf
of
my
child,
so
I'm
asking
for
a
tpo
for
my
child
against
another
child
and
how?
H
F
Assemblywoman
again
john
mccormick
for
the
record,
currently
there's
no
specific
statutory
grant
of
authority
to
issue
a
protection
order
against
a
person
under
18..
So
in
that
scenario
the
existing
mechanism
and
judge
sergio
said
please
correct
me
if
I
get
out
of
line
here-
is
that
protection
of
minors,
tpo
type
where
the
parent
of
the
protected
child
would
apply
in
justice
court
against
the
parent
of
the
other
party,
because
there
is
no
specific
statutory
mechanism
to
apply
for
a
protection
order
against
a
minor
and
there's
that
thus
the
genesis
of
this
bill.
F
So
in
that
case,
because
you
can't
the
justice
court
could
not
issue
a
protection
order
against
a
minor,
it
would
have
to
be
against
the
guardian,
the
parent
or
guardian
of
the
other
party,
so
that
that
becomes
problematic
there,
because
I
certainly
can
understand
that
a
parent
applies
for
an
order
on
behalf
of
their
child
and
against.
You
know,
behavior
from
another
child,
but
currently
statutorily
that
order
would
be
issued
against
the
parent
and
depending
on
that
family
dynamics.
That
could
obviously
be
problematic
for
the
parent.
I
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record.
My
first
question
is
in
section
three
when
it
lists
out
the
protection
order,
so
domestic
violence,
harassment
in
the
workplace,
high
risk,
behavior,
sexual
assault,
stalking,
etc.
I
Is
that
saying
that
these
are
the
only
instances
in
which
a
protection
order
can
be
used
for
someone
under
18.
F
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
record
john
mccormick.
Those
are
the
current
existing
protection
order,
types
in
statute,
so
this
bill
just
clarifies
that
if
a
person
is
seeking,
one
of
those
types
of
protection
order
against
a
minor
would
be
heard
by
district
court
again,
other
injunctive
relief
could
be
sought
through
the
court,
but
those
are
the
statutorily
authorized
protection
order,
types
that
we
currently
have.
I
Okay
and
that,
thank
you
so
much
assemblywoman
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record.
What
happens
if
a
child
violates
this
type
of
protection
order.
F
Thank
you
assemblywoman
again
for
the
record
john
mccormick.
If
a
child
violates
this
type
of
order.
Currently
it's
contemplated
in
check
in
title
v,
so
chapter
62,
a
b
so
forth,
dealing
with
juvenile
justice
that
the
joke
that
the
juvenile
court
would
have
jurisdiction
over
that,
because
it
would
then
become
a
delinquency
matter,
meaning
that
if
a
child
violates-
and
they
were
an
adult,
it
would
be
a
criminal
matter.
So
it
would
then
become
delinquency
for
the
juvenile
court
to
handle.
J
F
John
mccormick
for
the
record,
honestly,
I
am
not
100
sure
on
that.
I
don't
know
enough
about
emancipation
to
know.
If
that
individual
is
then
treat
after
they
are
emancipated.
If
they're
then
treated
as
an
adult
for
legal
purposes,
then
I
would
imagine
they
would.
It
would
be
the
regular
jurisdiction,
but
maybe
judge
zaragoza,
has
a
better
idea
not
to
to
punt,
but.
E
This
is
judge
saragosa.
I
wish
I
did
have
a
better
answer.
I'm
not
clear
on
that
either
because
we
don't.
The
justice
court
does
not
handle
juvenile
matters
as
as
the
exclusive
jurisdiction,
original
and
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
criminal
acts
committed
by
minors
exists
in
the
in
the
juvenile
court.
I
know
they
have
a
procedure
in
the
juvenile
court
where
the
case
is
evaluated
and
based
upon
the
juveniles
record,
as
well
as
the
charged
potential
offense.
E
They,
the
juvenile
court,
may
elect
to
treat
them
as
an
adult,
and
maybe
that's
one
of
the
factors
they
consider.
But
I'm
not
aware
of
any
like
specific
statute.
That
would
say
just
because
the
child
chooses
to
be
emancipated
and
then
there's
a
criminal
act
say
a
violation
of
protective
order
that
they
would
automatically
be
treated
as
an
adult.
I'm
not
aware
of
anything
like
that.
E
F
F
F
It
appears
that
the
person
would
still
be
considered
delinquent
under
title
five
if
they
were
emancipated
and
under
the
age
of
18,
unless
otherwise
provided
by
the
court's
decree,
emancipating
them.
J
A
F
Sorry,
john
mccormack,
for
the
record
in
light
of
129.130,
it
appears
that
that
would
be
an
individual
case
for
emancipated
minors.
Based
on
the
statute.
It
looks
like
that
you
would
still
go
to
the
district
court
to
ask
for
protection
order
against
someone
18
or
younger,
who
was
emancipated
unless
the
specific
decree
emancipating
that
minor
said
otherwise.
F
J
J
K
F
K
J
Even
though
they're
an
adult
they
still
stay
under
the
juvenile
court
system,.
F
Thank
you,
son
of
them
for
director
john
mccormick
in
subsection
five
of
section
one
in
this
bill.
It
provides
that
if
the
district
court
issues
an
order
pursuant
to
the
act
and
the
adverse
party
reaches
the
age
of
18,
while
the
order
is
still
effective,
the
order
remains
effective
against
the
adverse
party
until
the
order
expires
or
is
dissolved
by
the
court.
F
So,
in
a
specific
instance
where
it
was
issued
against
a
17
year
old,
who
then
turned
18,
the
order
of
the
juvenile
court
or
the
district
court
in
this
case
would
remain
in
effect
until
it
expires
or
it's
otherwise
dissolved
for
continuity.
F
So
the
the
protected
party
would
not
then
have
to
monitor
the
birthday
per
se
of
the
adverse
party,
but
then,
if
they
sought
another
order
after
the
expiration
of
this
order,
as
provided
in
statute,
they
would
then
go
to
the
justice
court
or
the
district
court
depending
on
which
county
they
live
in
and
what
type
of
order
they're.
Looking
for.
D
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
kasama
district
2
for
the
record,
just
two
clarification
questions.
If
I
may
so
with
this
with
this,
this
new
language,
the
tpo
would
actually
be
served
against
the
child,
and
not
the
parent
anymore,
which
was
the
problem
before.
Is
that
correct.
F
John
mccormick
for
the
record
yeah
in
the
previous
example
if
it
was
under
the
specific
statutory
division
that
allows
justice
court
to
issue
an
order
for
protection
of
minor
that
can't
be
issued
against
a
a
minor
in
the
statute.
So
go
against
the
parent
in
this
specific
bill,
where
we're
seeking
to
clarify
that,
we
provide
that
if
the
district
court
issues
the
protective
order
against
the
minor
that
it
has
to
be
served
against
the
minor,
as
well
as
that,
minor's
parent
or
guardian.
So
everybody
receives
adequate
service.
D
Okay,
great,
thank
you
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
and
then
back
to
section
one
subsection,
two
where
we
had
the
discussion
regarding
the
district
court
may
or
shall
because
it
seems
to
me
if
a
parent
and
a
child
came
in
and
in
our
example,
wanted
to
do
a
tpo.
We
don't
really
have
to
appoint
council.
So
if
we
have
shallow,
then
it
would
force
a
council
to
be
there.
D
F
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
john
mccormick
for
the
record.
The
the
provision
regarding
appointment
of
counsel
applies
to
the
adverse
party,
so
the
juvenile,
against
whom
the
order
is
sought,
there's,
would
be
no
requirement
to
appoint
counsel,
nor
would
the
potential
protected
party
or
the
guardian
need
counsel,
so
so
that
provision
of
this
bill
only
refers
to
the
potential
adverse
party
against
whom
the
order
is
saw.
D
F
For
the
record,
john
mccormick,
I
believe
yes,
if
the
the
language
has
changed
to,
shall
the
court
would
then
appoint
counsel
for
that
minor
adverse
party,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
a
parent
or
guardian
was
there
if
the
court,
if
it
were
may
as
it
is
currently
written,
the
court
would
make
the
determination
on
whether
or
not
to
appoint
counsel
for
that
potential
minor
adverse
party.
C
My
question
is
about
one
family,
one
judge
and
if
this
would
invoke
one
family,
one
judge
so
that
if
there's
a
tpo
on
for
a
minor
it
goes
into
so
it
goes
to
family
court
and
now
you've
kind
of
got
one
family.
One
judge
set
up,
and
so
five
years
later,
three
years
later,
when
the
parents
have
a
custody
issue,
are
we
stuck
under
that
or
will
it
just
start
a
new
kate?
Well,
obviously
I'll
start
a
new
case.
C
F
Okay,
thank
you
zomling
john
mccormack,
for
the
record,
since
it
is
a
local
issue.
I
think
that
this
bill
is
mom
on
that
and
the
specific
court
could
make
that
determination
as
far
as
the
family
court
in
the
age
of
the
family
court
in
the
second
in
the
rurals,
it's
a
good
chance.
It's
going
to
be
the
same
judge
regardless.
So
again,
I
don't
necessarily
think
we
contemplated
the
the
one,
the
one
family,
one
judge
project
here,
but
again
I
think
that
would
be
a
decision
made
by
the
local
jurisdiction.
E
This
is
judge
zaragoza.
I
would
also
point
out
that
section,
one
paragraph
seven
authorizes
the
district
court
to
appoint
a
master
to
conduct
these
proceedings
in
general,
at
least
in
the
south,
most
of
the
protective
order
proceedings,
even
when
their
domestic
violence
related
are
handled
by
a
master,
not
by
the
judge,
who
would
preside
over
the
any
issues
relating
to
child
custody
or
divorce.
E
Likewise,
if
there
was
a
juvenile
delinquency
matter
where
there
was
a
criminal
charge
brought
against
a
juvenile
adverse
party
for
violating
this
order,
that
would
go
before
the
judge
who
handles
juvenile
delinquency,
matters
which
may
or
may
not
be
a
master.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
this
bill
at
all
in
its
form,
because
it
doesn't
always
just
involve
family
members.
The
the
applicant
is
someone
outside
of
the
family.
Generally
speaking,
so
I
don't
know
that
that
concept
would
necessarily
be
driven
by
this
particular
bill.
C
And,
and-
and
thank
you
for
that,
but
even
with
the
hearing
masters
there's
still,
a
district
court
judge
who's
considered
the
judge
on
the
case,
and
so,
if
you
do
have
a
tpo
and
then
you
have
a
a
custody
matter
that
opens
as
a
new
case.
You
end
up
in
the
same
department.
So
I
would
just
ask
and
maybe
I'll
work
with
council
and
can
talk
to
you
more
off
offline
and
talk
to
the
community
council.
If
we
could.
C
Maybe
if
this
bill
for
goes
forward,
do
some
sort
of
amendment
that
that
makes
that
clear
that
that's
not
necessarily
required
because
yeah
I
just
don't
want
to
have.
Practitioners
and
families,
have
issues
in
the
future
that
are
unintended
and
make
sure
that
that's
clear
that
that's
not
what
this
is
doing
and
not
have
to
have
a
rewrite
of
edcr
five,
as
they've
been
working
on
that
for
a
couple
of
years
now
and
have
finally
gotten
to
the
place
where
some
of
those
sections
are
done
and
so
I'll
just
follow
up
online.
I
F
Thank
you
assembly,
woman,
john
mccormack,
for
the
record,
the
the
penalties
for
the
those
acts
if
they
were
committed
by
an
adult,
are
provided
in
statute.
So
it
would
be
as
if
any
offense
were
committed
by
a
juvenile
considered
by
the
juvenile
court
under
title
v.
It
would
be
not
a
criminal
act,
obviously,
but
a
delinquent
act,
and
then
the
court
would
consider
that
matter
as
it
would
any
other
delinquent.
F
For
the
record
john
mccormick,
yes
ma'am
on
in
title
five,
the
juvenile
justice
title
it's
contemplated.
There
are
two
types
of
juvenile
offenses.
If
you
will
there's
a
status
offense,
which
is
an
offense
because
of
the
the
individual's
age,
and
we
call
that
a
child
in
need
of
supervision,
and
then
we
have
a
delinquent
act
which,
if
but
for
the
age
of
the
individual,
would
be
a
criminal
act,
so
being
that
violation
of
these
orders
is
considered
a
crime
in
the
adult
world.
I
F
Oh,
thank
you,
john
mccormick,
for
the
record
in
sub
four
of
section
one.
The
juvenile
court
has
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
any
action
in
which
it
is
alleged.
The
child,
who
is
the
actress
party
to
an
order,
has
committed
a
delinquent
act
by
violating
conditions
set
forth.
So
it
is
a
delinquent
act
because
in
this
bill,
because
if
it
were
committed
by
an
adult,
it
would
be
a
criminal
act,
so
it
it
it's
delinquent.
I
Sorry,
chairman,
I
follow
up
sorry,
so
would
the
courts
be
open
to
changing
this,
or
or
maybe
I
I
kind
of
just
worry
when
we
continue
to
criminalize
juveniles,
and
so
I
get
a
little
worried
when
we
you
know
they
violate
this
tpo
and
because
it's
criminal
in
adult
court
it
doesn't
necessarily
translate
over
in
juvenile
court.
So
I'm
just
curious:
is
there
any
openness
to
whether
it
be
a
juvenile
or
a
delinquent
act
versus
a
status
offense,
and
or
do
you
guys
like
take
different
types
of
violations
into
consideration.
F
John
mccormack,
for
the
record,
I
think
whether
or
not
the
violation
of
that
order
is
considered
a
child
needed
supervision
or
a
delinquent
act
is
sort
of
a
policy
decision
for
the
legislature
to
determine
the
reason
it
is
a
delinquent
act
in
this
bill
is
because
it
would
be
a
delinquent
act
under
our
current
statutory
scheme,
and
in
this
bill
we
didn't
seek
to
change
any
aspect
of
juvenile
court.
A
So
under
current
law,
if
the
order
is
issued
against
the
parent,
but
the
minor
violates
the
order,
is
the
minor
held
accountable
in
some
way
or
is
it
the
parent
who
has
to
come
forward
and
and
sort
of
take
the
heat
and
explain
what
happened,
and
I
just
wondered:
if
you
could
talk
about
how
that
works
right
now,
so
we
can
get
a
sense
of
what
would
happen
if
we
didn't
pass
this
bill.
What
the
status
quo
is.
E
Share
yeager:
this
is
judge
saragosa
and
I
I'd
like
to
respond
to
that.
I
think
that's
one
of
the
issues
it's
different
across
the
state,
because
the
justice
court,
when
we've
gotten
those
and
we've
sent
them
to
juvenile
court
and
then
received
them
back
again.
We
issue
the
we
issue
the
order
in
the
name
of
the
juvenile.
E
We
have
jurisdiction
over
applications
for
protective
orders
against
stalking
and
harassment,
and
while
there's
no
specific
age
limit
on
a
civil
type,
tpo
action,
we
would
have
issued
that
tpo
against
the
juvenile
and
treated
it
just
like
an
adult,
and
that's
the
that's
the
rub.
That's
the
uncomfortable
nature
of
a
justice
court
judge
trying
to
handle
this
as
a
juvenile
matter,
so
in
our
court
we've
never
issued
the
protective
order
against
the
parent,
but
I
do
know
that
across
the
state,
there's
different
ways
and
other
jurisdictions
have
handled
it.
E
That
way-
and
if
I
may,
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
one
point
that
I
believe
I
misspoke
on
vice
chairwin-
asked
about
whether
or
not
this
bill
would
allow
a
parent
of
a
minor
to
seek
a
protective
order
for
the
protection
of
a
child
against
another
minor,
and
I
said
originally,
yes,
that
it
does,
and
I
I
misspoke
slightly
it
will
in
all
in
all
natures
of
you
know,
protection
order
against
sex
assault
protection,
art
against
stalking
and
harassment.
E
All
of
the
other
types
except
for
that
which
is
protection
order
for
children
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
under
nrs
33.400
it
it
states
today
and
continues
to
state
that
the
parent
or
guardian
of
a
child
may
petition
any
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
on
behalf
of
the
child
for
temporary
or
extended
order
against
a
person
who
is
18
years
of
age
or
older
and
who
is
and
who
the
parent
or
guardian
reasonably
believes
has
committed
or
is
committing
a
crime.
And
then
it
lists
the
nature
of
offenses.
E
So
the
that's
the
unique
part
about
that
statute,
and
the
way
it
currently
reads
is
it
requires
it
to
be
filed
against
a
person,
who's,
18
years
of
age
or
older.
So
there
would
never
be
the
occasion
to
file
that
against
a
juvenile
in
juvenile
court,
though
a
parent
or
guardian
who's
seeking
protection
for
their
child
against
another
minor
who
has
committed
a
sex
assault
or
domestic
violence
related
or
harassment
and
stalking
or
high-risk
behavior.
A
Thank
you,
judge
siragosa
go
ahead,
mr
mccormick.
F
I
was
just
gonna
follow
up
on
that,
mr
chair
and
again,
I
think,
judge
zaragoza
indicated
that
we're
seeking
to
fill
that
sort
of
gap
in
statute,
because
in
a
jurisdiction
where
say
a
court
were,
with
the
lack
of
guidance
to
issue
an
order
against
the
parent
of
another
child.
Thinking
that
that
was
what
was
statutorily
permissible,
then
it
would
depend
on
the
violation
and
most
courts
are
would
be
anecdotally.
Again.
Conversations
would
be
very
reticent
to
impose
sanctions
on
a
parent
for
behavior
of
a
child
that
violates
the
order.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
think
in
the
interest
of
time
we'll
move
on
and
I
know,
judge
siragos.
I
believe
you
have
to
step
out
soon.
So
if
you
need
to
excuse
yourself
from
the
meeting,
that's
perfectly
fine,
I'm
sure
mr
mccormack
can
handle
any
concluding
remarks
and
we
certainly
appreciate
both
of
you
presenting
the
bill
this
morning.
A
So
at
this
time,
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
ask
you
to
sit
tight,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
any
concluding
remarks.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
7..
Is
there
anyone
here
in
the
room
with
us
in
carson
city
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support.
A
A
B
A
G
Good
morning,
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
due
to
the
rules
of
the
committee,
I
am
testifying
in
opposition
here
today.
I
want
to
first
thank
the
sponsors
for
speaking
with
myself
and
mr
pirro
on
several
occasions
regarding
this
very
important
bill.
We
understand
the
need
for
uniformity,
uniformity
and
to
ensure
that
there
is
some
accountability.
G
I
provided
an
amendment.
That's
been
uploaded
on
nellis.
Our
first
concern
is
regarding
the
appointment
of
council.
We
believe
that
all
children
who
are
involved
in
the
tpo
process
that
are
adverse
parties
should
be
required
to
have
counsel.
As
you
heard,
these
are
potentially
criminal
matters
in
terms
of
they
would
be
delinquent
matters.
They
could
be
before
the
court
where,
if
there's
any
form
of
violation,
they
could
be
subject
to
going
to
juvenile
hall,
and
so
we
believe
that
it
is
extremely
important
to
have
counsel
appointed
for
those
adverse
parties.
G
In
the
amendment
I
specified
either
when
a
hearing
occurs
or
upon
the
issuance,
that
would
mean
that
when
there
is
an
issuance
of
a
temporary
protective
order,
the
council
would
be
appointed
so
that
council
could
speak
to
that
individual
and
let
them
know
what
the
requirements
are,
how
to
ensure
that
they
do
not
violate
that
order.
So
hopefully
there
won't
even
be
a
need
to
have
that
become
a
delinquent
act.
We
believe
that
this
would
hopefully
help
to
ensure
that
there
aren't
any
of
the
collateral
consequences
regarding
that
issuance.
G
I
would
just
note
that,
although
this
is
a
procedural
change
in
order
to
just
really
clarify
who
has
jurisdictions,
we
do
have
a
lot
of
concerns
regarding
having
juveniles
involved
in
tpos,
specifically
with
the
with
having
the
applicant
an
invited
contact.
That's
one
of
the
issues
that
we
see
currently
with
adults
in
the
temporary
protective
orders
and
extended
protective
orders
where
the
applicant
will
be
the
one
to
initiate
contact
and
then
it's
the
adverse
party
who's
then
held
accountable
for
that
contact.
If
they
then
continue
with
that.
G
So
if
the
applicant
reaches
out,
then
after
the
issuance,
the
temporary
protective
order-
and
that
could
be
a
violation
if
the
adverse
party
then
responds
and
in
the
age
of
social
media
and
all
that
we
just
don't
have
concerns,
and
so
I
need
to
know
that
concern
then,
for
the
amendment
number
two
and
three
we
do
have
concerns
with
the
with
this
information.
Staying
on
the
child's
record
until
the
age
of
21,
we
believe
that
it
should
be
18
unless
it's
ex
dissolved
sooner.
So.
G
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
K
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piero
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I've
heard
some
of
the
questions
regarding
the
may
and
chow
as
far
as
appointing
council.
I
know
this
is
a
policy
committee
and
we
agree
with
the
policy
of
making
sure
any
kid
pulled
into
the
juvenile
justice
system
is
appointed
an
attorney.
K
The
only
thing
that
I
will
make
the
committee
aware
of
is
that
will
probably
trigger
an
unsolicited
fiscal
note
from
clark
county,
because,
although
anecdotally,
the
justice
court
says
that
they
don't
think
it
will
increase
caseloads,
they
haven't
been
keeping
data,
which
is
problematic,
that
we
never
really
have
criminal
justice
data
when
we
need
it,
but
that
will
increase
court
appearances
and
caseloads
for
our
juvenile
attorneys
and
we're
more
than
happy
to
do
that
with
extra
attorneys.
Thank
you.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
john
mccormick
of
the
record
judge
zaragoza,
had
to
leave
for
another
obligation.
I
would
just
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
for
hearing
this
bill
and
indicate
that
I
believe
ms
burchie's
amendments
are
or
sort
of
policy
questions
we're
not
opposed
to
them.
If
the
committee
were
to
choose
to
adopt
them
and
our
only
concern
would
be
making
the
ceiling
age
consistent,
I
believe
in
hermione
it's
18
currently
in
statute.
It's
21,
but
it's
my
understanding.
F
The
legislature
is
processing
a
bill
that
would
lower
that
age
to
18.,
so
our
only
concern
would
be
to
have
the
ceiling
age
be
the
same
for
all
juvenile
records,
as
opposed
to
having
you
know,
tpos
at
one
age
and
delinquency
or
status
offense
records
at
another
age.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
mccormack,
and
I
believe
that
somebody
won
krasner's
bill.
You
referenced
that
I
think
we
passed
out
on
the
floor
yesterday,
so
we'll
we'll
monitor
these
things
going
forward.
Obviously,
these
bills
on
our
side
have
to
go
through
the
senate
process
as
well,
but
appreciate
your
willingness
to
work
with
ms
burchie
on
her
concerns
and
please
express
to
judge
sergios.
I
appreciate
that
as
well.
Thank
you
to
both
you
and
her
for
being
here
this
morning,
and
I
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
7
and
we'll
move
to
our
second
bill
on
the
agenda.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
19
in
its
first
reprint
that
bill
establishes
provisions
authorizing
certain
entities
to
obtain
information
relating
to
the
records
of
criminal
history
of
certain
persons
responsible
for
the
safety
and
well-being
of
children,
elderly
persons
or
persons
with
disabilities,
and
I
believe
we
have
miss
silva
from
the
nevada
department
of
public
safety
with
us
here
on
the
zoom
this
morning.
Thank
you
for
joining
us,
ms
silva.
A
I
In
order
for
an
entity
to
have
access
to
state
and
fbi
criminal
history
record
information,
a
federal
or
legislative
authority
must
exist
specifying
this
access
currently
background
checks
for
this
population
are
being
conducted
under
the
federal
authority.
National
child
protection
act,
as
amended
by
the
volunteers
for
children
act
also
known
as
ncpa
vca.
I
I
This
authority
bridges
the
gap
allowing
access
to
fingerprint-based
background
checks
to
agencies
working
with
vulnerable
population
who
do
not
otherwise
qualify
for
a
state
statutory
authority
until
2019.
The
fbi
allowed
states
to
utilize
this
federal
authority.
In
the
absence
of
a
state
statutory
authority
in
january
of
2019,
the
fbi
issued
a
notification
to
all
states.
I
should
nevada
lose
its
authority
to
conduct
national
background
checks,
utilizing
the
ncpa
vca
due
to
lack
state
statutory
authority.
If
this
bill
is
not
passed,
those
account
holders
would
be
adversely
impacted,
as
our
office
would
be
required
to
close
the
accounts
due
to
lack
of
fingerprinting
authority,
thus
placing
nevada's
vulnerable
population
at
risk.
I
Therefore,
this
bill
seeks
to
enact
state
statutory
authority
to
allow
nevada
to
continue
utilizing
the
federal
fingerprinting
authority,
ncpa
vca
pursuant
to
public
law,
103
209..
In
summary,
this
bill
will
not
change
the
way
that
we
process
these
background
checks,
but
rather
will
allow
nevada
to
continue
utilizing
this
federal
authority
to
protect
nevada's
most
vulnerable
population.
I
With
that,
I
request
the
committee's
support
for
senate
bill
19
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have,
as
always
we're
happy
to
meet
with
any
of
you
regarding
any
of
our
important
programs,
so
please
never
hesitate
to
reach
out
to
us
at
any
time.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation,
miss
silva.
Let
me
just
ask
a
question:
make
sure
I
understand
what
we're
doing
so.
The
way
I
understand
it
now
is.
We
are
allowed
to
conduct
these
background
checks
when
we're
dealing
with
folks
who
are
working
with
children,
elderly
persons
or
persons
with
disabilities.
A
A
I
D
D
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you
miss
silva
question,
and
this
is
going
to
go
back
to
the
previous
presentation.
When
we
were
talking
about
the
collection
of
data
for
the
young
people.
Do
you
all
collect
that
data
that
they
were
speaking
of
previously
for
juvenile
arrest
and
all
that
as
well.
I
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'm
looking
here
and
I
see
the
two-thirds
vote
on
here,
but
I
don't
see
a
fee.
Is
there
a
fee
included
in
this
and
is
it
a
rise
or
higher
than
the
fee?
We
are
currently
charging.
A
Right,
I
do
not
see
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so,
ms
silva,
thank
you
for
presenting
I'll.
Ask
you
to
stand
by
for
a
little
bit,
we'll
take
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time,
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
19
and
its
first
reprint
is
there.
Anyone
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
in
support,
looks
like
members
of
our
audience
are
hard
at
work
on
other
matters
and
maybe
not
particularly
interested
in
senate
bill
19.
A
B
B
B
L
L
It
is
critical
that
businesses
or
organizations
that
provide
care
or
care
placement
services
to
children,
older
adults
and
persons
with
disabilities
are
able
to
do
thorough
background
checks
on
their
employees,
volunteers
and
persons
applying
to
be
an
employee
or
volunteer
to
protect
the
clients
they
serve.
That
is
what
this
bill
does.
It
simply
establishes
the
provisions
that
authorizes
these
businesses
organizations
to
obtain
the
records
of
criminal
history,
we're
screening,
employees
and
volunteer.
L
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps.
I
will
note
for
committee
members,
members
of
the
public.
There
is
a
letter
uploaded
as
an
exhibit
to
nellis,
and
that
is
from
mr
barry
gold,
who,
I
believe
is
with
aarp,
and
so
he
I
believe
he
sent
that
to
the
committee.
So
please
do
look
at
that
when
you
get
a
moment
at
this
time,
we'll
close
testimony
in
support,
I
will
now
open
up
for
testimony
in
opposition
anyone
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition.
A
A
Thank
you,
bps
have
a
close
opposition
testimony.
I
will
now
take
neutral
testimony.
Anybody
here
in
carson
city
in
neutral,
don't
see
anybody
coming
forward.
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
neutral
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
one
last
time
for
this
bill
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
the
neutral
position.
B
A
A
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
19
that
moves
us
to
our
third
and
final
bill
on
the
agenda.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
359
and
its
first
reprint.
That
bill
provides
additional
penalties
if
a
fire
or
explosion
results
from
the
commission
of
certain
prohibited
acts,
and
we
have
with
us
via
zoom
this
morning,
senate
majority,
leader
canazaro,
and
along
with
her,
mr
heenan,
who
is
the
assistant
fire
chief
for
clark
county.
I
believe
so.
If
we
have
them
cued.
A
A
And
members,
just
so,
you
know,
members
of
the
public
know
we're
just
going
to
give
our
senate
majority
leader
just
a
moment
to
pop
on
over.
She
is
in
the
middle
of
some
committee
votes
in
her
committee
this
morning,
so
if
we
could
just
sit
tight
for
a
moment,
I
don't
think
it'll
be
too
long
before
we're
ready
to.
A
A
Okay
committee,
we
will
come
back
to
order
and
I
miss
book.
We
have
our
senate
majority
leader
cannizzaro
here
in
person
joining
us
in
the
room,
so
welcome
senate
majority
leader,
and
we
do
have
mr
heenan
on
the
zoom
with
us.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and,
as
always,
love
being
here
in
the
assembly
and
love
having
the
questions.
Actually,
I
think
it
makes
for
better
legislation
and
of
course
mr
heenan
is
with
me
remotely
and
I'm
going
to
catch
my
breath
for
just
a
moment
as
I
keep
it.
A
M
Walking
these
days
gets
me
a
little
breathless,
so
I
appreciate
the
indulgence
good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
nicole
cannizzaro
and
I
currently
serve
as
the
senator
from
senate
district
six
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
359,
which
establishes
enhanced
penalties
for
illegal
drug
manufacturing
that
results
in
a
fire
or
explosion.
M
The
chemicals
used
to
produce
methamphetamines,
for
example,
are
highly
explosive
and
may
ignite
or
explode
if
mixed
or
stockpiled,
inadequately
oftentimes.
When
these
fires
or
explosions
occur,
they
can
be
in
residential
neighborhoods
as
well
as
this
is
where
it
is
common
for
some
of
those
operations
to
take
place.
M
Fire
and
explosions
present
dangers
not
only
to
the
individuals
who
are
creating
the
drug,
but
also
to
anyone
in
the
immediate
area,
including
children,
neighbors
and
anyone
innocently
passing
by
this
bill
is
fairly
simple.
It
does
establish
enhanced
penalty
for
those
manufacturing
or
compounding
a
controlled
substance
other
than
marijuana,
and
if
a
fire
explosion
occurs
as
a
result
of
manufacturing
or
compounding
of
a
controlled
substance.
In
addition
to
any
other
punishments,
those
individuals
are
guilty
of
arson,
which
would
be
a
category
c
felony.
M
I
will
advise
the
committee
that
the
intent
of
this
bill
was
to
create
a
separate
offense
for
this
type
of
fire
or
explosion.
When
it
does
occur,
we
did
work
with
members
from
the
public
defender's
office
on
redefining
exactly
what
that
penalty
would
be,
that
language
is
reflected
in
senate
bill
359
in
its
first
reprint,
which
is
the
category
c
felony,
and
after
some
conversations
last
night,
it
did
occur
to
us
that,
potentially
that
language
is
reading
as
simply
the
enhancement
piece.
M
It
is
our
intention
that
that
is
a
separate,
a
separate
crime
and
so
we're
working
on
finessing
some
of
that
language.
I
would
expect
that
you
will
hear
from
them
today
that
we
are
still
in
the
process
of
working
through
how
to
make
sure
that
that
is
accomplishing
exactly
what
we
are
trying
to
accomplish,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
this
bill
is
intending
to
get
to
is
where
we
have
these
illegal
drug
labs
operating
and
there's
a
fire
explosion.
That
occurs
that
we
are
able
to
address
that.
N
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
yeager
and
thank
you
judiciary
committee
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
My
name
is
dan
heenan,
I'm
the
assistant
special,
I'm,
the
assistant
fire
chief
with.
N
Our
department
down
here
I've
been
employed
here
for
three
years
in
this
position.
Prior
to
that
I
was
a
special
agent
with
the
bureau
of
alcohol,
tobacco
farms
and
explosives
for
30
years.
When
I
was
with
atf,
I
was
a
certified
fire
investigator
for
20
years
and
I
was
the
head
of
the
united
states
national
response
team
that
traveled
throughout
the
united
states
and
internationally
assisting
in
large-scale
fires
and
bombings.
N
So
that's
a
little
bit
about
my
background
to
understand
why
we
were
working
or
why
I
was
working
with
senator
cannon
zero
to
bring
this
legislation
forward
currently
right
now.
If
an
explosion
happens
in
a
methamphetamine
lab
or
a
bho
lab
butane
hash
oil
lab
there
is
no
other
charge
and
then
malicious
endangerment
or
malicious
destruction
that
we
can
we
can
charge.
These
incidents
are
very,
very
dangerous.
N
We've
anecdotally
had
only
a
handful
of
these
in
the
state,
maybe
maybe
on
the
scale
of
six
to
twelve,
primarily
down
here
in
the
south.
But
if
you
look
at
what
happens
in
colorado-
and
you
look
to
what
happens
in
california
over
the
last
years,
the
bho,
the
butane
hash
oil
process,
has
resulted
in
massive
explosions
in
primarily
residential
areas.
N
What
this
process
entails
is
people
take
the
scrub,
marijuana
leaf
and
stems,
and
they
put
them
into
pvc
pipes,
and
then
they
push
butane
vapors
down
through
which
are
heavier
than
air,
so
they
come
down
through
the
through
the
pipe
and
in
so
doing
they
extract
an
oil
which
has
a
very,
very
high
thc
level.
The
issue
is
that
butane
is
a
highly
explosive
and
it's
heavier
than
air.
N
So
as
these
people
are
extracting
it,
it
spreads
around
to
the
floor
and
then
when
it
hits
a
obstruction
such
as
a
wall,
it
begins
to
migrate
upwards
if
it
hits
any
viable
ignition
source,
such
as
a
spark
of
a
thermostat
changing
a
pilot
light
of
a
water
heater
and
it's
in
the
explosive
range
you'll
have
a
massive
explosion.
N
We
had
one
recently
last
month
where
it
happened
in
a
trailer.
Two
adults
were
extracting
marijuana
bho
and
in
so
doing
they
blew
up
their
their
trailer.
This
resulted
in
both
of
them
being
taken
to
umc
burn
unit.
A
third
adult
individual
was
also
transported
to
the
hospital
and
that
left
two
children
home
alone.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony,
mr
heenan,
and
to
our
senate
majority
leader.
I
think
we
have
a
couple
of
questions
I
wanted
to
just
start
with
one,
maybe
for
legislative
intent,
so
the
way
that
the
bill
reads,
and
obviously
there
are
two
sections
to
the
bill:
there's
one
involving
controlled
substances
other
than
marijuana
and
then
one
involving
marijuana,
but
the
phrase
a
fire
or
explosion
occurs.
A
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
sense
of
what
how
we
are
to
interpret
that
phrase,
because,
from
my
understanding
of
the
process
of
the
I'm
going
to
get
the
terminology
wrong,
but
the
the
the
process
that
mr
hina
just
talked
about,
where
you
use
butane,
I
mean,
is
there
already
going
to
be
a
fire
as
a
result
of
that?
So
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
get
to
get
on
the
legislative
record.
What
you
mean
by
that
phrase
fire
or
explosion.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
question,
nicole
cannizzaro
senate
district
six.
I
will
leave
it
to
mr
keenan
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
mechanics,
but
the
intent
here
is
that,
where
you
are
operating
these
illegal
and
dangerous
labs
that,
where
there's
a
fire
or
explosion
that
occurs
as
a
result
of
those
activities,
we're
trying
to
get
at
those
situations
and
then
with
respect
to
your
question
as
to
the
oil
and
its
explosiveness
I'll,
leave
that
answer
to
mr
hayden.
N
Thank
you,
dan
heenan,
for
the
record.
Two
things
can
happen.
First
of
all,
there
can
be
a
fire
without
an
explosion
and
there
can
be
explosion
without
a
fire.
Although
that's
very
rare,
for
an
explosion
to
happen,
you
have
to
be
within
the
explosive
limits
of
the
vapors,
so
we
need
oxygen
and
then
we
need
whatever
the
vapor
is
in
this
case.
This
one
instance
I'm
referring
to
it's
butane,
so
butane
only
has
an
explosive
limit
of
something
like
potentially
four
percent
to
nine
percent,
anything
less
than
that.
N
It's
too
lean
and
anything
higher
than
that
is
too
rich.
But
what
also
happens
in
some
of
these
illegal
manufacturing,
especially
illegal
marijuana,
groves
where
somebody
is
not
following
the
laws
of
the
land
and
they're
doing
their
own
growth
is
that
these
marijuana
grows.
N
Take
a
substantial
amount
of
energy
and
power
to
heat
the
plants
to
make
them
grow,
and
what
we're
seeing
is
that
people
are
are
disconnecting
they're
leasing,
a
house
they're
doing
a
marijuana
grow
within
the
house
and
then
they're
subverting
the
energy
to
the
meter
and
they're
going
right
directly
into
envy
energy's
main
feed.
And
what
this
causes
is
a
massive
fire
hazard
where
the
conductors
and
the
wiring
in
the
house
is
not
was
not
designed
to
have
that
that
amount
of
energy
coming
through
it
and
we
it
results
in
a
lot
of
fires.
N
One
of
the
biggest
safety
issues
with
this
is
when
a
fire
department
comes
on
scene,
one
of
the
first
things
they
do.
Is
they
secure
the
power
and
they
secure
the
power
by
going
to
the
main
meter
box
and
turning
the
power
in
the
off
position
that
ensures
that,
while
they're
fighting
the
fire
with
water,
we're
not
going
to
have
any
electrocutions.
N
When
you
see
these
illegal
marijuana
grows
in
which
they
subverted
the
the
system,
firefighters,
who
believe
they
secured
the
fire
power,
then
go
into
the
fire
and
they
have
an
energized
building
unbeknownst
to
them
and
there's
the
danger
of
electrocution
as
they're
standing
in
water,
so
that
that's
where
the
fire
and
or
explosion
reference
comes
from.
A
D
Thank
you
miss
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
the
intent
of
the
bill
we
already
have
in
statute
all
of
these
drugs.
We
know
that
sometimes
methamphetamines
houses
blood.
We
here
we've
been
hearing
that
for
years
and
years
and
years,
the
intent
of
this
bill,
if
I'm
understanding
correctly,
is
just
adding
that
additional
marijuana
aspect
because
unbeknownst
to
me,
but
as
has
come
out
in
this
committee,
that
does
happen.
D
M
Thank
you
and
for
the
question
through
you,
mr
chair
to
my
assemblywoman,
the
so
this
bill
is
actually
doing
two
things
it
pertains
to
where
there
are
those
illegal
marijuana
grows
happening,
but
it
also
pertains
to
where
there
are
labs
for
things
like
methamphetamines
and
what
this
bill
is
intending
to
do
is
to
get
at
where
those
operations
are
taking
place,
which
is
already
illegal
under
nevada
law,
where
a
fire
or
an
explosion
occurs.
A
M
Thank
you
for
the
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
question,
mr
chair,
nicole,
cannizzaro,
senate
district.
Six,
that's
correct
this.
This
type
of
activity
does
not
fall
under
our
arson
statutes
in
the
way
that
they
are
currently
constructed.
H
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
When
I
read
this
reprint
I
was
confused
as
to
whether
or
not
the
intention
was
to
have
these
two
new
separate
charges
or
if
one
was
to
be
enhancement,
so
it
sounds
like
just
to
confirm
that
your
intention
is
to
work
with
the
language,
so
it
doesn't
read
like
an
enhancement
that
you
approve.
I
guess
I
don't
know
after
sentencing.
Is
that
correct.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
through
you,
mr
chair,
two
vice
chair,
win
nicole
cannizzaro
senate
district
six.
That
is
correct,
and
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
I
did
bring
up
that
mr
pirro
had
flagged
for
me.
We
discussed
last
evening,
and
that
is
our
intention,
so
I
think
we
may
need
to
just
change
a
little
bit
of
the
language
so
that
that
is
more
clear.
H
And
then
I
have
another
follow-up
question:
is
it
your
intent
to
capture
like
people
that
have
like
full
manufacturing
or
compounding
like
labs,
or
is
it
your
intent
to
also
include
people
that
are
perhaps
staying
in
like
an
apartment
or
a
weekly
or
a
hotel
room
that
are
cooking
like
for
lack
of
a
better
term
like
individualized
like
you
know,
you
know
something
that
they
are
either
cooking
for
individual
drug
use.
I
don't
know
how
to
put
that
any
more
clear.
O
H
Would
that
would
these
people
be
included
in
that
like
if
they
were
in
their
single
suites
and
they
were
using
heroin
and
it
started
a
fire?
Would
it
be
charged
under
this
as
well.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
through
you,
mr
chair
to
vice
chair
when
nicole
cannosaro
senate
district
six.
No,
that
is
not
what
we
are
trying
to
get
at,
and
that's
why
you
can
see
here
and
when
we
were,
we
were
attempting
to
amend
some
of
this
language
so
that
it
was
clear
we
included
that
compounding
and
manufacturing
pieces,
because
we
wanted
to
be
clear
that
this
is
not.
You
know
if
someone
is
is
partaking
in
illegal
substances
inside
of
an
apartment,
and
you
know
an
accident
happens
in
that
way.
M
That's
not
what
this
is
intended
to
get
at.
This
is
really
intended
to
get
at
what
exactly
mr
heaney
was
describing,
which
is
where
these
are
labs
that
are
being
operated,
and
so
that's
why
you
see
it
in
this
portion
of
the
nrs,
because
that
is
where
there
is
currently
the
outlines,
for.
I
guess
prescribing
that
those
actions
are
illegal,
having
those
labs,
and
so
that
is
what
we
are
intending
to
get
at,
not
where
you
may
have
somebody
in
a
particular
apartment.
We're
really
trying
to
get
at
those
who
are
operating.
The
labs.
A
K
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman
miller,
nicole
canozzaro
senate
district.
Six
for
the
record.
I
will
leave
that
answer
to
mr
heumann,
who
I
think
can
provide
a
little
bit
more
on
the
statistical
data.
N
Thank
you,
dan
heenan,
for
the
record.
We
don't.
We
have
never
been
trying
to
capture
this
information.
I've
reached
out
to
carson
city
I've
reached
out
to
las
vegas
fire
and
rescue
and
other
fire
departments
throughout
the
state.
Nobody
has
any
actual
mechanism
to
capture
that
anecdotally
speaking
to
people,
the
bho,
the
butane
hash
oil
issue,
we've
seen
probably
down
here
in
clark
county
alone
six
times
and
I'm
just
talking
clark
county
fire
department.
N
I
know
city
of
las
vegas
has
had,
I
believe
two,
so
that's
eight,
but
what
we're
anticipating
is
what
happened
in
colorado
and
in
california,
where
it
has
really
taken
over
massive
on
a
massive
scale.
So
they
have
a
much
larger
issue.
I
know
they're
larger
states,
but
they've
also
legalized,
marijuana
a
long
time
before
we
did-
and
this
is
part
of
the
storm
front-
that
we
are
warned
about
in
the
law
enforcement
community-
that
these
bho
labs,
detain,
hash
oil
labs
are
are
a
massive
issue
related
to
explosions.
K
Thank
you
just
one,
quick
follow-up
chair
so
and
just
so
that
I
understand
what's
happening
when
or
if
this
is
happening.
If
we
have
actually
seen
it
happen
where
the
the
grow
house
so
to
speak
in
the
neighborhood
is
actually
going
around
in
the
energy
and
tapping
it
or
you
know,
whatever
the
the
process
that
you
described,
where
they're
tapping
directly,
I
guess
into
the
power
source
and
putting
too
much
load
onto
the
actual
electrical
system
within
the
household.
N
Dan
heenan
for
the
record.
Yes,
sir,
we
have
we've
we've
in
clark,
county
fire
department
alone.
We've
had
three
of
these
incidents.
In
the
last
six
months,
somebody
will
move
in
lease
a
house
and
then
remove
all
the
furniture.
N
If
there
were,
if
there
was
furniture
and
put
plants
throughout
the
entire
house,
upwards
of
hundreds
to
thousands
of
plants,
each
room
will
be
a
various
stage
of
of
small
newborn
plants,
all
the
way
up
to
the
massive
amount
of
large
large-scale
plants,
and
for
them
to
do
this
they
need
all
the
power
and
energy,
and
that's
the
only
ones
we
know
of
are
the
ones
we've
responded
to
because
they
caught
fire
and
that's
on
at
least
three
occasions
in
the
last
six
months.
C
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
both
for
the
presentation,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
this.
If
we
and
maybe
assistant
fire
chief,
he
then
you
might
have
some
examples.
So
I'm
sorry
if
this
is
if
these
aren't
good
examples,
but
so,
if
I'm
doing
something,
that's
that's
illegal,
but
not
involving
drugs
and
it
that
illegal
act
causes
an
explosion
like
I
don't
know
doing
something
with
chemicals,
doing
something
with
gas
right
now,
there's
no,
it
would
just
be
a
nuisance
charge.
C
M
Thank
you
for
the
question:
assemblywoman
nicole
canozzaro
senate
district
six,
I
guess
depending
the
I
guess.
The
first
caveat
is,
depending
on
what
that
illegal
activity
might
be,
but
currently
under
the
arson
statutes.
If
you
were
to
set
fire
to
a
dwelling
that
still
requires
the
actual
purposeful
intention
of
sentence
of
setting
a
fire
right.
So
that's
that's!
Typically,
when
we
think
of
arson
and
you
think
of
first-degree
residential
occupied
arson.
That's
what
you're
referring
to
I'm
not
sure
of
other
illegal
acts
that
might
result
in
a
fire.
M
But
in
theory
I
think
if
there
was
some
other
kind
of
illegal
act
or
even
under
current
law
under
if
you
were,
you
know,
manufacturing
methamphetamine
and
there
was
an
explosion
or
a
fire.
There
is
no
other
than
a
malicious
destruction
of
property.
There's
no
mechanism
to
get
at
those
particular
acts,
and
so
I
can't
think
of
an
another
illegal
act
that
either
one
presents
the
danger
that
these
types
of
labs
would
cause
or
present,
or
that
we
have
demonstrable
evidence
that
that
is
occurring.
M
And
so
you
know
we're
adding
this
language
to
get
in
those
situations
and
not
for
just
generally
like
if
you're
committing
an
illegal
act
and
a
fire
or
explosion
occurs,
because
I
think
that
there's
a
significant
difference
between
if
there
were
an
accidental
fire
that
occurs
or
engaging
in
some
activity
that,
by
its
very
nature,
is
inherently
presenting
this
very
dangerous
risk
and
an
enhanced
degree
of
risk
for
fire
or
explosion
in
the
way
that
a
methamphetamine
laboratory
or
this
hash
butane
oil
situation
presents.
M
And
so
you
are
correct,
I
think,
under
existing
law.
Unless
there's
some,
unless
there's
something
particular
about
that
per
that
specific
fact
pattern.
There
wouldn't
be
a
mechanism
to
get
at
that,
but
I
think
there
aren't
as
many
inherently
dangerous
or
explosive
type
activities
that
would
result
in
in
a
fire
or
explosion.
As
in
as
is
presented
with
these
types
of
labs,.
N
And
this
is
dan
heenan
for
the
record.
If
I
may
add,
I
agree
with
everything
the
senator
said.
The
only
caveat
I
might
say
is
that
there
are,
there
are
current
charges
for
possession
of
a
destructive
or
incendiary
device,
so
if
somebody
will
make
a
pipe
bomb
or
something
like
that,
there
is
a
whole
separate
set
of
charges.
What
we're
talking
about
is
fuel
air
explosions
in
which
the
vapors
of
the
material
being
utilized
combined
with
air
and
make
an
explosive
mixture.
A
J
N
About
this
is
dan
heenan
for
the
record,
no
sir,
the
way
envy
energy
tracks-
they
have
smart
meters
now
and
it's
they.
They
record
it
through
the
meter
on
how
much
energy
a
house
is
or
or
business
is
consuming.
If
you
subvert
that-
and
you
don't
go
through
the
meter
and
you
directly
tap
into
it,
they
would
get
a
minor
spike
in
the
neighborhood
or
the
geographic
area
use
a
little
more
power.
N
A
Now
additional
questions
all
right,
I
don't
see
additional
questions.
I
thank
you
to
the
two
of
you
for
presenting.
I
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
few
minutes,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
359
in
its
first
reprint.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city
with
us
who
would
like
to
testify
in
support?
A
I
don't
see
anyone
running
elbowing
jockeying
for
position
to
get
to
the
testifier
table
so
I'll
go
to
the
zoom
and
I'll
check
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
support,
I
don't
see
anybody
turning
a
camera
on
or
unmuting
bps
can
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
we
have
any
supportive
testimony
there.
Please.
B
B
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
chuck
callaway
for
the
record
c-a-l-l-a-w-a-y
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
have
seen
a
growing
trend
with
the
butane
being
used
to
extract
marijuana
and
we
have
had
a
number
of
cases
where
people
have
been
injured
because
of
fires
or
explosions.
As
a
result
of
that,
we
are
here
in
support
of
the
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
B
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones,
j,
o
h,
n
j,
o
n
e
s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
in
support
of
sb
359..
We
want
to
thank
majority
leader,
canazarro
and
assistant
chief
heathen
for
bringing
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
A
B
L
Hi,
jim
hoffman
h-o-f-f-m-a-n,
representing
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
nacj
opposes
sb
359,
we're
thankful
to
the
majority
leader
for
working
on
this
in
the
senate,
but
our
group
is
not
quite
there
yet.
Our
opposition
at
this
point
is
primarily
about
this
being
a
strict
liability
offense.
Instead
of
requiring
the
conduct
to
be
reckless
or
negligent
in
the
bill
as
written,
there
is
no
requirement
the
defendant
have
any
state
of
mind
with
regard
to
the
fire.
L
F
L
A
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
working
with
my
office
as
well
as
mr
pirro
on
the
amendment
in
the
senate.
She
accepted
our
amendment
and,
unfortunately
I
think
that
our
amendment
ended
up
confusing
the
issues
more
where
it's
unclear
at
this
point,
whether
it's
an
enhancement,
that's
determined
at
sentencing
or
a
separate
charge.
G
A
Thank
you,
miss
burchie
and
realize
it's
a
work
in
progress,
and
I
will
maybe
much
to
his
chagrin,
offer
our
legal
counsel,
mr
wilkinson,
to
be
able
to
help
out
in
in
figuring
out
how
to
get
the
language
correct.
If,
if
you
don't
mind
mr
wilkinson,
thank
you
miss
burchie.
Anyone
else
here
in
the
room
who
would
like
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
A
B
K
Good
morning,
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
john
pure
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
as
miss
virtue
had
said,
we'd
like
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
trying
to
work
with
us
on
this
bill
and
continue
to
work
with
us
on
this
bill.
I
apologize
to
you,
mr
wilkinson.
K
A
A
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
again
for
having
me
here
with
you
this
morning.
As
you
heard
from
both
miss
berkshire
and
mr
pirro,
we
are
working
to
make
sure
that
this
language
accomplishes
what
we
are
intending
to
accomplish
and
I'm
sure
that
mr
wilkinson
can
certainly
help
us
to
get
that
in
the
right
place.
M
I
did
just
want
to
address
one
one
item,
because
I
think
one
of
the
differences
here,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
this
currently
it
cannot
be
charged
under
arson,
is
because
what
what
this
is
intending
to
get
at
is
where
someone
is
engaging
in
reckless
behavior,
where
it's
negligent,
where
it
is
exceedingly
dangerous.
M
So
this
is
not
a
simply.
If
you
are
standing
near
the
house
and
a
fire
explosion
occurs,
you
are
somehow
criminally
liable.
This
is
where
someone
is
undertaking
the
actions
to
engage
in
a
particularly
inherently
dangerous
activity
where
they
have
to
be
part
of
the
manufacturing
and
compounding
of
these
substances
and
that
by
doing
so,
they
are
creating
this
situation
where
a
fire
explosion
is
likely
to
occur
and
so
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
are
adequately
addressing.
M
Frankly,
I
think
rival
gangs
are
likely
to
pick
other
types
of
felonies
to
go
ahead
and
tag
people
with
in
my
experience.
But
this
is
really
where
you
are
the
person
who's
operating
that
lab
and
as
a
result
of
those
very
dangerous
activities,
a
fire
explosion
occurs,
and
that's
really
what
we're
trying
to
get
at
here.
M
So
I'm
of
course
committed
to
making
sure
that
this
language
accomplishes
what
it
is
intending
to
accomplish,
which
is
to
get
at
those
actions
and
also
to
do
so
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
statutorily,
and
so
I
will
continue
to
work
with
the
stakeholders
on
making
sure
that
language
comes
out
appropriately.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
N
A
A
So
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
359
in
this
first
reprint
committee.
That
takes
us
to
the
final
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
reminder,
public
comment
is
reserved
for
at
least
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Public
commenters
left
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
A
B
B
O
O
O
O
If
you're
going
to
have
somebody
call
supporting
your
bill
as
an
assembly
person,
you
should
make
sure
they
know
the
person's
name.
It's
makaya
and
I
just
you
know:
I've
been
speaking
to
makaya's
mom
and
it's
pretty
ingenuine
to
name
the
bill
after
somebody's
son,
but
not
even
reach
out
to
them
personally
to
get
their
opinion
on
the
bill
or
any
insight
from
them.
She's
still
waiting
for
your
phone
call.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps.
I
will
close
public
comment
anything
else
from
our
very
hard
working
assembly,
judiciary,
committee
members
this
morning.
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
from
the
committee
members
want
to.
Thank
you
all
for
being
here
in
terms
of
where
we
go
from
here.
We
do
have
judiciary
meetings
on
thursday
and
friday.
They
will
be
at
eight
o'clock.
I
know
that
comes
as
a
little
bit
of
a
disappointment,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we
get
through
all
of
our
bills.
I
think
we
have
three
bills
on
each
agenda.
A
I
don't
yet
know
what
next
week
will
look
like,
as
you
all
know,
we're
going
to
be
getting
a
lot
of
senate
bills
coming
over
on
the
floor
in
the
next
couple
days,
so
I
will
keep
you
updated
on
where
we
go
from
here.
My
guess
is
that
we're
probably
going
to
have
judiciary
committee
every
day
until
the
next
deadline,
but
we'll
see
perhaps
we'll
have
the
luxury
of
being
able
to
cancel
a
meeting
if
we
can
get
our
work
done
in
a
timely
fashion.
So
thank
you
all
again
for
being
here
this
morning.