►
From YouTube: 4/5/2021 - 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
E
E
F
G
H
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
kasama
absent
excuse
for
the
moment.
I
do
expect
her
to
be
joining
us
here
shortly.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
guests
that
we
may
have
on
the
zoom
today
and
good
morning
to
those
who
might
be
watching
on
the
internet
either
on
the
legislature's
website
or
the
youtube
channel,
welcome
to
day
64
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
I
hope
you
all
had
a
great
and
restful
weekend
before
we
get
started
on
the
agenda.
A
Just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
if
you're
joining
us
on
the
zoom
today,
please
mute
unless
you
are
speaking
and
if
you
are
presenting
or
answering
questions.
Please
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak
that
will
help
our
committee.
Secretaries
prepare
accurate
minutes.
I
will
try
to
remind
you
if
you
forget
to
do
that.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
this
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly,
of
our
very
hard
working
staff.
Finally,
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
virtual
meeting,
so
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
various
times
during
the
meeting
with
those
matters
behind
us
committee,
we
have
three
bills
on
the
agenda
today.
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
43
assembly
bill,
43,
revises
provisions
governing
judicial
discipline
and
before
I
handed
over
for
the
presentation
on
the
bill,
I
wanted
to.
Let
members
know
that
there
is
an
amendment
on
nellis
that
amendment
does
come
from
me
and
it
essentially
replaces
the
bill
with
some
very
concise
language.
So
hopefully
you
all
got
that
email
message.
I
said
yesterday,
I
didn't
spend
time
reviewing
the
original
bill.
A
I
First,
let
me
say
it's
a
pleasure
to
finally
appear
before
this
committee
on
what
day
64,
if,
albeit
virtually
and
hopefully
soon,
we
will
all
be
able
to
to
get
together
and
and
and
in
a
more
personal
way,
but
that
that.
I
But
with
that,
mr
chair,
I
will
make
a
brief
presentation
on
regarding
ab-43
ab-43
was
brought
by
this
judiciary
committee
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
supreme
court,
at
the
request
of
that
of
the
nevada
judges
limited
jurisdiction
to
address
some
procedural
concerns
that
the
nevada
judges
of
limited
jurisdiction
have
had
with
the
judicial
discipline
commission.
I
Because
of
the
time
constraints
and
of
this
session
and
the
complexity
of
the
issues
raised
in
ab43,
the
nevada
judges,
limited
jurisdictions
have
consulted
with
you,
mr
chair,
as
well
as
with
chief
justice
hardesty
and
after
that
consultation
agree
that
this
is
a
better
way
to
go
with
respect
to
this
bill.
I
I
I
think
that
began
in
2006
or
2007
that
the
request
of
then
chief
justice
bob
rose
and
as
a
result
of
that
study
committee,
which
we,
which
we've
characterized
as
the
article
6
study
committee
recommendations,
were
made
to
the
legislature
in
the
2009
session
that
were
subsequently
adopted
in
ab496
of
that
session.
So
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
your
time
and
the
committee's
time
and
we'll
try
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
or
members
of
the
committee
may
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation,
mr
lee,
and
I
will
confirm
for
committee
members
as
well
that
I
have
discussed
this
amendment
with
chief
justice
hardesty
to
in
fact
make
sure
that
the
court
was
not
going
to
be
offended
or
opposed
to
to
the
amendment,
and
I
can
confirm
that
in
fact,
justice
hardesty
is
okay
with
this
amendment
and
I
believe,
welcomes
an
opportunity
to
look
further
at
this
issue
in
the
interim.
A
Yeah
we
we
will
be
able
to
at
the
end
of
the
hearing
if
we
can
sit
tight,
assemblyman
wheeler
appreciate
the
suggestion,
any
questions
I
know
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
want
to
make
sure
I
give
folks
a
chance
if
there
are
questions.
A
So,
mr
lee,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
presenting
I'll,
give
you
a
chance
to
do
any
wrap
up
once
we
get
a
chance
to
get
through
any
testimony
on
the
measure,
so
I
will
now
go
move
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
43.,
mr
daily,
I
know
you're
on
the
zoom
with
this,
and
I
didn't
know
if
your
what
your
official
position
on
the
measure
was.
Are
you
in
support
of
the
measure.
J
The
measure
the
conceptual
amendment-
yes,
the
commission
is.
A
Okay,
please
go
ahead
with
we'll
take
your
testimony
at
this
time
then.
Thank
you
for
being
here.
J
Okay,
thank
you
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
I
am
paul
dyla
general
counsel
and
executive
director
of
the
nevada
judicial
discipline
commission.
J
I
did
prepare
a
much
lengthy
presentation,
but
in
light
of
the
deletion
of
the
bill
and
the
conceptual
amendment,
I
only
have
a
few
statements
which
should
take
no
more
than
a
few
minutes,
although
I
will
not
be
discussing
them.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
chairman
yeager
for
allowing
the
exhibits
submitted
by
the
commission
to
be
part
of
the
record
with
respect
to
this
bill
and
any
subsequent
study
that
may
follow
in
accordance
with
the
principle
of
separation
of
powers.
J
If
the
nevada
supreme
court
decides
to
undertake
such
a
study
as
contemplated
by
the
conceptual
amendment
and
establish
another
article,
6
commission,
as
it
did
in
2006,
then
the
commission
will
fully
participate
in
that
process
as
it
has
in
the
past.
I
do
believe
that
another
article
6
commission,
if
deemed
warranted
and
necessary
by
the
supreme
court
under
the
circumstances,
would
be
the
most
appropriate,
if
not
the
only
mechanism,
by
which
to
fairly
and
adequately
represent
the
interests
of
not
only
the
judiciary
and
the
commission,
but
also,
most
importantly,
the
public.
J
The
very
people,
the
nevada
constitution
has
empowered
the
commission
to
protect,
while
at
the
same
time,
giving
due
regard
to
the
vast
body
of
judicial
disciplinary
jurisprudence
and
precedent
that
has
existed
and
developed
throughout
this
country.
For
decades,
notwithstanding
whether
another
article
6
6
commission
will
be
impaneled
by
the
supreme
court
or
not,
I
would
like
each
of
you
to
know
that
there
will
be
certain
undertakings
planned
by
both
the
commission
and
the
nevada
supreme
court
over
the
next
two
years.
That
I
believe,
will
go
a
long
way
in
addressing
and
attempting
to
close.
J
The
rather
large
divide
that
currently
exists
between
the
commission
and
a
relatively
small
number
of
limited
jurisdiction
judges.
These
undertakings
will
present
many
opportunities
for
professional
and
honest
dialogue
between
the
commission,
the
judiciary
and
the
public,
as
well
as
a
greater
understanding
of
the
issues
and
challenges
faced
by
all
concern.
J
Additionally,
the
supreme
court
recently
advised
me
that
the
court
is
planning
on
revising
the
code
of
judicial
conduct
which,
as
you
know,
the
commission
enforces
and
asked
if
we
would
participate
and
provide
input
into
that
process
to
which
the
commission
enthusiastically
agreed,
as
it
has
in
years
past.
This
will
be
yet
another
opportunity
for
the
bench
bar
and
public
to
weigh
in
on
the
proposed
changes
to
the
code
in
a
fully
transparent
manner.
J
In
conclusion,
if
these
efforts
prove
to
be
productive-
and
I
am
cautiously
optimistic
that
they
will-
then
it
is
the
commission's
hope
that
the
2023
legislature
will
not
have
to
entertain
another
bill
such
as
ab43
as
it
relates
to
the
commission.
You
have
its
assurance
that
it
is
and
will
be
fully
committed
to
these
endeavors
in
the
months
and
years
ahead.
Thank
you
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony,
mr
daila.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
don't
believe
we
have
questions
at
the
moment
so
again
want
to
thank
you
for
testifying
in
support
this
morning.
Let
me
check
to
see
if
there's
anybody
else
on
the
zoom
in
support.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anybody,
but
if
I'm
wrong
about
that,
if
you
could
turn
your
camera
on
on
mute,
let
me
know
you'd
like
to
offer
testimony
and
support.
A
K
K
K
J
Good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
michael
hillerby
h-I-l-l-e-r-b-y,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
judges
association,
would
like
to
echo
the
comments
in
support
of
the
bill
with
the
proposed
amendments
from
my
friend
mr
lee.
The
district
judges
again
want
to
be
on
record
in
support
of
the
bill
with
the
proposed
amendment.
Thank
you.
A
A
K
A
A
K
A
A
So,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
mark
her
present-
and
I
do
believe,
assemblywoman
kasama
is
presenting
in
another
committee
this
morning
so
when
she
gets
back
we'll
mark
her
as
present
as
well,
but
I
think
she
is
still
absent
for
the
moment
so
with
the
testimony
behind
us.
Mr
lee,
I'd
like
to
just
hand
it
over.
If
you
had
any
concluding
remarks
on
assembly
bill
43
as
amended.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee.
No,
I
have
no
closing
comments
other
than
to
urge
you
all
to
adopt
the
amendment
to,
as
you
have
proposed
to
ab43,
and
we
can
move
forward
so
with
that.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
this
morning.
A
A
This
is
deadline
week.
As
you
know,
so
things
will
be
moving
quickly
and
I
wanted
to
note
for
the
record
that
under
rule
number
57
of
our
assembly
assembly
standing
rules
of
the
81st
session,
with
either
approval
of
the
speaker
or
unanimous
consent
to
waive
the
24-hour
waiting
period
that
can
be
waived
and
we
can
take
final
action
on
a
bill
after
the
close
of
hearing.
A
A
Second,
we
have
a
motion
from
assemblyman
wheeler.
We
have
a
second
from
vice
chair,
win
now
normally
committee
in
the
past,
we've
done
a
roll
call
vote,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
bills
to
get
through
this
week.
So
I'm
going
to
try
to
to
do
this
in
a
little
bit
of
a
different
way
that
should
speed
things
up.
So
before
I
take
the
vote,
which
is
going
to
be
a
voice
vote,
I
wanted
to
ask
for
a
show
of
hands
of
anyone
on
the
committee
who
is
intending
to
vote
no
on
the
measure.
A
I
don't
see
any
no's,
so
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
take
a
voice
vote
and
then
I'll
just
confirm
that
we
don't
have
any
notes.
So
if
you
could
all
unmute
yourselves
on
the
committee
and
at
this
time
again,
the
motion
is
to
amend
and
do
pass
assembly
bill.
43
would
all
of
those
in
favor.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
A
Okay,
I
don't
hear
any
opposed
so
that
motion
does
carry
all
who
are
present
voted
in
favor
of
it
so
committee.
Thank
you
and
that's
one
less
bill
we'll
have
to
work
session
throughout
the
week.
So
again,
thank
you,
mr
lee
and
mr
daila
for
being
here
and
look
for
the
bill
to
hit
the
assembly
floor.
Once
we
have
an
amendment
formalized
and
we
can
report
it
out
of
committee.
A
So
moving
right
along
committee
has
stated
we're
now
going
to
move
to
assembly
bill
425,
which
is
the
third
of
the
three
bills
listed
on
the
agenda
assembly.
Bill
425,
establishes
provisions
relating
to
the
criminal
forfeiture
of
property
used
in
or
derived
from
unlawful
acts
relating
to
the
possession,
distribution
or
use
of
controlled
substances.
A
So
now
we'll
open
the
hearing
on
that
measure,
we
have
ms
rasmussen
with
us
and
mr
mcgrath
and
before
I
hand
it
over
to
them,
I
wanted
to
let
committee
members
know
that
there
was
an
amendment
that
was
posted
this
morning
to
nellis
for
the
measure.
I
believe
it
was
offered
by
the
public
defender's
office
and
I
believe
it
is
considered
to
be
a
friendly
amendment.
So
please
get
that
in
front
of
you.
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
my
name
is
lisa
rasmussen.
I
reside
in
assembly
district
2.,
I'm
going
to
just
give
you
a
brief
introduction
here
and
then
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
mcgrath
to
give
a
powerpoint
presentation
on
what
forfeiture
is
in
general
and
then
I'm
going
to
come
back
and
go
through
the
bill
and
then
we'll
answer
any
questions.
L
So
I
first
just
want
to
introduce
mr
mcgrath
and
and
make
a
couple
comments
here.
I've
been
working
on
forfeiture
reform
in
the
state
of
nevada.
For
several
years.
My
efforts
go
back
to
efforts
that
I
undertook
with
senator
gregor
back
in
the
mid
teens
20
2015.
I
believe-
and
I
also
did
some
work
with
senator
gustafson-
on
trying
to
get
this
reform
going
here
in
nevada,
so
my
efforts
have
been
bipartisan
and
I
I
think
that
now
is
the
time
to
actually
make
some
substantial
changes.
L
M
Chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
lee
mcgrath
m.c
jesus
and
george
r.a
tias
and
thomas
h,
I'm
senior
legislative
counsel
for
the
institute
for
justice
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
conceptualize
what
this
ab425
wisely
does.
M
Let
me
punch
share
this
screen
with
you
and
walk
through
a
very
short
presentation
on
on
ending
civil
forfeiture
and
replacing
it
with
criminal
forfeiture
and
after
I'm
completed
these
few
slides
I'll
turn
it
back
to
miss
rasmussen,
who
will
apply
it
more
more
specifically
to
what
you're
facing
in
this
bill
and
what
is
happening
in
the
state
of
nevada.
M
So
today,
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
give
you
a
big
picture
about
what
forfeiture
is
and
then
dive
into
the
weeds,
and
there
are
lots
of
weeds
when
it
comes
to
forfeiture
I'll,
explain
I'll,
suggest
the
differences
between
seizure
and
forfeiture,
then
I'll
also
talk
about
the
different
types
of
people
who
face
this.
This
issue,
the
suspect
and
innocent
owners
such
as
the
suspect's
wife,
girlfriend
parent,
the
rent-a-car
company,
a
creditor
I'll
dive
into
the
differences
briefly
between
civil
forfeiture,
the
kind
you
have
in
nevada
and
what
this
bill
proposes.
M
M
Everyone
who
will
testify
today
and
who
is
involved
in
this
issue,
doesn't
want
crime
to
become
economic
and
economically
viable,
more
attractive
exercise,
and
it
is
perfectly
legitimate
for
the
state
of
nevada
to
engage
in
disgorging
the
fruit
and
the
proceeds.
M
And
the
instruments
rather
of
crime,
the
money,
the
vehicle
all
this
should
be
seized
and
if,
if
a
person
is
convicted
for
forfeited,
so
this
is
a
how
question
this
is
a
process
question.
M
M
This
bill,
hardly
touches
seizures
seizures
are
the
work
of
taking
possession
of
property
believed
to
be
associated
with
crime.
It
is
the
work
of
police
officers
and
highway,
patrolmen
and
and
sheriffs.
It
happens
on
the
street
and
once
again,
this
bill
that
hardly
touched
changes.
Any
of
nevada's
laws
where
this
bill's
focus
on
is
in
the
work
of
prosecutors
and
and
others.
M
Defense
attorneys
that
are
engaged
in
litigating
ownership,
litigating,
the
transfer
of
title
and
civil
prosecutors
today
in
nevada
do
this
type
of
litigation
in
courtrooms
and
in
their
offices
as
part
of
plea,
bargains,
yeah
and
their
offices.
So
those
that's
the
difference
between
seizure
and
forfeiture.
Let's
turn
to
the
different
people
involved.
M
There
is
the
suspect,
and
then
there
is
an
innocent
owner
claimant
who
had
has
had
no
association
or
involvement
in
the
crime.
It
could
be
the
suspect's
spouse,
parent,
a
creditor,
the
bank
of
nevada,
a
rent-a-car
company,
and
there
are
inside
of
this
bill.
There
are
proposals
as
to
how
to
change
the
process
of
forfeiture
associated
with
the
suspect
and
as
well
as
the
process
associated
with
innocent
owners
and
secured
credit
creditors,
two
different
people,
here's
the
thr,
the
the
thrust
of
what
we're
talking
about
today.
M
By
contrast,
if
I'm
driving
through
nebraska
or
north
carolina
or
new
mexi
mexico-
and
I
get
stopped,
I
face
a
one-track
process
in
which
my
person
goes
into
the
criminal
justice
system
and
so
does
the
question.
The
litigation
associated
with
my
vehicle
all
happening
in
a
streamlined
single
process
in
the
criminal
and
the
criminal
juris
jurisdiction
after
I'm
convicted.
M
Just
on
that
point,
you
may
have
heard
of
some
of
the
funny
names
that
occur
in
civil
forfeiture,
like
2000
la
say,
versus
2007
chevrolet
tahoe.
By
contrast
that
in
rem,
jurisdiction
is
unique
to
civil
forfeiture,
it
doesn't
happen
in
criminal
forfeiture
in
personam
jurisdiction,
and
I
promise
you.
This
is
the
only
latin
I
will
use
this
more
this
morning.
M
Additionally,
there's
questions
of
nevada's
jurisdiction
versus
the
federal
government
in
areas
of
of
controlled
substances,
they're
still
dirt
jurisdiction,
and
we
can
talk
about
more
more
of
that
in
the
q.
A
session,
in
particular
the
federal
government
teams
with
nevada
law
law
enforcement
in
a
program
called
equitable
sharing.
There
are
adoptions
and
there
are
joint
task
forces.
M
M
It
makes
sense
at
the
port
of
los
angeles
or
the
port
of
boston
or
or
somewhere
along
the
the
great
great
lakes
where
the
shipper
the
person,
who
is
the
suspect,
who
is
violating
state
state
or
federal
law,
is
beyond
the
jurisdiction.
M
M
Where
does
it
not
make
sense?
Civil
forfeiture
does
not
make
sense
when
nevada
gains
personal
jurisdiction,
so
on
the
highways
and
byways
of
of
the
state
when
an
arrest
occurs.
I
submit
mr
chairman
members
that
the
rationale
of
using
civil
forfeiture
disappears
because
the
state
has
gained
personal
jurisdiction
through
an
arrest
of
the
suspect.
M
Turning
now
to
some
of
the
myths
and
realities
of
for
forfeiture,
one
of
the
great
myths
is
that
civil
forfeiture
is
used
as
a
large
as
a
tool
against
international
exclusively
against
international
drug
cartels.
It
certainly
is
used
against
members
of
international
drug
cartels,
but
that
is
that
is
not
exclusively
the
av.
The
median
seizure
of
cash
in
nevada
is
not
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars,
wrapped
in
plastic
and
hidden
in
the
panels
of
18
wheelers,
but
instead
908.
M
M
M
So,
even
if
you
were
as
innocent
as
mother
mother
teresa,
if
you
only
had
908
dollars
seized
from
you,
it
would
be
irrational
to
hire
a
private
attorney
like
miss
rasmussen,
to
tr
help.
You
try
to
get
back
your
908
additionally,
because
it's
in
civil
court
there
is
no
public
defender.
Gideon
only
applies
to
criminal
court.
M
M
Another
common
myth
is
that
forfeiture
is
an
effective
tool
to
get
drugs
off.
The
street
institute
for
justice
has
recently
published
a
research
by
brian
kelly
that
it
has
had
no
effect
on
drugs.
It
has
no
effect
on
drugs
or
or
crime,
but
even
common
sense
beyond
the
academic
study
suggests
that
nevada's
laws,
like
the
laws
of
most
states,
do
not
focus
on
seizing
drugs.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
presentation.
Mr
mcgrath
appreciate
it
and
committee
members,
members
of
the
public,
that
presentation
can
be
found
as
an
exhibit
on
nellis.
If
you'd
like
to
go
back
and
look
at
that
after
this
morning's
hearing,
we'll
turn
it
back
over
to
ms
rasmussen
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
bill
and
the
amendment.
L
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
so
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
Then
I'm
going
to
talk
about
it
a
little
bit.
I'm
also
going
to
go
through
I'm
going
to
try
to
do
this
contemporaneously.
With
the
conceptual
amendments
that
were
submitted
by
the
public
defender's
office,
which
are
friendly
amendments.
L
They
they
limit
the
bill
somewhat
and
set
some
additional
limitations
on
it.
So
I'm
I'm
gonna
kind
of
go
through
them
as
we
speak
so
sections
four
five
and
six
of
the
bill
are
the
definitions.
L
So
it
is
limited
to
that
and
then
also
we'll
come
across
it
in
other
places,
but
it
would
also
be
limited
to,
and
this
is
actually
section
9
it's
the
next
section.
It
would
be
limited
to
a
value
of
imc's
of
5,
000
or
less
so.
This
bill
would
only
apply
to
drug
cases
that
involve
trafficking,
sale
or
transport
of
controlled
substances,
not
mere
possession,
and
it
would
only
apply
to
seizures
with
the
value
of
five
thousand
dollars
or
less
that's
sections,
eight
and
nine.
L
L
In
section
17,
it
discusses
protections
for
people
when
money
or
items
are
seized.
In
section
19,
it
discusses
the
really
crux
of
this
bill,
which
is
that
it
only
applies
if
a
criminal
case
is
filed.
If
no
criminal
case
is
filed,
that
seizure
and
subsequent
forfeiture
by
the
state
are
going
to
remain
as
a
civil
proceeding.
L
So
if
someone
is
stopped
on
the
interstate
driving
on
their
way
to
utah
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
is
seized
from
their
car,
but
there's
no
arrest,
this
bill
does
not
apply,
only
applies
when
there's
a
concurrent
criminal
case,
just
like
we
went
through
in
the
powerpoint
section.
20
identifies
the
procedure
for
the
bill
procedure,
for
the
bill
will
be
that
an
allegation
is
added
in
the
criminal
complaint.
L
It'll
say
count.
One
trafficking,
a
controlled
substance
count
two
forfeiture
forty
five
hundred
dollars
and
then
that
allegation
will
be
litigated
at
sentencing
or
in
the
plea
agreement
or
at
sentencing
or
any
time
after
sentencing.
A
judge
will
make
a
decision
as
to
what
should
happen
with
the
forty
five
hundred
dollars.
It
will
circumvent
the
cumbersome
process
of
the
state
filing
a
civil
complaint,
just
in
las
vegas
done
generally
by
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
a
person
having
to
appear
in
a
civil
case
litigated.
L
L
Section
24
contains
provisions
against
excessive
forfeiture
section,
25
has
to
do
with
the
disposal
of
property
and
how
it's
liquidated
section
27
protects
innocent
owners
that
we've
been
talking
about
sections
30
and
31.
L
So
let
me
go
back
to
the
conceptual
amendment
in,
as
I
mentioned
already,
it
would
be
limited
to
items
of
value
of
5,
000
or
less.
L
L
L
We
had
for
some
reason
had
it
as
a
preponderance
and
we've
changed
it
back
to
clear
and
convincing
as
the
standard
which
is
consistent
with
the
existing
standard,
and
that
would
make
this
bill
consistent
with
what
happens
in
a
civil
forfeiture
with
regard
to
an
innocent
owner
or
a
defender
who
is
establishing
that
the
forfeiture
or
the
seizure
is
excessive,
or
that
there's
some
other
that
they're
an
innocent
owner
or
that
the
money
was
derived
from
lawful
proceeds.
It
was
their
paycheck
that
they
cashed.
L
That
burden
is
the
preponderance
of
the
evidence.
So
I
think
I've
hit
the
main
highlights
of
the
conceptual
amendment
and
gone
through
the
bill
piece
by
piece.
Here's
what
I
want
to
just
tell
you
with
regard
to
how
it
actually
plays
out
in
and-
and
I
think
that
there
are
some
letters
in
support
of
of
this
bill
that
were
submitted-
that
also
talk
about
some
of
the
numbers
it
from
the
years
july,
1
or
the
fiscal
year
july,
1
19
to
june
30
2020,
the
most
recent
fiscal
year
for
which
we
have
reporting.
L
There
was
a
total
of
four
million
dollars
seized
and
there
was
a
total
of
about
three
million
dollars
forfeited
in
the
state
of
nevada.
If
you
go
back
one
prior
fiscal
year,
those
numbers
are
six
million
and
a
little
over
three
million
in
this
state.
There's
a
lot
of
money
seized,
but
a
lot
of
it
comes
from
big
cases
where
there's
a
federal
joint
task
force.
This
bill
does
not
interrupt
or
impede
metro's
ability
to
work
with
the
general
with
the
joint
task
force
with
its
federal
partners.
L
It
does
not,
and
there
is
a
formula
for
money
sharing,
that
the
local
law
enforcement
agencies
in
the
state
of
nevada
have
with
their
federal
partners.
They
get
part
of
the
money
that
the
fed
sees
the
feds
get
part
of
the
money
that
they
seize.
This
does
not
impact
that
in
any
case,
that
would
be
over
five
thousand
dollars.
This
the
civil
process
would
remain
the
same.
L
I
have
worked
in
the
past
with
lvmpd
to
see
if
we
could
come
to
an
agreement
and
I've
not
been
able
to
get
them
to
agree
to
any
change
on
the
current
forfeiture.
The
current
forfeiture
scheme
is
broken
because
it
doesn't
address
all
of
these
small
amounts
that
are
seized
and
subsequently
forfeited,
where
someone
doesn't
have
the
resource
to
appear
in
a
civil
case
and
to
litigate
whether
or
not
they
should
have
their
money
back.
It's
much
easier
to
do
this
in
the
context
of
the
criminal
case.
L
In
some
instances
where
someone
can
establish
that
the
money
has
nothing
to
do
with
their
the
drugs
they've
been
alleged
to
have
trafficked,
then
they
can
have
the
money
returned.
It's
a
much
simpler
process,
it's
exactly
what
we've
been
doing
in
federal
court
for
over
20
years.
I
practiced
in
both
federal
and
state
court,
and
it's
not
complicated
it's
much
simpler
to
just
do
it
in
the
criminal
case,
where
the
person
already
has
an
attorney.
The
public
defender's
office
requested
the
cap
of
five
thousand.
L
I
think
that
that's
reasonable,
at
least
to
start
so
that
people
can
understand
that
this
is
not
a
complicated
process.
It's
not
going
to
create
an
undue
burden
on
either
the
state
or
the
or
the
public
defender
offices.
So
with
that,
I
am
available
to
answer
any
questions.
I
know
it's
a
really
complicated
subject
and
it's
one
of
those
things
that
can
make
the
eyes
your
eyes
glaze
over.
But
if
you
have
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
of
them
or
mr
mcgrath
can
answer
them.
A
M
Chairman
I,
as
it
relates
to
the
conceptual
amendment
I
think
the
five
thousand
dollar
cap
relates
to
representation
by
public
def
def
defenders.
With
that
I
welcome
questions.
A
Thank
you
to
all
so
much
for
the
presentation.
I
do
have
some
questions
already
in
the
queue,
but
members
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screen.
Let
me
know
if
you
have
questions
I'll
just
start
a
list
here
so
far.
I
think
I
have
a
vice
chair
win
and
then
assemblywoman
marzola,
I'm
sure
we'll
have
more
after
that.
So
please
go
ahead
by
share.
E
I
know
at
least
in
my
two
sessions.
This
is
the
second
time
and
I'm
sure
that
you
have
been
here
before
miss
rasmussen
so-
and
I
know
that's
something
that
you
have
been
working
on.
You
know
during
the
interim
engaging
other
like
outside
community
groups.
E
Is
there
are
there
any
changes
to
this
bill
that
you've
kind
of
taken
into
consideration?
I
know
that
it
appears
that
some
of
the
law
enforcement
agencies
are
just
not
willing
to
work
at
all.
Is
that
my
understanding
like
there's
no
middle
ground
or
there's
no
room
for
compromise,
but
I
do
see
that
you
have
like
the
support
of
other
like
outside
community
groups
in
this.
Can
you
tell
me
if
there's
any
like
substantial
differences
other
than
that
cap
or
things
that
you
have
tried
to
be
accommodating
for
law
enforcement,
even
without
their
participation?
E
L
You
assembly,
woman,
win
and
I'm
sorry
chair
yeager.
I
should
have
gone
through
you
to
assemblywoman
win,
so
the
bill
is
different
than
last
session
in
that
it
only
applies
to
those
narcotic
cases
drug
cases
it
last
session
it
applied
to
all
cases.
I
have
worked
in
the
past
substantially
with
metro
to
come
up
with
a
scheme
that
pleased
them
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
last
session,
they
said
no,
they
weren't
going
to
support
any
of
it.
L
The
fact
that
let
me
just
clarify
the
5
000
cap
is
the
amount
of
the
contraband
seats
that
is
so
this
bill
will
only
apply
to
5,
000
or
less
in
in
value
or
actual
cash.
I
don't
know
if
that
changes
law
enforcement's
position
on
it,
but
it
is
my
position
that
it
will
give
us
a
good
start
on
covering
the
bulk
of
cases,
because,
as
mr
mcgrath
noted,
the
median
seizure
is
908
dollars.
L
L
So
if
someone
has
pertained
to
me
to
represent
them
in
their
criminal
case,
I
can
actually
answer
their
questions,
because
I
understand
both
procedures
but
there's
a
whole
population
of
people
who
don't
have
any
level
of
representation,
and
I
think
that,
even
with
the
five
thousand
dollar
cap,
it
will
cover
the
bulk
of
the
cases.
What
I
didn't
talk
about
actually
is
the
cost
to
metro.
L
It's
a
cost
savings
to
them,
because
right
now
they
have
an
attorney
who
files
the
civil
cases
they
pay
a
270
or
more
filing
fee,
and
then
they
wait
until
the
criminal
case
is
over
and
then
they
go
back
to
that
court
and
say:
okay,
the
person
pled
guilty.
Now
we
want
the
money.
This
could
all
be
done
in
the
criminal
case.
E
Can
you
briefly
describe
how
this
process
works
in
the
federal
system?
Are
there
more
due
process
protections
there
than
there
are
in
our
own
state
system
like
by
allowing
this
bill
to
go
forward?
With
that
I
mean
it
sounds
like
it
would
increase
like
due
process
protections
for
like
those
innocent
people
that
if
you
could
address
that,
maybe.
L
Yes,
I
can
thank
you,
lisa
rasmussen,
for
the
record
through
you,
chair,
yeager,
to
assemblyman
assemblywoman
win.
So
the
current
federal
process
is
there's
an
indictment
that
is
filed
and
it
alleges
a
crime
or
two,
and
then
it
also
has
a
third
allegation
of
forfeiture
and
it
will
say
when
the
government
is
seeking
to
forfeit
two
firearms
and
twenty
five
hundred
dollars
in
cash
and
that
forfeiture
allegation
gives
the
criminal
defendant
notice
right
then,
and
there
that
the
government
is
seeking
to
forfeit
these
items
that
were
seized
when
they
were
arrested.
L
It's
the
two
guns
and
the
the
2500
cash
that
was
in
their
pocket
during
the
course
of
litigating
that
criminal
case,
a
plea
agreement,
often
is
put
out
on
the
table
where
the
defendant
is,
is
given
an
offer
to
be
guilty
to
xyz
and
that
that
usually
includes
the
forfeiture
amount.
So
the
government
would
say
we
also
expect
them
to
forfeit
the
two
guns,
maybe
because
they're
a
felon
in
possession
or
they
were
using
the
guns
unlawfully
and
where
we're
seeking
forfeiture
in
the
context
of
a
police.
L
So
it's
an
extra
paragraph,
that's
written
in
the
agreement
that,
pursuant
to
the
terms
of
the
plea,
the
person
will
forfeit
the
items
and
then,
on
the
day
of
sentencing,
the
judge
imposes
the
sentence
and
issues
a
one-page
forfeiture
order
that
matches
exactly.
What's
in
the
plea,
it
is
a
very
simple
streamlined
process.
There
are
instances
when
it
can
be
complicated
when
it's
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars,
but
that
wouldn't
apply
to
this
bill
because
we're
talking
about
a
five
thousand
dollar
cap.
A
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
My
question
is
for
mrs,
I
don't
want
to
butcher
your
name
rasmussen,
so
I
apologize.
If
I
did,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
One
is
on
section
25
of
the
bill
where
states
of
forfeiture
of
real
property
or
personal
property.
So
my
first
question
is:
is
the
cash
considered
personal
property?
B
Are
we
talking
sorry
guys.
L
Yes,
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record
to
assembly
when
woman
marshall,
like
yes,
cash
is
considered
property,
so
we
we
describe
property
and
assets
generally
in
forfeiture
in
the
context
of
forfeiture
law
and
seizures,
but
cash
is
also
property.
It's
something
that
you
have
either
ownership
of
a
car
you
have
title
to,
but
cash
is
something
that
has
an
ownership
element
to
it.
So,
yes,
cash
is
included.
B
And
then,
when
you
go
down
to
the
bill,
still
section
25
subsection
two,
I
understand
that
some
of
the
cash
that
you
get
will
go
to
the
offender
for
or
I'm
sorry
for,
restitution
liens.
If
I'm
correct
and
then
in
on
c.
It
says
for
expenses
that
the
local
law
enforcement
agency
may
be
spent
on
the
seizure
also
office
for
the
for
the
prosecutor,
the
pd's
office.
B
L
Lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
marshall.
Those
are
excellent
questions,
so
the
current
forfeiture
scheme
that
we
have
in
nevada
allows
for
the
seizing
agency
and
in
las
vegas
that's
most
of
the
time
lvmpd,
but
it
can
also
be
henderson
or
north
las
vegas.
It
allows
them
to
keep
a
portion
of
the
money
that
was
seized
or
the
liquidated
value
of
what
was
seized
for
purchasing
law
enforcement
equipment,
which
is
guns
and
other
tactical
items.
I
think
that
mr
christensen,
who's,
probably
on
the
zoom,
can
also
answer
that.
L
L
What
remains
is
what
goes
to
the
general
fund
and
the
school
fund,
so
this
bill,
at
least
on
these
small
level
amounts
under
the
conceptual
amendment,
would
decrease
the
overhead
law
enforcement
is
incurring
for
their
reasonable
expenses
and
would
allow
a
greater
portion
to
go
to
the
general
fund
and
the
school
fund.
It
does
not
alter
their
ability
to
maintain
a
certain
portion
of
it
for
their
equipment
and
the
things
that
they're
allowed
to
lawfully
purchase.
A
N
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
miss
rasmussen
for
the
presentation
and
mr
mcgrath.
I
do
have
a
question
about
a
statement
that
was
made
and
that
was
innocent
people
who
caught
up
get
caught
up
in
this
innocently
and
you
had
mentioned
rental
car
companies,
and
so,
if
you
could
sort
of
expound
upon
that
a
little
bit,
I
would
really
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
L
Assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
so
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record,
so
here's
what
often
happens,
especially
in
some
of
the
highway
interdiction
cases,
someone
will
be
getting
a
rental
car,
from
los
angeles
to
salt
lake
city
and
they'll,
be
stopped
by
the
nevada
highway
patrol
and
a
pound
of
methamphetamine
will
be
located
in
the
door
or
bumper
of
that
vehicle
that
rental
car
and
then
they
will.
There
will
be
some
money
in
a
case
like
this.
L
If
that
money
is
seized
and
it's
less
than
five
thousand
dollars
the
rental
car
could
also,
the
money
could
be
seized.
The
rental
car
could
be
seized
because
it's
an
instrument
of
the
crime,
but
the
owner
of
the
rental
car
agency
would
have
the
ability
to
come
to
the
proceeding
and
say
this
is
our
rental
car
we
own
it?
We
are
not
drug
traffickers
and
they
would
be
their
interests
would
be
protected.
That's
generally
what
it
targets.
N
Chair,
if
I
may
have
a
follow-up,
please
so
ms
rasmussen
in
rasmussen,
would
that
also
apply.
For
instance,
if
I
had
rented
my
car
to
not
rented
but
allowed
a
friend
or
family.
B
A
N
That's
okay.
Would
that
also
apply
to
a
regular
person
like
me,
if
I
had
a
allowed
a
friend
or
family
member
to
use
my
vehicle
and
its
value
was
over
five
thousand
dollars
that
I
would
be
able
to
come
to
the
criminal
procedure.
Proceeding
where
this
with
the
proceeding.
N
Not
only
the
criminal,
the
criminal
charges,
but
also
the
seizure,
I
would
be
able
to
go
to
that
hearing
and
say:
hey,
that's
my
car
and
they
did
not
have
the
right
to
use
it
in
this
criminal.
You
know
activity,
I
didn't
give
permission
and
I
can
get
my
car
back
or
will.
I
have
to
then
defend
myself
in
a
civil
suit
in
the
current
situation.
L
So,
thank
you.
Assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record,
so
in
the
scenario
you're
talking
about
with
a
value
a
car
with
a
value
over
5000
that
would
be
that
would
still
remain
in
the
civil
forfeiture
process.
You
would
absolutely
be
able
to
go
to
the
civil
case
and
say
I'm
an
innocent
owner.
I
had
no
idea
my
neighbor
was
going
to
drive
drugs
across
town.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
me
and
you
would
be
protected,
but
you
would
be
required
to
hire
a
lawyer
to
do
it.
L
The
same
is
actually
true
in
this
bill
as
an
innocent
owner
third
party
to
the
criminal
proceeding.
Who
would
you
would
be
able
to
do
it
on
your
own
in
either
case?
But
you
would
you
also
be
have
the
ability
to
hire
a
lawyer
and
come
and
say
this?
Is
my
car
I'm
innocent?
I
didn't
have
anything
to
do
with
it.
So.
B
L
The
in
with
the
cap
of
5000,
if
the
value
of
that
car
is
over,
5000
that's
going
to
remain
in
the
in
the
civil
procedure.
If
it's
less
than
5000
or
less
it's
going
to
be
in
the
criminal
case,
you
could
go
either.
You
as
an
innocent
owner,
however,
are
not
going
to
have
an
attorney
appointed
for
you
in
either
case.
B
Thank
you,
sherry
yeager.
Thank
you.
Miss
rasmussen,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
is
the
concern
in
the
bill
that
drug
dealers
and
drug
traffickers
won't
have
a
free
public
defender
to
defend
them
in
court.
L
L
It's
that
in
these
small
amounts
that
are
seized,
people
lack
the
ability
to
go
hire
a
lawyer,
because
no
lawyer
would
tell
you
that
they're
going
to
to
charge
you
500
an
hour
to
recover
your
1200
in
cash,
because
you
couldn't
get
through
filing
an
answer
to
a
complaint
for
less
than
the
money
you're
trying
to
litigate.
You
know
and
kind
of
a
basic
rule
we
have
as
lawyers
is,
we
don't
spend
more
money,
litigating,
what's
at
issue
item
contested
than
it's
worth,
because
that
would
be
bad
advice
right.
L
So
what
this
does
is
it
just
simplifies
the
procedure
for
these
small
level
seizures
and
forfeitures,
and
it
puts
it
all
in
one
place
where
it's
much
easier
and
it
saves
everybody
money.
It
saves
state
money,
it
saves
law
enforcement,
money
and
more
money
at
the
end
of
the
day,
goes
to
the
general
fund
than
is
currently
happening
on
these
small
level.
Seizures
and
forfeitures
follow.
B
A
B
Miss
rasmussen-
I'm
sorry.
I
thought
you
said
that
currently
in
nevada,
these
cases
go
on
a
bifurcated
track
where
there's
a
civil
and
a
criminal
proceeding,
and
that
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
turn
it
all
into
one
streamlined
criminal
proceeding,
because
currently
those
drug
dealers,
drug
traffickers,
do
not
have
the
assistance
counsel
under
gideon
vs
wayne
right.
Am
I
wrong.
L
Okay,
so
assemblywoman
krasner.
Thank
you
for
the
the
clarification
question,
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record,
so
everyone
has
counsel
if
they
can't
afford
it
in
any
criminal
case.
By
moving
the
forfeiture,
proceeding
in
low-level
forfeiture
matters
into
the
criminal
case,
it
will
guarantee
that
they
also
have
counsel
for
the
the
issue
of
whether
that
money
should
be
forfeited.
L
So
I
think
the
answer
to
your
question
is:
it
gives
people
counsel?
I
didn't
want
you
to
think
that
they
don't
have
counsel
if
they're
not
entitled
in
the
criminal
case,
because
they're
always
entitled
under
gideon
versus
wainwright
to
counsel
in
a
criminal
case
if
they
cannot
afford
it.
This
allows
them
the
additional
due
process
of
having
a
lawyer
a
litigate
with
them
that
additional
layer
or
really
element
of
criminal
case,
which
is
the
seizure
of
the
money
or
the
item
of
value
whatever
it
is.
L
It
is
in
federal
cases,
part
of
the
criminal
case
it
in
nevada.
For
some
reason,
we
have
this
kind
of
archaic
scheme
where
we
have
a
whole
separate
civil
procedure
and
most
people
aren't
able
to
afford
to
come
to
the
table.
This
allows
them
the
additional
due
process
of
having
their
lawyer
help
them
in
the
criminal
case,
with
these
low-level
seizures
and
forfeitures.
M
Mr,
mr
chairman,
it's
lima
lee
mcgrath.
May
I
just
add
that,
in
order
to
get
a
public
defender,
the
the
suspect
needs
to
be
indigent,
and-
and
there
are,
there
are
economic
caps
in
nevada
and
other
states
as
to
who
qualifies
for
a
public,
a
public
defender
and
in
this
case
that
if
the
suspect
does
qualify
because
he
is
indigent,
then
that
defender
would
be
available
to
represent
both
in
the
represent
him
in
the
criminal
as
well
as
the
the
tail.
The
forfeiture
consideration.
A
G
L
So
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record
to
assemblyman
or
liquor.
That's
a
really
good
question.
I
have
in
the
I
think,
last
sessions,
iteration
of
this
bill
addressed
all
crimes
where
we
typically
see
forfeiture
coming
into
play.
It
kept
the
current
scheme
for
the
crimes
that
allow
forfeiture
and
seizure
in
nevada.
L
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
all
for
being
here,
I'm
finding
it
very.
Some
of
my
questions
have
been
answered,
and
so
I
wanted
to
delve
into
when
it
looks
like
as
I
look
at
the
amendment.
B
So
it's
a
little
a
little
confusing
for
me,
and
I
know
these
are
not
the
amendments
that
you've
brought
forward,
but
they're
friendly
amendments
from
washington,
county
alternate
public
defender
and
then
the
washer
county
public
defender,
and
it
looks
like,
of
course
the
issue
is
the
cap
which
we
just
addressed
in
the
last
question,
the
five
thousand,
but
the
the
case
load
and
they're
on
board
with
the
intent,
but
the
case
load
and
the
majority
of
these
cases
are
under
five
thousand.
Did
I
hear
you
correctly
on
that
the
majority
as
you've
looked
into.
L
That's
correct,
assemblywoman,
hanson,
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record.
The
bulk
of
the
cases
are
less
than
five
thousand.
There
are,
you
know,
there's
a
there's
another
tier
that
are
less
than
fifteen
000,
and
then
there
are
the
real
outlier
cases,
but
those
generally
are
federal
cases
that
wouldn't
be
implicated
by
this
bill
either
way.
I
know
that
alternate
public
defender
in
washoe
county
opposes
this
bill
because
they
perceive
that
it
will
create
work
for
them.
L
I
I
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
agreed
to
the
conceptual
amendment
that
the
public
defenders
from
washoe
and
clark
county
proposed
on
the
five
thousand
dollar
cap.
Is
it
somewhat
mitigates
their
concerns
about
additional
caseload
but
at
the
same
time,
still
captures
the
bulk
of
the
people,
who
really
had
low
level
amounts
seized
from
them?
L
L
I
agreed
to
that
five
thousand
dollar
cap
because
I
thought
that
it
was
workable
for
the
public
defenders.
At
this
point,
I
think
what
they're
going
to
find
is
that
it
really
does
not
require
very
much
extra
work.
It's
an
extra
allegation
in
the
complaint.
It's
an
extra
element
that
you
resolve
in
a
plea
agreement.
Just
like
you
would
restitution,
and
then
the
judge
makes
the
decision
that
sentencing
it's
hard
for
people.
Who've
never
had
experience
with
forfeiture
and
seizure
to
understand
that
it's
not
that
complicated.
When
we're
looking
at
this,
you
know
19-page
bill.
B
So
this
is
a
very
general
statement
to
me.
It
appears
that
the
streamline
process
this
bill-
it
makes
sense,
but
the
arguments
lie
in
the
parsing
of
the
funds,
because
it's
going
to
be
shifting
some
of
the
funding
around
so
we
get
around
the
funding
situation
seems
like.
We've
got
a
system
that
we
possibly
all
agree
with.
It's
just
getting
into
the
money
issues
which
always
tend
to
sometimes
throw
legislation
off
off
the
rails.
A
little
bit.
Would
that
be
a
correct
assumption.
L
Assemblywoman
hanson
lisa
rasmussen
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I
don't
think
that
it
will
have
any
appreciable
impact
on
funding
in
terms
of
expense
for
the
public
defender's
office.
I
they're.
Certainly
you
know,
welcome
to
submit
what
they
believe
is
the
fiscal
impact
to
the
committee
last
year
or
last
session
with
the
similar
bill
that
was
much
broader.
L
Las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
submitted
a
fiscal
note
because
they
thought
it
was
going
to
require
extra
work
for
them.
This
bill
actually
takes
work
off
their
shoulders
and
decreases
their
expense
expenses
and
increases
the
amount
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
goes
to
the
general
fund
and
the
schools.
B
F
F
F
It's
monday
anyways,
mr
mcgrath.
I
think
you
said
it
in
your
presentation
and
I
may
not
have
I
wrote
it
down
or
caught
it
quick
enough.
What
other
states
have
gone
to
this
process
of
criminal
usage
or
criminal
actions
in
their
forfeitures.
M
Chairman
yeager
assemblyman
o'neill,
besides
the
federal
government
that
that
uses
criminal
forfeiture
is
one
of
the
ways
in
which
it
takes
title
to
property.
Three
other
states
have
adopted
this
process:
new
mexico
in
2015
nebraska
in
2006,
16
and
then
north
carolina
long
has
had
it
when
north
carolina
never
had
civil
forfeiture
on
issues
of
drug
of
drugs,
and
so
when
it
adopted
its
forfeiture
process
in
the
1990s
north
carolina
went
right
to
criminal
forfeiture
and
and
did
not
codify
the
civil
process.
F
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you,
miss
rasmussen,
if
I
may
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
rashford.
It's
easy
to
quantify
the
value
of
currency.
Five
thousand
dollars
is
five
thousand
dollars.
It
adds
up
how
about
if
the
individual
has
three
thousand
dollars
and
is
driving
a
rank
or
twenty
o
five,
something
or
other
with
ten
thousand
miles
on
it,
that
probably
can
be
sold
for
three
four
thousand
dollars
on
the
used
card
market.
F
So
do
you
combine
those
two
now
you're
in
excess
of
five
thousand,
and
it
removes
it
or
is
it
we're
just
talking
cash?
That's
what
I'm
confused
about,
because
that's
what
everybody
keep
talking
about
the
cash
but
there's
other
things:
the
value
of
the
firearms,
maybe
value
of
the
property,
the
real
property.
L
If
the
prosecutors,
the
state,
believe
that
the
collective
value
is
exceeds
5000,
which
would
be
the
intent
of
this
bill
as
amended,
then
they
would
have
the
option
to
not
bring
the
additional
allegation
in
their
criminal
complaint
or
their
criminal
indictment
and
to
say
to
metro,
the
seizing
agency
or
henderson
the
seizing
agency
or
washoe
the
seizing
agency
you're
going
to
have
to
file
this
as
a
civil
complaint
if
they
believe,
and
so
I
I
believe
that
they
would
probably
look
at
kelly
blue
book
value
on
determining
value
of
a
car
and
do
what
most
of
us
would
do.
L
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
another
question
so
miss
rasmus
and
mr
mcgrath.
Thank
you
for
presenting
the
bill.
I'd
ask
you
to
just
sit
tight
for
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you
for
any
concluding
remarks.
At
this
time.
I
will
open
up
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
425.
A
A
K
K
N
N
Forfeiture
was
originally
presented
as
a
way
to
large-scale
criminal
enterprises
by
diverting
their
resources,
but
today,
aided
by
deeply
flawed
federal
and
state
laws.
Many
police
departments
use
forfeiture
to
benefit
their
bottom
lines,
making
seizures
motivated
by
profit
rather
than
crime.
Fighting
for
people
whose
property
has
been
seized
through
civil
asset
forfeiture
legal
legal
legally
regaining
that
property
is
notoriously
difficult
and
expensive,
with
costs
often
exceeding
the
value
of
the
property,
with
the
total
value
of
the
property
seized
each
year.
N
Increasing
americans
from
across
the
nation
agree
that
civil
forfeiture
systems
undermines
property
rights
and
is
a
fundamentally
unjailed.
Working-Class
americans
are
disproportionately
harmed
by
this
system,
as
none
other
than
justice.
Claire
thomas
recognized
when
he
said
forfeiture,
operates
frequently
target
the
poor
and
other
groups
least
able
to
defend
their
interests
previously.
Justice
thomas
said
these
same
groups
are
often
the
most
burdened
by
forfeiture.
N
The
need
for
forfeiture
reform
is
recognized
across
the
political
and
ideological
spectrum
and
throughout
the
nation.
Both
the
national
republican
and
democratic
party
platforms
of
2016
called
for
civil
forfeiture
reform,
and
recent
polls
show
that
84
of
voters
oppose
this
practice.
This
bill
is
one
step
in
that
direction.
It
is
very
targeted
and
form
that
will
help
to
ensure
that
innocent
people
are
not
caught
in
the
forfeiture
process.
By
moving
the
to
criminal
forfeiture,
we
can
streamline
this
process
and
add
much
needed
clarity.
N
K
N
As
a
society,
we
are
coming
to
realize
the
negative
effect
that
fees
can
have
on
poor
people
in
the
criminal
justice
system
in
context
from
traffic
tickets
to
inmate
wage
deductions.
The
legislature
is
finally
starting
to
address
the
ways
that
mass
incarceration
and
predatory
fees
drive,
poverty
and
poverty
drives.
Mass
incarceration
and
predatory
fees
forfeiture
is
another
example
of
this
dynamic.
N
Any
amount
of
money
is
a
large
amount
for
people
in
poverty
and
cars
are
vital
for
people
who
need
to
get
to
work.
A
deprivation
of
property
here
is
a
serious
thing
and
we
need
to
make
sure
we
provide
counsel,
so
it
only
happens
when
warranted
ab425
is
a
good
first
step
in
that
direction,
and
so
nacj
supports
it.
Thank
you.
K
H
My
name
is
david
figler,
first
name
spell
d-a-y-v-I-d
last
name
f-I-g-l-e-r
good
morning
committee
members
and
chair
yeager,
I'm
testifying
today
in
support
of
ab425,
I'm
a
private
practitioner.
I
was
previously
a
public
defender
and
I
was
also
a
contract
attorney.
I
also
serve
currently
on
the
pro
bono
advisory
council
for
legal
aid
of
some
legal
aid
center
in
southern
nevada.
H
This
is
a
good
measure.
It
is
a
modest
measure.
Actually
it
is
a
with
all
the
exceptions
and
the
caps
that
are
on
there.
It
is
very
focused,
but
ultimately
it
serves
the
purpose
of
more
access
to
justice,
which
I
know
that
every
member
of
this
committee
is
interested
in
and
certainly
through.
My
various
roles
is
something
that
I
am
very
interested
in.
Having
done
both
civil
forfeitures
and
criminal
matters
involving
the
same
case,
I
can
testify
that,
while
the
civil
forfeiture
provisions
are
not
difficult
to
learn,
they
are
arduous.
H
In
my
capacity
as
a
private
attorney,
it
is
additional
fees
that
I
am
required
because
of
the
nature
of
the
arduous
work,
to
pass
on
to
my
clients
that
if
it
was
part
of
the
criminal
proceedings
in
these
limited
cases,
that
would
be
a
savings
to
them
and,
as
a
result,
would
increase
their
access
to
justice
as
well,
so
both
for
indigen
and
for
private
individuals.
It
is
a
good
bill
and
for
the
overall
purpose
of
streamlining
has
been
testified
to.
H
I
think
that
the
provisions
provide
for
a
very
easy
way
for
criminal
practitioners
to
be
able
to
acclimate
to
be
able
to
do
this.
I
think
it'll
be
a
little
hard
in
the
beginning,
just
because
it's
something
new,
but
I
trust
that
my
colleagues
in
the
criminal
bar
will
be
able
to
acclimate
to
this
much
faster
than
if
they
were
required
to
or
even
take
on
the
arduous
civil
process.
So
I
support
this
bill
today.
Thank
you.
A
K
H
H
Miss
rasmussen
is
right
that
most
civil
attorneys
will
not
take
on
a
case
to
get
one
to
two
thousand
dollars
back
and
it's
not
even
worth
the
person's
time
if
an
attorney
is
going
to
charge
350
to
400
an
hour
to
work
on
that
case.
H
So
this
is
going
to
provide
some
equity
in
the
civil
asset
forfeiture
with
the
limitations
that
the
crimes
be
limited
to
crimes
where
people
are
actually
profiting
off
of
selling
drugs.
Transporting
drugs,
possession
with
intent
to
sell
and
keeping
the
cap
at
the
5
000
will
assure
that
a
public
defender
is
not
appointed
to
a
case
where
a
person
has
a
lot
of
resources.
If
somebody's
driving
a
maserati
and
dealing
drugs,
they
shouldn't
have
the
public
defender's
office
regardless.
H
So
this
will
let
people
not
be
bullied
in
a
civil
process
and
for
the
opposition
that
may
testify,
as
they
did
last
session,
that
the
civil
proceedings
are
easy.
They
are
not
and
nobody
would
go
into
a
civil
case
without
counsel.
If
you
did,
the
civil
lawyers
on
this
committee
know
that
that
process
is
arduous
and
hard,
so
we're
looking
forward
to
civil
forfeiture
being
reformed
this
session
and
very
thankful
that
we
can
support
it.
This
session
with
the
amendment.
Thank
you.
K
E
Good
morning,
terry
jager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
First,
I
want
to
clarify
for
assemblywoman
hanson
that
my
office
does
not
join
in
the
letter
proposed
by
the
alternate
public
defender's
office.
We
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
We
support
the
legislation
to
streamline
and
reform
our
forfeiture
laws.
We
really
appreciate
ms
rasmussen's
dedication
to
these
efforts
to
reform
our
process.
E
We
appreciate
the
protections
that
are
included
in
this
bill.
I
would
just
note
that
it's
extremely
difficult
for
our
clients
to
navigate
when
they're
going
through
the
civil
process
on
their
own.
It's
arduous,
it's
frustrating,
especially
for
those
who
had
just
withdrawn
money
in
order
to
be
able
to
pay
for
rent
or
who
had
just
received
a
settlement.
E
A
A
I
think
three
individuals
in
opposition
with
us
on
the
zoom,
who
I
believe
are
representatives
from
the
district
attorneys
association,
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
and
perhaps
the
city
of
henderson,
I'm
not
quite
sure,
but
I
see
mr
jones
has
unmuted.
So
mr
jones
will
let
you
lead
off
the
opposition
testimony
on
zoom
and
if
you
want
to,
let
us
know
who
might
be
joining
you
after
you're
done
we'd
appreciate
it
welcome
and
please
go
ahead.
O
O
I
want
to
start
off
by
saying
that,
in
order
for
an
officer
to
seize
assets
in
the
first
place,
the
officer
must
be
able
to
articulate
a
nexus
between
a
felony
and
the
assets
being
seized
by
the
law
enforcement
officer
and
that's
required
by
statute
nrs,
179.1164
and
nevada
case
law.
So
there
are
two
elements
that
must
be
met
in
any
forfeiture
case.
The
first
is
a
felony
and
the
second
element
is
a
nexus
between
that
felony
and
the
assets
that
were
seized.
O
Mr
pirro
spoke
of
some
issues
along
the
I-80
corridor
and
those
issues
were
brought
to
the
forefront
of
the
2015
legislature
and
that's
what
led
to
the
changes
that
took
place
in
2015
and
law
enforcement
were
active
participants
in
those
changes
and
ultimately
supported
them,
and
I
briefly
want
to
address
the
notion
that
we
have
been
unwilling
to
work
with
ms
rasmussen
on
this
issue.
The
first
time
law
enforcement
heard
from
ms
rasmussen
with
respect
to
ab425
was
last
thursday
when
she
sent
us
an
email
asking.
O
If
there
was
anything
to
do
anything,
we
could
do
on
this
bill.
Personally,
I
have
not
heard
from
miss
rasmussen
during
the
interim
regarding
this
issue,
but
I
do
want
to
say
that
the
current
system,
the
one
that
we
put
in
place
after
the
2015,
does
take
into
account
the
due
process.
It
requires
that
the
civil
forfeiture
lawsuit
be
stayed
while
any
criminal
case
is
pending.
O
So
the
civil
case,
which
must
be
filed
within
120
days
of
the
seizure,
will
be
stayed
pending
the
outcome
of
the
criminal
case.
I
want
to
make
that
clear.
So
if
the
defendant's
criminal
case
is
denied
or
dismissed,
the
sea's
property
is
returned
if
a
criminal
conviction
is
secured
either
through
a
plea
or
through
a
trial.
The
defendant
still
has
a
right
to
challenge
the
forfeiture
during
the
civil
forfeiture
process.
O
We
should
remember
that
the
purpose
of
forfeiture
law
is
that
crime
should
not
pay
seizure
and
forfeiture
allow
a
law
enforcement
entity
to
make
sure
the
crime
does
not
pay.
But
the
notion
that
crime
doesn't
pay
leads
us
to
the
first
issue
with
this
bill,
because
crime
can
pay
under
provisions
in
ap
425,
for
example,
crime
can
pay
in
increments
of
200
or
less
ab425
prohibits
law
enforcement
from
seizing
any
amounts
under
200,
no
matter
the
nexus
between
the
funds
and
criminality,
and
because
this
prohibition
is
tied
to
the
criminal
case.
O
I
don't
believe
I,
as
a
prosecutor
would
be
able
to
ask
a
defendant
to
forfeit
illegal
gains
as
part
of
the
criminal
case,
and
yes,
metro
does
have
a
policy
that
they
will
not
proceed
with
forfeiture
if
they're
in
a
small
amount.
But
that
does
not
prohibit
me
as
the
prosecutor
from
having
the
defendant
forfeit
illegal
gains
as
part
of
the
criminal
case,
so
section
10
of
ab-425
would
allow
crime
to
pay
section.
25,
which
pays
arrears
to
a
victim
of
some
of
these
gains
to
the
victim
or
liens
would
allow
crime
to
potentially
pay.
O
O
Further
there's
no
ability
with
an
innocent
holder
as
heirs
are
defined
in
this.
For
us
to
say,
hey
these
gains
were
made
illegally,
so
potentially
crime
pays
for
heirs
under
ab425.
O
O
Ab-425
would
not
change
the
forfeiture
process
for
these
defendants,
but
if
you
are
charged
with
a
narcotics
related
offense,
the
new
statutory
scheme
would
apply
this.
The
different
rules
for
seizures
and
forfeitures,
depending
on
whether
whether
the
incident
is
narcotics
related
or
the
underlying
crime
would
create
significant
confusion
and
duplications
of
efforts.
O
Further,
we
fear
it
will
slow
down
or
negatively
affect
the
criminal
prosecution.
If
the
goal
is
to
get
defendants,
public
counsel
for
civil
forfeiture
matters,
then
the
bill
could
be
narrowly
a
tailored
to
address
address
that
issue.
We
should
not
rewrite
our
entire
process
to
tackle
one
issue
with
that.
Mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
your
time
and
with
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
pass
the
baton
to
mr
christian,
with
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
P
Yes
good
good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
matthew
christian
with
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
Oh
sorry,.
P
Had
a
little
technical
difficulty
there
again,
this
is
matthew
christian
good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
matthew
christian,
I'm
assistant
general
counsel,
at
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
That's
m-a-t-t-h-e-w.
P
The
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
processes
hundreds
of
forfeiture
cases
every
year.
The
process
works
very
well
as
it
is
it's
already
a
very
streamlined
process,
and,
despite
some
of
the
testimony
that
the
members
of
the
committee
have
heard
today,
it
really
isn't
complex.
P
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
there
has
been
no
testimony
today
with
regard
to
a
single
person,
especially
since
the
changes
were
made
in
2015
of
a
of
any
person
who
has
had
property
wrongfully
forfeited
from
them,
or
really
any
person
who
has
not
had
the
opportunity
to
make
an
appearance
and
seek
their
property
back,
not
one
single
example
and
again,
especially
since
the
2015
changes.
P
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
process
that
exists
today
is
really
well
understood,
because
I
really
do
think
there's
some
misperceptions
about
it.
There
are
already
so
many
due
process
protections
built
into
the
law
that
this
bill
doesn't
really
add
any
further
protections.
With
regard
to
most
of
these
issues,
mr
jones
already
mentioned
that
there
must
be
a
nexus
before
a
seizure
can
occur.
That
is
absolutely
true.
P
Also
under
existing
law
again-
mr
jones
already
mentioned
this,
but
under
existing
law.
If
there
is
a
parallel
criminal
case,
that's
proceeding.
The
civil
case
cannot
proceed.
It
must
be
stayed
so.
The
law
already
favors
a
streamline
process
whereby,
most
of
the
time,
the
issue
is
resolved
within
the
confines
of
the
criminal
case,
so,
for
instance,
under
existing
law.
P
Existing
law
already
requires
that
the
property
beat
immediately
returned
the
only
time
that
it
gets
more
complicated
than
that.
Well,
let
me
back
up
also
within
the
confines
of
the
criminal
procedure.
There's
also
the
opportunity
for
the
parties
to
settle
the
case
right,
so
there's
guilty
plea
agreements.
P
In
a
vast
majority
of
these
cases,
the
issue
of
the
forfeiture
is
resolved
within
the
confines
of
a
guilty
plea
agreement.
So
what
that
means
is
that
the
process
is
already
handled
the
vast
majority
of
the
time
through
the
criminal
procedure,
and
what
that
means
also
is
that
the
person
already
has
a
lawyer.
The
person
is
represented
in
that
process
now
under
existing
law.
P
So
what
will
happen
in
that
case
is
that
when,
once
the
criminal
case
is
resolved,
then
the
civil
portion
of
the
procedure
will
then
begin
at
that
point.
Now.
How
does
that
procedure?
Work?
You've
heard
some
representations
that
the
person
is
quote
required
to
hire
a
lawyer.
That's
not
true,
no
lawyer
is
required.
We
have
plenty
of
cases
where
the
civil
case
is
is
proceeding,
but
the
subject
contacts
us
the
subject
can
make
an
appearance
in
the
case,
if
necessary.
P
But
even
before
that
happens,
we
invite
the
subject
to
provide
any
sort
of
evidence
that
they
might
have
and
if
they
do
have
evidence
that
the
property
is
birthday,
money
or
money
earned
at
a
job
or
money
received
from
some
legitimate
source.
Then
the
money
is
returned,
because
we
cannot
proceed
with
a
forfeiture
case
unless
we
can
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
that
property
is
the
proceeds
of
a
felony
crime
or
the
instrumentality
of
a
felony
crime.
The
burden
is
already
on
law
enforcement
to
prove
those
things.
P
The
problems
with
this
bill
are
that
it
makes
it
very
complicated
to
have
two
different
procedures
in
place.
Ms
rasmus
museum
mentioned
earlier
that
she
had
worked
with
me
in
the
past.
That
is
true
that,
two
years
ago
we
did
work
together.
The
impasse
becomes,
though,
that
if
there's
going
to
be
there's
two
different
procedures,
it's
very
complicated
and
it's
unnecessarily
burdensome-
to
have
two
different
systems
in
place
for
the
same
for
the
same
concept,
the
same
forfeiture.
P
So
that's
where
the
impasse
has
always
been,
and
this
bill
doesn't
alleviate
any
of
that
it
would.
We
would
have
one
whole
different
procedure
that
would
be
used,
for,
I
guess,
low-level
small
narcotics
cases,
but
then
a
different
procedure
for
everything
else,
so
that
that's
complicated
and
it's
just
not
necessary,
because
the
system
that
is
in
place
right
now
already
forwards.
So
many
protections
to
the
subjects.
P
I
wanted
to
mention
one
more
thing
to
make
sure
that
it's
very
clear
to
the
extent
that
this
bill
would
prevent
a
forfeiture
for
proceeding
unless
there's
a
criminal
case.
It's
it's
important
for
everyone
to
know
that
sometimes
there
just
won't
be
a
criminal
case.
There
are
circumstances
when
property
is
seized.
There's
probable
cause
to
believe
that
it's
the
proceeds
of
a
felony
narcotics
crime,
but
the
the
person
isn't
here
in
nevada
or
there
there
is
an
unknown
person
involved,
so
there
just
won't
be
an
arrest
and
there
won't
be
any
criminal
proceeding.
P
There
was
a
question
about
the
federal
procedure.
It's
true
that
in
federal
court
the
prosecutors
can
add
a
cause
of
action
into
the
criminal
case
complaint.
But
what
the
members
of
the
committee
did
not
hear
is
that
the
federal
authorities
also
have
a
an
extra
procedure
that
they
can
choose
from,
which
is
an
administrative
procedure.
P
They
can
proceed
administratively,
which
is
much
like
the
civil
process
that
we
have
here,
so
they
have
that
at
their
disposal
as
well.
The
rental
car
example.
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
very
clear
that
the
current
existing
law
already
provides
for
the
innocent
owner
defense,
that's
already
in
the
statute.
So
if
we
seize
property
and
it's
easily
established
that
it's
not
the
subject
of
the
criminal
proceeding
who
owns
that
property,
then
that
person
is
innocent
and
that
property
must
already
be
returned.
P
P
If
the
value
of
that
automobile
far
exceeds
the
value
of
the
the
crime
per
se,
or
you
know
the
the
level
of
the
crime,
then
it
would
already
be
an
unconstitutional
violation
to
proceed
with
the
forfeiture,
so
those
protections
are
already
exist.
So,
just
to
conclude,
you
know
we
concur
with
mr
jones.
This
bill
makes
things
much
more
complicated
and
unnecessarily
so,
there's
already
plenty
of
due
process
protections
in
place,
and
with
that
said,
if
any
members
of
the
committee
have
any
questions,
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
answer
them.
A
D
Good
morning,
committee
members
nancy
savage
assistant
city
attorney
for
the
city
of
henderson.
I
just
have
a
few
things
to
add.
I
agree
with
both
mr
jones
and
mr
christmas
comments.
I
think
that
the
statutes
in
place
already
provide
for
the
protections
that
are
being
asserted
to
as
having
been
added
at
this
point,
it
what's
being
suggested,
isn't
going
to
expedite
the
cases,
because
the
cases
are
all
going
to
end
up
being
resolved
at
the
end
of
the
fed
at
the
end
of
the
criminal
case.
D
Typically,
we
don't
move
beyond
the
criminal
case
once
there's
a
conviction
to
into
the
civil
process.
I
think
in
some
of
the
larger
cases.
Perhaps
that
happens,
but
it's
something
we
don't
see
very
often,
this
bill
proposed
to
aim
at
the
smaller
drug
related
cases,
and
it's
been
said
that
really,
these
aren't
the
big
cases
that
involve
drug
trafficking
organizations.
D
D
The
reason
for
that
is
that
lost
that
clark
county
has
been
become
a
hub
for
the
mexican
drug
trafficking
organizations
through
which
drugs
are
transported
from
the
border
states
like
california
and
arizona
on
throughout
the
country.
At
this
hub,
the
vast
majority
of
drugs
being
sold
are
through
those
trafficking
organizations.
D
D
A
D
D
It
sounds
to
me
like
the
concern.
The
major
concern.
That's
brought
this
bill
before
you
is
that
these
small
players
get
public
defenders
they,
but
the
public
defenders
are
not
able
to
represent
them
in
the
civil
forfeiture
actions.
I
think
you
could
do
a
targeted
amendment
that
would
allow
that
to
occur
most
of
what
this
bill
is
targeting
is
already
in
statute,
and
the
protections
are
already
there.
D
I
know
that
we've
had
some
questions
about
the
innocent
owner
provisions
in
in
practice,
if
there's,
obviously
a
an
innocent
owner
car
rental
company
car
leasing
company
those
those
people
don't
have
to
go
all
the
way
through
the
forfeiture
process.
Those
are
taken
care
of
up
front.
If
there's
proof
of
ownership,
those
those
vehicles
or
property
are,
are
returned
right
at
the
start.
D
So
so
that
isn't
something
that
people
are
being
drugged
along
in,
for
the
reasons
that
that
already
been
stated,
we
oppose
the
bill.
We
think
that
the
protections
are
there
and
that
it's
important
to
be
able
to
cut
off
the
profits
from
the
drug
trafficking.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
savage.
Thank
you
for
your
testimony
obviously
gave
all
of
you
a
bit
more
time,
but
that's
also
a
reflection
that
I
don't
think
we
have
too
many
folks
on
the
phone
in
opposition,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
gave
equal
time
to
support
an
opposition.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
they
probably
are
for
mr
christian,
if
you
have
this
information
in
front
of
you
and
the
first
question
I
had
was
just
in
your
experience,
litigating
these
matters
in
civil
court
and
obviously
you're
just
one
agency.
A
P
Good
morning
again,
mr
chair,
this
is
matthew
christian
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
There's
really
very
few
cases
that
make
it
that
far
along
that
there
is
active
litigation
in
the
civil
case
for
those
that
are
actively
litigated
in
the
civil
case.
A
A
Q
P
Sorry,
thank
you
again
for
the
question,
mr
chair.
Not
very
often
not
very
often
at
all,
it's
not
required
to
have
a
lawyer,
because
we
know
we
can't
proceed
with
a
forfeiture.
If
we
can't
prove
it's
our
burden
to
prove
that
the
money
is
proceeds
or
an
ins
or
the
car
is
an
instrumentality,
that's
our
burden.
So
if
someone
present
presents
us
with
evidence
to
the
contrary,
then
it
would
be
wrong
to
proceed
with
a
forfeiture,
knowing
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
prove
it
up.
A
If
you
know,
I
have
a
vague
recollection
that
between
the
last
legislative
session
and
this
legislative
session,
there
was
some
kind
of
ninth
circuit
court
opinion
relating
to
forfeiture
in
nevada,
where
I
I
believe
it
could
be
mistaken,
but
I
think
the
ninth
circuit
had
ordered
forfeited
property
or
money
to
be
returned
to
somebody,
and
so
I
just
wondered
if
you
knew
what
that
was
about,
if
you
had
any
familiar
familiarity
with
it
and
if
you
are
able
to
just
shed
light
on
what
the
what
the
court
opinions
concern
was
with
the
process
as
it
existed
at
that
time,.
P
Matthew
christian
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
I'm
not
familiar
with
a
ninth
circuit
opinion
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
but
two
years
ago
the
big
talk
was
about
a
united
states
supreme
court
decision
that
came
from
indiana.
P
There
was
a
there
was
a
lot
of
talk
about
that
here
in
nevada
two
years
ago,
but
what
was
lost
on
most
everybody,
including
the
las
vegas
review
journal,
was
that
we
already
had
a
nevada
supreme
court.
That
told
us
that
we
needed
to
consider
the
eighth
amendment
and
whether
they're,
whether
it
would
constitute
an
excessive
fine.
P
A
A
You
so
in
the
interest
of
time
committee,
I
think
we
ought
to
move
on
to
some
additional
testimony,
but
I
I
would
encourage
folks
if
you
have
additional
questions
for
those
are
who
are
in
opposition.
We
can
get
you
contact
information,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
adequate
time
to
finish
this
bill
and
get
through
the
next
one
as
well.
A
I
don't
see
any
any
activity
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
for
opposition
testimony?
I
believe
we
have
maybe
two
to
three
folks
here,
who'd
like
to
give
opposition
testimony.
K
K
H
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
vice
chairwin
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
corey
sulforino,
it's
c-o-r-e-y
s
is
in
sam.
O-L
f
is
in
frank
e-r-I-n-o
and
I
represent
the
washoe
county
sheriff's
office.
We
are
opposed
to
I'm
sorry
ab425
in
its
current
form
and
disagree
with
the
bill.
Presenter's
interpretation
of
how
federal
partnerships
could
be
affected
in
sections
34
and
35
of
this
bill.
We
have
worked
with
ms
rasmussen,
specifically
in
the
79th
and
80th
regular
sessions
and
were
unable
to
collectively
find
common
ground.
H
We
were
not
contacted
regarding
legislation
presented
in
this
81st
session.
Our
partnerships
with
haida
the
high
intensity
drug
trafficking
area
continually
worked
to
remove
dangerous
contraband
from
hitting
the
streets
that
infiltrate
the
health
and
safety
of
our
nevada
citizens.
This
task
force
not
only
seizes
contraband
from
deadly
fentanyl,
methamphetamine,
mdma
cocaine
and
black
market
marijuana,
but
disrupts
drug
trafficking
organizations
and
other
parties
that
finance
everything
from
human
trafficking
to
domestic
and
international
terrorism.
H
Our
task
force
does
not
seize
vehicles,
property
or
equipment.
That
does
not
have
a
criminal
nexus
for
those
cases
that
do
not
have
the
evidence
to
support
a
criminal
nexus.
The
stop
is
documented
in
the
form
of
an
incident
report.
The
money
is
not
seized
and
the
subject
is
released
with
no
more
than
investigatory
detention.
H
Well,
we
appreciate
some
of
the
provisions
mentioned
in
this
bill.
We
still
remain
concerned
with
the
ability
to
collaborate
with
our
federal
state
and
local
law
enforcement
partners.
We
echo
the
comments
of
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
bill
this
morning
and
hope
we
can
work
towards
a
successful
resolution
but,
as
currently
presented,
are
adamantly
opposed
to
ab425,
chairman
yeager
and
committee
members.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
in
this
matter.
A
K
H
A
K
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
before
I
hand
it
over
to
our
presenters
to
make
including
remarks.
I
just
just
want
to
note
for
the
record
that
you
know
the
bdr
request
for
this
bill
was
made
on
october,
8th
of
2020,
and
then
the
language
was
introduced
on
march
26
of
2021,
so
I
don't
believe
it
should
have
caught
anyone
by
surprise
that
we
would
again
be
considering
this
piece
of
legislation,
particularly
considering.
A
A
L
L
The
intent
of
adding
these
lower
level
cases
to
the
criminal
case
is
to
make
it
easier
not
to
be
sending
public
defenders
over
to
litigate
a
civil
case,
as
was
suggested
by
miss
savage
who
I
have
worked
with
in
the
past,
because
the
public
defenders
don't
want
to
be
training
to
litigate
civil
cases.
Putting
this
in
the
criminal
case
makes
it
easier,
and,
as
mr
christian
noted,
many
of
the
cases
are
resolved
by
way
of
plea
and
there's
really
nothing
left
to
do
in
the
civil
case.
L
So
we
may
as
well
resolve
it
in
the
criminal
case
as
a
criminal
defense
lawyer,
I
wouldn't
get
up
and
walk
out
of
a
sentencing
hearing
when
it
came
to
the
restitution
component
of
that
sentencing,
any
more
than
I
would
say
to
the
want
to
say
to
the
client.
I'm
sorry
you're
on
your
own
for
the
forfeiture.
L
It's
all
an
element
of
the
crime,
it's
all
being
brought
because
there's
a
crime
alleged.
So
nobody
here
disputes
that
crime
shouldn't
pay.
Nobody
disputes
that
that
assets
or
cash
shouldn't
be
forfeited
if
they
have
a
nexus
to
the
crime.
None
of
that
has
changed.
This
is
a
very
narrow,
targeted,
limited
approach
at
reform
so
that
we
can
start
having
people
who
are
the
most
vulnerable
at
least
have
the
representation
of
council
to
litigate
this
additional
single
element,
most
of
and
most
of
the
time,
it's
resolved
by
a
plea
agreement.
L
M
Mr
chairman,
thank
thank
you,
and
I
thank.
I
join
with
mr
rasmus
in
thanking
the
committee
for
its
consideration
of
what
is
a
rather
simple
process
today,
nevada
engages
in
a
process
of
civil
forfeiture.
That
makes
more
sense
if
it
were
not
a
landlocked
state
and
was
engaged
in
admiralty
law.
M
This
is
the
current
process
is
a
an
ill
illogic,
illogical
one
tying
it
all
together
in
a
simple,
streamlined
manner,
as
new
mexico
has
has
makes
lots
of
lots
of
sense,
and
our
research
shows
that
there's
not
been
a
an
increase
in
crime
or
in
drug
abuse
in
in
new
mexico
since
2015,
when
it
ended
its
process
of
civil
forfeiture
and
replaced
it
with
criminal
forfeiture.
M
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
one
clarify
one
issue
that,
as
it
relates
to
the
federal
government,
mr
rasmussen,
the
other
advocates,
and
I
are
not
creating
any
incremental
protection
for
drug
mules
or
those
members
of
international
cartels
and,
in
fact,
on
page
15,
at
line
11
there's
a
clear
exception.
M
That
this
bill
does
not
change
nevada's
use
of
joint
task
forces
with
the
dea
and
the
u.s
department
of
of
justice.
We've
made
that
explicitly
explicitly
clear.
The
intent
here
is
to
look
at
the
economic
impact
of
small
seizures
and
how
irrational
it
is
to
hire
an
attorney,
and
so
the
reality
is
is
that
the
current
civil
process
produce
many
produces
many
defaults
and
therefore
people
do
not
engage
in
civil
litigation
because
they're,
rational
and
even
if
they
were
completely
innocent.
M
It
is
irrational
to
hire
an
attorney
to
attempt
to
get
back
the
median
seizure
in
nevada,
which
is
nine
hundred
and
eight
eight
dollars.
Mr
chairman,
I
urge
the
committee
to
recognize
that
this
is
a
small
change
to
to
protect
people
who
have
had
small
amounts
of
cash
seized
from
them.
M
I'm
happy,
as
always,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
members
questions
in
the
in
the
future,
and
I
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
considering
this
important
bill.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Mr
mcgrath,
miss
rasmussen
appreciate
you
being
here
this
morning,
committee
members.
I
would
encourage
you
if
you
have
additional
questions
to
follow
up
with
our
presenters
or
with
our
opposition
folks,
whoever
might
be
best
to
answer
your
questions
and
so
we'll
leave
it
at
that
and
again,
thank
you
for
being
here
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
your
monday
and
a
great
rest
of
the
week.
A
And
at
this
time
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
425
and
give
me
just
a
second
here
committee.
I
do
see
that
we
now
have
assemblywoman
kasama
with
us.
So,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
please
mark
assemblywoman
kasama
present
assemblywoman,
we
hope
your
presentation
of
your
bill
went
well
over
in
the
senate
and
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
the
second
bill
listed
on
the
agenda.
But
the
third
one
we're
going
to
hear
this
morning.
A
Before
I
turn
the
presentation
over
committee
members,
you
should
have
received
an
email,
I
believe
from
assemblyman
o'neill
and
it
is
also
on
nellis,
and
that
is
a
conceptual
amendment
to
assembly
bill
414
that
I
think,
will
be
discussed
this
morning.
So
welcome
assemblyman
o'neal
to
the
virtual
presentation
table,
and
I
believe
you
have
a
couple
of
experts
with
you.
So
we'll
give
you
all
a
chance
to
make
your
presentation,
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
Please
proceed.
F
F
F
F
I
would
like
to
introduce
mike
pavilakis
of
council
with
allison
mckenzie
law,
firm,
carson
city,
who
will
discuss
section
one
and
richard
staub
of
richard
savin
associates
law
in
carson
city,
who
will
discuss
section
two
chair.
With
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
have
them
fully
present
the
bill,
including
the
proposed
conceptual
amendments
dealing
with
section
two.
Then
we
could
go
to
questions.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neil.
That
would
be
fine.
Welcome
to
the
committee,
gentlemen,
I'm
not
sure
who
would
like
to
go.
First,
maybe
we'll
see
who
can
begin.
Let's.
G
G
The
need
for
this
amendment
came
to
my
attention.
Last
year,
I've
been
in
private
practice
for
over
40
years
in
carson
city,
I
met
with
a
young
family
last
summer,
whose
father
had
passed
away.
He
was
75,
he
was
a
widower,
the
family,
one
of
the
family
members
in
fact
works
in
the
in
the
legislature.
G
He
was
a
son,
his
sister,
and
he
came
in
their
father
passed
away
and
at
the
time
of
his
death,
he
owned
a
house
in
carson
city
and
he
had
a
bank
account
that
had
sufficient
funds
to
pay
for
his
final
final
funeral
expenses,
and
so
they
were
concerned
about
what
do
we
do
now
that
dad's
passed
away
well
when
they
came
in?
G
G
So
when
the
and
yeah,
I
think
you
have
this
language
of
the
statute
right
there,
it
says
a
conveyance
of
real
property
by
deed
which
becomes
effective
upon
the
death
of
the
grantor.
Pursuant
to
this
uniform
act
and
that's
where
the
period
was
so,
I
saw
that
I
was
very
pleased
to
see
that
dad
had
the
wherewithal
to
have
done
that
on
his
own
prior
to
his
death
and
also
what
dad
had
done
was
he
had
created
a
joint
tenancy
in
the
bank
account.
G
G
They
paid
20
for
the
death
certificate,
and
I
said
just
take
that
to
the
bank
and
the
bank
will
that
death
certificate
will
have
the
effect
of
removing
dad's
name
from
the
bank
account
the
bank
will
account
will
become
yours
and
with
regard
to
the
real
property,
what
the
statute
provides
is
that
on
the
death
of
the
grantor,
then
there
is
recorded
a
death
of
grantor
affidavit
which
either
or
both
of
the
children
could
sign
recorded
with
the
county
recorder.
G
Of
course,
the
county
recorder
requires
the
filing
the
declaration
of
value
form
to
indicate
who
is
going
to
be
responsible
for
the
payment
of
real
property
taxes
and
to
reflect
what
kind
of
a
d
this
is,
what
kind
of
a
property
is
being
transferred.
G
G
They
signed
the
document.
They
gave
me
the
84
that
we
needed
to
prepare
and
record
the
document,
and
when
we
presented
the
document
for
recording
to
the
county
recorder,
we
were
told
sorry
the
exemption
that
you
have
for
the
under
subsection
10
only
applies
in
our
opinion
to
the
dad
having
filed
his
need
upon
death,
and
it
does
not
apply
to
the
death
of
grantor
affidavit
and,
I
said
well,
the
conveyance
doesn't
take
effect
until
dad
dies.
G
We
provide
proof
of
dad's
death
and
during
the
lifetime
of
dad
or
any
other
grantor,
this
deed
upon
death
was
entirely
revocable,
so
there
was
no
conveyance
until
the
recording
of
the
deed
upon
death.
The
recorder
said:
sorry,
that's
our
interpretation.
I
called
the
district
attorney.
The
district
attorney
said
gosh.
What
you're
saying
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
Let
me
talk
with
my
client
attorney
talked
with
his
district
attorney,
talked
with
the
county
recorder
and
and
came
back
to
me
and
said.
G
Well,
I
have
to
support
the
opinion
or
I
have
to
support
the
position
taken
by
my
client.
I
thought
okay
we're.
Now.
In
november
there
was
an
upcoming
election.
Could
we
file
a
lawsuit?
Get
a
declaratory
judgment
on
this
in,
in
what
my
mind
seemed
to
be
a
clear
legislative
intent
that
it's
the
conveyance,
that
is
the
subject
of
the
exemption
and
not
the
filing
or
recording
of
the
deed
upon
death,
but
rather
when
dad
dies
and
there's
an
affidavit
of
death
recorded.
That's
when
it
should
take
effect.
G
If
dad
had
created
a
will
and
that
will
had
gone
to
probate.
And
there
was
a
court
order
confirming
that
the
the
the
property
would
be
transferred
to
the
children.
G
Then
most
county
recorders
would
say
yep
that
we're
going
to
accept
a
court
order,
we're
not
going
to
require
transfer
tax
payment,
and
so
it
just.
It
really
bothers
me
that
for
people
who
can
afford
a
trust
and
go
hire
a
lawyer
for
people
that
have
a
will
and
that
are
willing
to
pay
anywhere
from
five
thousand
dollars
to
ten
thousand
dollars
to
have,
will
probated
that
they
don't
have
to
pay
the
transfer
tax,
but
the
poor
schmuck.
G
Who
is
industrious
enough
to
find
this
statute
that
this
legislature
had
wisely
adopted
in
2011
and
doesn't
have
to
pay
a
transfer
tax
when
he
records
his
deed
and
is
entirely
able
to
revoke
that
deed.
G
A
Q
Airmen
yeager
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
make
my
presentation
this
morning.
My
name
is
richard
staub,
that's
s-t-a-u-b,
I'm
here
to
testify
on
behalf
of
ab414
section
two
first
like
to
thank
assemblyman
o'neill
for
allowing
mike,
and
I
bring
this
amendment
forward.
Q
Q
What
they're
finding
is,
ultimately,
when
they
open
an
escrow,
these
people
want
to
come
to
town,
dispose
of
the
property
and
and
go
home,
and
when
they
go
to
open
an
escrow
to
transfer
the
property
by
sale,
they
are
told
by
the
title
companies
that
they
have
to
wait:
18
months
to
transfer
that
property.
Q
What
I've
found
is
in
some
cases
some
title
companies
have
asked
for
24
months
and
believe
it
or
not.
I've
told
my
clients
to
go
to
another
title
company
and
they
go
to
another
title
company
that
title
company
says:
well,
we
don't
recognize
the
18
month
period,
we'll
go
ahead
and
transfer
the
property,
so
there
appears
to
be
a
great
deal
of
confusion
on
the
part
of
the
title
companies
as
to
whether
perhaps
how
this
18-month
period
really
comes
into
play
or
if
it
comes
into
play.
Q
My
position
is
simply
this:
if
you
have
a
trust
estate
and
you're
trying
to
resolve
a
trust
estate
under
interest
164025,
you
have
the
ability
to
file
a
notice,
creditors
claims
and
publish
it.
It
allows
for
a
90-day
plan
period
if
you
have
a
probated
estate
under
general
administration,
or
you
have
90
days,
there's
a
notice
to
creditors
for
90
days.
It's
a
summary
administration
60
days.
Q
My
question
is:
when
we
dispose
of
an
estate
simplistically
by
using
a
distribution
on
dfd.
Why
do
we
have
to
wait
15
months
and
you're
talking
about
18
months?
That's
a
year
and
a
half
the
beneficiaries
of
out
of
state
that
real
property
have
to
maintain.
It
have
to
pay
the
utilities
on
it
have
to
keep
it
insured
and
in
most
cases
they
just
want
the
disposals
of
that
property
and
go
on
with
their
lives.
Q
Q
What
we've
agreed
to
do
is
allow
a
process
that
doesn't
exist
in
law
today
and
that's
to
provide
a
notice
to
creditors
when
a
an
estate
is
distributed
by
bethe
and
it
takes.
We
took
the
language
from
nrs
164,
which
is
the
90-day
notice
of
creditors
period
for
a
trust
statement
and
that
language
you
have
in
sub-section
three,
four:
five,
six,
seven
and
and
eight
that
is
new
language.
Q
That
requires
the
trust
companies
to
recognize
that
the
notices
that
are
given
here
are
are
appropriate,
adequate
notice
under
the
law
and
and
the
other
thing
that
the
amendments
do
under
subsection
three.
So
it
requires
beneficiaries
or
grantees
under
the
deeds
to
provide
the
grantors
personal
representative
of
this
state.
Q
Those
cases
they're
one
of
the
same
people,
and
it
also
provides
the
grant
that
beneficiaries
provide
notice
to
the
department
of
health
and
human
services.
It's
a
notice
that
doesn't
exist
today,
and
it
also
provides
that
the
beneficiaries
provide
notice
to
anyone
else.
They
know
should
have
a
notice,
such
as
a
an
aster
attainable
creditor,
provides
under
subsection
four
specific
language
for
the
notice
and
under
subsection
five.
It
states
that
a
person
or
entity
that
has
a
claim
has
90
days
to
file
their
claim.
Q
Six
under
the
the
conceptual
amendment
states
that
the
notice
to
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
was
not
given
by
the
beneficiaries
that
the
property
transferred
by
the
deaf
deed,
still
subject
to
the
rights
of
the
department
to
recover
any
public
assistance
receive,
I
hold
the
grand
total,
so
it
all
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
so
probably
a
little
more
than
housekeeping,
but
it
all
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
brings
into
total
conformity
how
a
death
deed
a
state
resolution
process
is
no
different
than
the
general
obama
administration
or
the
trusted
administration
all
nodes
to
creditors
for
90
days,
that's
more
than
sufficient
time
for
predators
and
the
department
of
health
in
the
services
medicaid
cms.
Q
I
believe
that
is
more
than
sufficient
time
for
them
to
file
their
claims.
Ultimately,
we
may
not
resolve
them
at
90,
but
the
process
goes
forward
until
resolution
and,
most
importantly,
under
section
8.
The
title
companies
must
recognize
the
notice
provided
this
conceptual
amendment
as
appropriate
notice
under
law
and
pursuant
to
the
land
title
association's
request.
You
added
the
last
sentence
in
sub-section
8
pursuant
to
their
request,
and
that
is
the
title:
company
shall
not
be
liable
for
claims
which
they
are
not
made
aware
by
the
beneficiaries.
Q
It
protects
the
title
companies
from
from
having
to
litigate
with
the
beneficiary,
because
that
claims
so
a
little
more
than
house
breathing.
We
think
this
really
needs
to
be
put
into
law,
to
clear
up
a
lot
of
the
misconceptions
that
not
only
the
beneficiaries
grantees
have
but,
more
importantly,
the
title
companies
and
how
to
apply
the
time
frame
in
which
a
creditor
has
a
right
to
file
a
claim
against
the
state
of
a
grantor
who
is
next.
Q
A
I
think
the
first
one
for
you
is
for
you,
mr
staub,
so
the
current
procedure,
as
you
indicated,
requires
essentially
an
18-month
waiting
period
which
you
know
I
agree
sounds
like
a
long
time
and
then
I
think
the
new
procedure
here
basically
is
90
days,
and
I
just
wondered
you
might
have
touched
on
this
a
little
bit
but
where,
where
you
came
up
with
the
90
days
and
what
the
rationale
was
for
that
particular
time
period
of
90
days
versus
some
other
time
period,.
Q
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager.
This
is
richard
staub
again,
that's
just
under
the
general
probate
administration
laws
in
the
state
of
nevada,
chapter
145
in
the
summary
of
probate
administration
with
under
one
foot
e
and
the
trust
estate
administration
is
under
164
of
the
battery
by
statutes.
A
Thank
you
that's
helpful,
and
then
I'm
going
to
have
a
question
for
mr
pavalakas
who,
by
the
way,
you
did
a
great
job
in
your
first
time
presenting
in
front
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
just
trying
to
wrap
my
head
a
little
bit
around
what
section
one
of
the
bill
is
doing,
because
when
I
read
the
bill
I
thought
well,
you
know
if
a
conveyance
of
real
property
is
essentially
that's
effective
upon
death.
This
is
actually
exempt
from
the
taxes
imposed
under
those
few
nrs
sections.
G
Yes,
thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
again
for
the
record
mike
pavlakis.
G
I
agree
that,
in
my
mind,
a
plain
reading
of
existing
language
is
that
the
conveyance
is
what's
exempt
from
the
payment
of
transfer
tax
and
if
you
accept
the
position
that
the
conveyance
does
not
take
effect
until
the
recording
of
the
death
of
grantor
affidavit
after
the
grantor
has
died,
then
the
existing
language
of
you,
I
would
think,
covers
the
situation.
G
So
they're
reading
this
statute
to
mean
that
the
transfer
tax
is
in
effect
deferred
and
it's,
although
it's
not
to
be
collected
at
the
time
of
the
recording
of
the
deed
upon
death.
Their
position
is
that
it's
collect
be
collected
upon
the
death
of
the
grantor
and
the
filing
of
the
the
affidavit,
which
is
contrary
to
statute,
because
the
conveyance
doesn't
occur
until
that
second
act
is
committed.
G
A
That
was
very
helpful.
I
I
do
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
there
now
and
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
that
I
think
the
language
is
is
fairly
clear,
but
to
the
extent
that
there
are
differences
in
the
recorder's
office,
I
think
it
does
make
sense
to
clarify
this.
So
thank
you
for
that
further
explanation
that
did
help
me
get
there
on
a
monday
morning.
B
I
I
know
you
kind
of
touched
on
working
with
the
trust
section
of
the
bar,
and
I
know
their
process
for
being
able
to
support
legislation
is,
is
takes
a
long
time
right
because
the
bar
wants
it
sent
to
all
the
different
sections.
So
it's
understandable
that
that
you
don't
necessarily
have
their
official
support.
B
I'm
guessing,
but
I
just
want
to
double
check
see
if
there
were
other
sections
of
the
bar
that
you
spoke
with
were
able
to
address,
possibly
how
that
might
affect
their
their
field,
that
that
might
not
be
thought
of
when
discussing
this,
with
the
trust
section
and
just
a
little
more
information.
Q
Thank
you,
celine
cohen.
This
is
richard
staub,
it's
st
aud,
yes,
christina
kleich
reached
out
to
us
early
on
when
we
got
the
bdr
had
a
meeting,
a
telephonic
meeting.
I'd
say
about
a
week
and
a
half
ago
where
she
and
alan
freer,
representing
the
probate
trust
section.
The
state
bar
presented
some
questions
to
someone
assemblyman
o'neill
and
myself,
and
we
came
up
with
a
somewhat
easy
resolution.
We
felt
by
merely
using
the
language
out
of
nrs
16425.
Q
The
trusted
state
noticed
creditors
and
putting
this
in
into
the
law.
Even
though
original
intent,
I
must
say,
was
just
merely
to
change
the
18
months
to
90
days
go
go
from
there,
but
because
of
their
concern
regarding
potential
rights
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
and
other
creditors.
I
said
you
know
why:
don't
we
just
make
it
uniform
and
make
the
beneficiaries
or
the
grantees
under
the
deed,
upon
death,
provide
a
notice.
It's
a
simple
process.
Q
It
provides
a
very
simple,
a
specific
timeline
for
creditors
and
the
department
file,
their
claims
and,
and
it
provides
a
procedure
for
the
beneficiaries
to
answer
those
claims
and
if
they
don't
then
allows
the
beneficiaries
to
dispose
of
the
property
it
gives.
I
think
everyone
in
the
process
much
clearer
resolution
of
these
claims
and
brings
in
the
conformity
the
treatment
of
a
distribution
on
death
deed
as
as
with
general
probate
under
nr,
136
and
and
the
trust
administration
under
nrs
164..
B
Okay,
thank
you,
but
but
was
there
any
reach
out
to
any
of
the
other
sections
of
the
bar.
A
Welcome
we
have
additional
questions,
particularly
for
assemblyman
o'neill.
As
I
know,
he
is
intimately
aware
of
the
provisions
of
this
bill
and
how
this
area
of
law
works.
So
committee
members,
are
there
additional
questions
out
there
for
either
the
assemblyman
or
our
two
co-presenters
this
morning,.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
I
want
to
thank
the
three
of
you
for
presenting
I'll
ask
you
to
hold
tight
for
just
a
moment.
While
we
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
time
for
some
wrap-up
remarks
following
the
testimony
at
this
time,
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
414,
we
don't
have
anyone
else
on
the
zoom
with
us
in
support
bps.
Could
we
check
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
and
support.
K
A
K
H
Hi,
thank
you
chairman
yeager,
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
steve
river
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
land,
title
association,
the
steve
last
name,
dover,
diaz
and
david
o
v
is
in
victor
er
and
I
am
testifying
in
opposition
to
ab414
the
land.
Title
association
feels
that
there
are
several
things
in
this
bill
that
complicate
matters.
H
We
are
in
favor
of
a
much
shorter
time
frame
than
18
months
for
sure,
but
these
these
claims
to
be
sent
to
you
know
notices
to
the
creditor.
H
We
believe
complicate
things
quite
a
bit
in
such
a
way
that
section
two
paragraph
eight
becomes
an
obstacle
for
us
where
they
say
that
the
title
company
is
engaged
regarding
the
transfer
of
real
property
identified
indeed
upon
death
must
recognize
that
the
notices
provided
pursuant
to
the
constitute
adequate
notice
required
by
law.
We
feel
that
that
should
be
changed
to
be
a
deed
upon.
H
Death
may
recognize
that
the
notices
provide
percent
to
the
section
constitute
adequate
notice
required
by
law,
and
the
reason
we
feel
it
should
be
changed
from
must
to
may
is
so
that
the
title
companies
have
the
opportunity
to
review.
What's
been
done
and
make
business
decisions
for
themselves,
we
don't
feel
that
we
should
be
forced
to
take
upon.
H
Those
types
of
things
typically
are
handled
much
better
by
attorneys,
so
leaving
it
to
them
and
then
telling
us
we
have
to
follow
what
they
tell
us,
they
did
to
us
seems
very
unreasonable
and
as
far
as
the
last
paragraph
in
that
section
two
part,
eight
a
title
company
shall
not
be
liable
for
claims
which
they
are
not
made
aware
of.
We
did
ask
for
bona
fide
purchase,
bonafide
purchaser
protection
in
there,
which
protects
not
only
title
companies
but
the
actual
purchasers
of
the
property.
This
does
not
quite
do
that.
H
We
are
more
than
open
to
working
with
them
on
this
language
for
that,
but
the
biggest
concern
is
the
word
must
versus
may
so.
The
title
companies
have
the
ability
to
review
the
process
and
determine
for
themselves
if
it
has
been
done
in
such
a
way
that
we're
able
to
ensure-
and
I
think
the
result
that
you
know
they're
trying
to
force
on
us
to
to
do
this-
is
going
to
have
the
opposite
effect.
As
the
title
companies
will
likely
just
not
get
involved
in
the
transaction
at
all.
H
H
I
think
that's
our
our
main
sticking
point
and
again
we're
more
than
willing
to
come
to
the
table
to
discuss
this.
We
were
not
invited
to
the
table
originally
when
this
was
drafted,
but
we're
more
than
willing
to
work
with
them
on
this,
and
that's
all
that
I
have
thank
you,
chairman.
A
A
K
C
Thank
you
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
tiffany
lewis,
t-I-f-f-a-n-y
l-e-w-I-s,
I'm
an
administrative
services
officer
with
the
division
of
health
care,
financing
and
policy.
The
division
is
providing
testimony
this
morning
in
the
neutral
position
regarding
assembly
bill
414,
as
introduced
regarding
the
impact
to
medicaid
estate
recovery
program.
C
It
does
not
mandate
notice
to
dhhs
in
all
cases,
just
where
the
beneficiaries
under
the
deed
upon
death,
know
or
have
reason
to
know.
The
grantor
received
public
assistance
during
the
lifetime
of
the
grantor.
It
does
not
state
failure
of
notice
leaves
the
property
open
to
claim,
but
30
days
after
death
is
often
not
enough
time
for
a
state
recovery
to
know
the
full
extent
of
medicaid
claims
on
an
estate
or
respond
timely
without
more
resources
to
process
such
notices.
C
If
notice
is
given
and
published,
the
property
can
move
forward
with
this
new
title
unencumbered
after
90
days.
Instead
of
providing
probate
as
the
form
for
a
dispute,
a
beneficiary
can
simply
reject
a
claim
and
force
the
cleaning
party,
such
as
hhs
into
filing
suit
against
the
beneficiary,
which
represents
additional
costs,
including
council's
time.
C
C
This
bill
does
have
a
negative
fiscal
impact
to
the
division
of
approximately
five
point,
resulting
in
the
loss
of
approximately
five
million
dollars
over
the
biennium
and
projected
medicaid
estate
recoveries
following
the
death
of
a
medicaid
recipient.
These
recoveries
are
expenditure
opposites
for
the
division
additional
issues.
C
The
state
recovery
program
is
estimated
to
generate
approximately
3.4
million
dollars
in
state
field
school
year,
22
and
3.5
million
in
the
state
fiscal
year.
23
for
the
agency
medicaid
estate
recovery
in
the
nevada,
revised
statutes
is
impacted
by
procedures
for
notice,
in
real
property,
probate
trust
estate
and
even
guardianship
chapters
and
transactions.
C
For
example,
it
sets
a
narrow
window
for
making
a
claim
against
real
property,
which
would
be
barred
by
state
law
as
it
relates
to
surviving
spouse.
Despite
nrs
422
exclusively
laying
out
for
federal
requirements,
a
mechanism
for
placement
of
medicaid
lanes,
it
would
disallow
considerable
revenue
from
claims
for
a
state
recovery
which
pay
back
into
the
program
individuals
qualify
for
while
having
used
and
enjoyment
of
their
property
during
their
lifetime.
C
The
lack
of
date
of
birth
on
proposed
notices
and
expedited
expedited
timeline
response,
including
mandated
litigation
by
the
creditor,
which
in
this
instance,
is
nevada
medicaid,
where
claims
are
rejected,
as
well
as
no
consequence
for
rejecting
the
claim
and
bad
faith
to
discourage
rejections
related
to
medicaid
are
of
concern.
It
would
be
extremely
difficult
for
the
agency
or
its
upcoming
vendor
to
turn
around
claims
in
less
than
30
days
and
litigate
within
30
days.
C
C
This
bill
could
result
in
the
cost
of
services
provided
by
the
vendor
increasing
significantly,
and
the
agency
would
not
have
enough
budget
or
contract
authority
to
cover
the
additional
cost.
The
assemblyman
has
brought
forward
a
conceptual
amendment
upon
early
interpretation.
It
appears
to
still
have
a
fiscal
impact
for
the
division.
We
are
available
to
assist
the
assemblymen
on
this
bill
regarding
the
impacts
of
medicaid
estate
recovery
program.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Ms
lewis
appreciate
it.
It
sounds
like
there
may
have
been
some
concerns
expressed
in
there.
I'm
not
quite
sure
if
the
amendment
resolved
those
concerns,
but
would
certainly
appreciate
if
you
continue
to
work
with
assemblyman
o'neill
and
his
co-presenters
to
see
if,
if
there
are
additional
concerns,
if
those
can
be
remedied
before
friday's
deadline
but
appreciate
the
testimony
and
committee
members
would
ask
you
to
reach
out.
If
you
have
additional
questions
about
any
of
that
bps,
do
we
have
any
additional
callers
in
the
neutral
position.
A
F
Sheriff
I
may
mr
pavalakas
maybe
give
one
and
then
go
mr
stab
I'll
I'll
go
last.
Please.
G
Q
Thank
you,
chairman
you're
members
of
the
committee,
richard
staub
s-t-a-u-b,
and
I
do
appreciate
mr
pele's
testimony
at
a
neutral,
neutral
position.
Q
We
did
make
a
change
to
subsection
three
section,
two
of
paragraph
three
and
and
we
took
out
any
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
beneficiaries
to
determine
whether
a
durant
or
received
any
public
assistance
or
not,
and
so
it's
mandatory
that
the
grantees
or
the
beneficiaries
under
the
deputy
provide
the
department
of
health
and
human
services,
health
and
human
services
with
notice
individual
notice.
Q
In
every
case,
there
is
no
discretion
in
every
case
where
a
distribution
of
death
death
has
been
filed
and
this
again
comports
with
the
provisions
of
general
probate
administration,
state
of
nevada
under
nrs
136
145,
wherein
dhhs
is
provided
with
notice
in
each
of
those
cases,
and
they
are
allowed
90
days
in
general,
probate,
administration
and
60
days.
In
summary,
probate
administration
and
in
trust
administrations.
Q
90
days
file
claims.
Now
that's
only
to
file
a
claim.
That's
not
resolved
the
claim
and,
of
course,
if
the
benefici
beneficiaries
deny
the
claim
which
in
most
cases
in
my
experience,
they're
not
denied
they,
you
have
to
work
through
them.
These
the
dhhs
are
medicare.
They
have
30
days
to
file
a
a.
They
claim,
a
a
lawsuit
if
the
beneficiaries
died
in
coins.
But
in
my
experience,
we've
not
had
any
case
where
we've
been
denied
the
claims
we've
had
to
work
through
them,
but
again
it.
Q
This
just
merely
brings
the
fd
resolution
of
an
estate
in
conformity
with
current
nevada
law
as
regards
to
general
administration
and
trust
administration.
We're
certainly
willing
to
work
with
all
parties
come
up
with
appropriate
amendments,
but
at
this
point
I
think
we're
fine.
As
far
as
the
title
company
questions
you
know,
I
don't
really
think
that
we
have
any
problem
with
bus
to
may.
Q
F
F
My
bdr
specified
that
this
bill
proposal
would
deal
with
probate
and
estate
issues
and
that
health
and
human
services
did
not
come
forward
until
late
friday
afternoon
with
their
issues,
then
they
had
a
person
contact
us
who
really
wasn't,
maybe
as
knowledgeable
as
ms
lewis
was
with
the
issues
which
puts
us
at
a
great
disadvantage.
Considering
the
time
limit
that
we're
on.
However,
as
I
said,
we
will
work
with
them
to
try
to
address
the
issues
as
quickly
as
possible
and
bring
it
back
forward
to
you.
F
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
time
I
appreciate.
I
know
this
has
been
a
very
exciting
bill
and
wish
you
all
a
remainder
of
a
wonderful
monday.
Thank
you,
chair.
Thank
you.
Committee
members.
A
Thank
you
assemblyman
o'neill
and
your
co-presenters.
We
appreciate
the
presentation
this
morning
thanks
for
spending
some
time
with
us
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
your
monday
and
a
great
rest
of
the
week.
Please
do
keep
us
updated
on
any
progress
with
respect
to
some
of
the
concerns
we
heard,
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
414
committee
members
that
takes
us
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
A
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
that
are
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
committee
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
public
comment
phone
line
please
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment.
K
K
R
R
Today
I
want
to
talk
about
what
happened
to
my
brother
at
the
peppermill
casino,
because
I
realized
that
politicians
do
like
to
take.
You
know
money
from
casinos
when
it's
election
time
or
campaign
time.
My
brother
was
assaulted
when
he
asked
for
help
at
the
peppermill
by
security
guards
andrew
miller,
zachary
signer,
kyle,
vaughn,
cross
samantha.
N
R
And
russell
smith,
I
want
to
read
an
excerpt
from
the
sparks
police,
so-called
independent
investigation,
into
my
brother's
death.
It
says
during
the
investigation,
peppermill
security
officer
montiel
informed
investigators
that
she
had
issues
with
the
way
that
some
peppermill
security
officers
treated
purdy
montiel
didn't
like
the
way
that
purdy
was
taken
down
the
stairs
and
how
purdy
was
dropped
on
the
ground.
Montiel
also
stated
that
during
the
incident
she
wasn't
sure
how
it
happened,
but
she
heard
a
smack
and
saw
russell
smith
on
top
of
purdy.
R
I
don't
think
sparks
police
expected
me
to
actually
then
get
the
videos
of
the
interview
of
montiel,
but
what
she
says
is
that
they
dragged
my
brother
down
the
stairs
by
his
ankles
with
his
head
bouncing
off
each
concrete
step.
Continuing
now
with
the
rest
of
the
report,
a
video
that
was
provided
by
the
peppermill
depicts
smith
in
the
holding
room.
That's
a
security
guard
at
the
peppermill
after
the
incident
at
two
zero,
two
four
six
hours
on
the
video,
a
female
enters
the
holding
room
and
smith
states.
R
You
missed
your
opportunity
that
blank
boy,
the
female,
tells
smith
that
she
went
to
lunch
and
smith
states
f
lunch.
This
emma
effer
was
fighting
and
yelling
and
screaming
smith
then
lowers
his
voice
and
looks
around
the
room
before
saying
he's
at
the
top
of
the
stairs.
I
pulled
his
ass
down
the
steps.
As
smith
made
this
statement.
He
pulled
his
arm
backward
demonstrating
a
tugging
motion.
R
The
female
then
walks
to
a
nearby
telephone
as
the
female
makes
a
call
smith
turns
away
from
the
camera
and
makes
another
comment
about
his
actions
as
emotions
with
his
right
arm.
The
video
stops
there
at
minimum
that
man
should
have
been
charged
with
assault
and
battery
on
my
brother,
but
nobody
will
be
held
accountable
for
my
brother's
death.
Please
please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
Thank
you.
R
A
K
K
H
H
I
would
like
to
kind
of
comment
if
that's
possible,
particularly
the
most
recent
bill.
We
just
heard
about
the
probate
and
the
medicaid
issue.
A
H
Okay,
I
will
do
that.
I
just
kind
of
want
to
touch
on
something
that
miss
grant
has
mentioned
over
this
legislative
session
that
I
think
she's
not.
She
hasn't
brought
forward
yet,
and
I
kind
of
want
to
do.
N
H
Actually
seen
that
video
from
the
peppermill
and
from
the
police
department-
and
it
is
very
tragic
and
what
I
get
is,
if
you
actually
looked
at
that
video
of
the
peppermill,
this
man,
mr
purdy,
just
sits
down
he's
not
violent
he's,
not
anything.
What
bothers
me
the
most.
Is
that
not
one
individual,
not
the
peppermill
security,
not
the
police.
Nobody
asked
mr
purdy.
If
whether
or
not
he
was
a
guest
of
the
peppermill,
mr
purdy
was
a
guest
of
that
pepper
mill
and
all
of
this
assault
took
place.
H
If,
if
reno
pd
would
have
just
asked,
if
you
are,
you
know
just
just
to
talk
to
him
about
it
or
security,
they
would
have
found
out
that
he
was
in
fact
a
guest
and
he
never
would
have
gone
to
have
been
arrested
for
asking
for
help.
He
would
still
be
alive
today.
I
believe
so.
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
touch
on
that
and
some
other
issues,
but
I'll
have
to
call
back
another
time
when
these
bills
come
back
up
again,
but
thank
you
and
have
a
great
day.
A
K
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
else,
thank
you
committee
members
and
that
took
a
while
to
get
through
the
bills,
just
in
terms
of
the
rest
of
the
week,
as
noted
before,
we
have
agendas
out
through
thursday,
eight
o'clock
meetings.
While
we
were
meeting
today,
we
did
revise
the
agenda
for
tomorrow,
so
we
now
have
three
bills
on
the
agenda
rather
than
two
two
of
those
bills
deal
with
bail
and
citations,
and
I
wanted
to
let
the
members
know
and
members
of
the
public
who
may
still
be
listening.
A
A
So
with
that
behind
us
committee,
we
will
see
you
tomorrow
morning
back
in
this
committee,
at
8
00
a.m.
I
hope
everyone
has
a
really
fantastic
rest
of
the
day.
Assemblywoman
kasama
were
you
waving,
or
did
you
have
something
to
say?
I'm
just
waving?
Okay,
so
assemblywoman
kasana
kasama
is
waving
goodbye,
and
so
I
hope
you
all
have
a
wonderful
day.
A
reminder
we
do
have
floor
today.
So
please
make
your
way
down
there
for
an
11.
30
start
we'll
see
you
tomorrow
morning.
In
this
committee
at
8
am
this
meeting
is.