►
From YouTube: 5/27/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
assemblywomancohen
absent
excused.
Please
do
the
same
for
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
as
well.
They
may
arrive
at
some
point
during
this
morning's
meeting
and
if
so,
please
mark
them
present
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
here
in
the
room.
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
on
zoom
this
morning,
but
welcome
to
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
the
legislature's
youtube
channel,
welcome
to
day
116
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
A
This
will
indeed
be
our
last
thursday,
together
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
So
before
we
get
started
this
morning,
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters
for
those
in
the
room.
Could
you
please
silence
your
devices
and
remember
when
you're,
testifying
or
answering
questions
to
please
state
your
name
for
the
record
that'll
help
our
committee
secretary
prepare
accurate
committee
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy.
A
That's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
good
people,
people
kind
and
respectful
to
one
another
and
then
finally,
many
members
up
here
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
to
the
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
times
so
committee
members,
members
of
the
public,
we
have
two
items
two
bills
on
our
agenda
today
and
we
are
going
to
take
them
in
order.
A
So
at
this
point,
I'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
147
in
its
second
reprint
that
bill
establishes
provisions
relating
to
conditions
of
release
that
prohibit
the
contact
or
attempted
contact
of
certain
persons.
Welcome
back
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
senator
harris,
it's
good
to
see
you
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
F
All
right
good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee,
it
is
wonderful
to
be
in
front
of
your
lovely
faces
again.
My
name
is
dallas
harris
representing
senate
district
11
in
clark
county
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
senate
bill
147,
which
establishes
provisions
relating
to
non-monetary
conditions,
a
pretrial
release,
prohibiting
contact
commonly
referred
to
as
no
contact
orders.
I
will
endeavor
to
keep
this
short
and
will
answer
any
questions
that
you
all
have.
This
bill
came
out
of
the
interim
committee
on
pre-trial
release.
F
It
is
one
of
five
and
the
bill
is
fairly
simple.
It
makes
an
important
policy
change
to
allow
victims
a
statutory
entry
into
the
bail
process,
an
ideal
which
is
supported
by
the
nevada
constitution.
The
concept
for
this
bill
was
originally
brought
to
the
interim
committee
from
the
henderson
city
attorney's
office.
Now,
while
existing
bill
processes
under
nrs178.484
and
178.485
allows
the
court
to
impose
conditions
of
release
that
prohibit
contact
with
certain
persons
on
its
own
volition,
this
bill
provides
a
statutory
mechanism
for
the
victim
to
request
the
court
enter
such
an
order.
F
F
First
of
all,
violating
a
no
contact
order
is
a
contempt
of
court
and
and
nothing
more
and
so
there's
no
underlying
criminal
offense.
That
officers
can
use
to
to
really
assist
victims.
F
What
we
have
managed
to
do
with
this
bill
is
find
a
way
to
get
these
no
contact
orders
into
a
centralized
system.
That
officers
will
be
able
to
access
much
like
they
access
restraining
orders.
Today,
we've
also
been
able
to
put
in
some
type
of
enforcement
mechanism
where
officers
will
will
feel
emboldened
to
be
able
to
arrest
those
who
are
in
fact
violating
these
no
contact
orders
and
be
able
to
bring
these
these
people
back
before
the
judge
again
previously.
What
would
happen
if
you
called
the
cops
they
may
or
may
not
likely?
F
May
not
assist
you
in
escorting.
The
person
off
of
your
property
and
you'd
have
to
call
up
literally
call
up
the
prosecuting
attorney.
Let
them
know
that
the
defendant
has
violated
the
no
contact
order
and
then
that
person
would
be
brought
back
before
the
judge
at
some
time
after
the
prosecuting
attorney
puts
it
on
a
calendar
and
then
the
judge
will
determine
whether
they
violated
contempt
of
court
or
not,
and
that
last
piece
will
remain
and
that
option
will
still
remain,
but
really
we're
adding
another
enforcement
tool
here.
A
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman
wheeler
to
you
through
chair
yeager,
a
restraining
order
is
traditionally
a
civil
process
and
it
is
not
it's
not
connected
to
the
condition
of
pre-trial
release,
and
so
when
you
have
a
criminal
case
traditionally,
courts
aren't
issuing
restraining
orders
as
a
condition
of
release.
They
they're
issuing
these
no
contact,
orders
and
so
separately.
F
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
harris
for
this
presentation.
So
so
I
just
want
to
understand.
So
this
is
when
there
is
a
victim
in
a
case
and
a
restraining
order
isn't
issued
or
I'm
just
confused,
and
then
also
would
this
weigh
in
on
the
defendant's
case
in
court
like
is
it
like
used
like,
and
this
person
got
this
order
against
them,
like
on
top
of
everything
that
the
defendant
is
already
being
maybe
like
charged
with
as
well.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
gonzalez,
so
I
think
the
best
way
to
think
about
this
is
to
separate
the
idea
of
bail
or
or
pre-trial
release
conditions
from
a
temporary
restraining
order.
Anyone
any
one
of
us,
regardless
of
whether
someone
has
a
case
against
them.
A
criminal
case,
can
go
and
get
a
temporary
restraining
order
against
someone,
so
that
always
exists
right.
C
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question:
assemblywoman
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record,
so
this
would
be
part
of
bail
for
a
defendant
and
it
would
would
their
bail
be
determinant
upon
this
or
yeah.
Sorry,
just
trying
to
understand.
F
Oh,
no,
that's!
Okay!
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
gonzales
to
you
through
chair
yeager,
so
bail
is
really
the
monetary
condition.
Bail
can
be
a
condition
of
release.
You
can
meet
bail
and
then
be
released
or
the
judge
can
let
you
out
and
say
I'm
gonna,
let
you
out,
but
you
must
be
on
house
arrest
or
I'm
gonna,
let
you
out,
but
I'm
adding
this
additional
condition.
I'mma,
let
you
out-
or
you
have
to
come
check
in
once
a
week
for
extended
supervision
right.
C
Thank
you
so
much
last
question:
senator
assembly
woman,
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record.
So
if
a
defendant
were
to
violate
this,
it
would
now
be
criminal
or
it's
automatically
criminal,
because
it's
tied
to
their
bail
proceed
process.
Is
that
correct.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question.
It's
a
contempt
of
court
and
that'll
be
up
to
the
court
to
decide
what
they
want
to
do.
It's
contempt
of
court.
It
is
now
a
trespass,
that's
what's
new
in
in
this,
and
then
also.
I
intend
to
add
that
the
court
can
also
use
any
other
remedies
that
are
available
to
them
under
law.
C
All
right,
one
more
follow-up
after
that,
so
assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
C
So
then,
so,
if
you,
if
you
were
to
violate
a
tpo,
that
would
be
a
criminal
charge,
even
though
it's
filed
in
civil
correct.
Is
that
my
understanding
correct
right?
Yes,
so,
okay,
so
sorry,
just
again,
I'm
just
trying
to
understand.
So
if
there
is
a
case
where
there
was
a
victim-
and
it
was
egregious
enough
for
them
to
issue
this-
no
contact
order
to
not
contact
the
victim.
C
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblement
woman
gonzalez
to
you
through
chair
yeager.
Actually,
I
think
that's
a
great
question
you're
hitting
actually
on
the
problem.
Criminal
judges
can't
issue
tpos.
It's
a
civil
process
and
they're
they're
criminal
judges,
and
so
they
don't
have
the
ability
to,
in
one
criminal
case,
issue
a
restraining
order.
A
A
H
Thank
you.
I
I
just
want
to
kind
of
clarify
I
I
know
I
work
in
this
area
so
like,
for
example,
I
think
what
we're
probably
looking
at
is
protecting
victims
in
the
majority
of
the
cases.
A
lot
of
these
are
like
battery
domestic
violence
type
cases,
and
I
know
that
when
our
law
enforcement
officers
come
into
contact
and
do
these
initial
investigations,
they
have
like
a
blue
card
that
they
inform
the
victims
of
like
services
that
are
available,
support
housing.
H
All
of
those
kind
of
non-I
guess,
like
judicial
kind
of
resources
that
are
out
there
in
the
community
with
these
organizations,
including
like
tpos,
and
so
a
lot
of
times,
you'll
see
these
tpos
that
are
already
like
people
go
through
the
application.
So
one
I'm
not
really
sure
why
this
is
necessary.
Two
I'm
a
little
concerned
like
on
the
pre-trial.
I
don't
really
understand
why
this
is
this
kind
of
seems
to
already
exist.
H
So
if
you
have
someone
who
is
charged
with
a
crime
and
the
judge,
orders
them
released
and
as
a
condition
of
their
release,
they
are
put
on
house
arrest,
they're
told
to
stay
away
from
the
victim
and
they
choose
to
violate
that.
The
court
can
always
bring
them
back
in
and
it
contempt,
I
believe,
is
a
misdemeanor
under
sorry
just
nrs
22.10,
and
it
carries
with
it
fines
and
jail
time.
So
I'm
wondering
how
this
differentiates
from
what's
already
existing
in
our
like
judicial
system,.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
chairwind
and
I
don't
want
to
represent
police
response
to
these
too
much,
especially
since
we
have
mr
callaway
here,
who
I'm
sure
will
be
available
to
answer
more
detailed
questions,
but
I
think
you
you
hit
on
it
in
your
description
here.
So
if
someone
currently
violates
a
no
contact
order,
the
remedy
is
that
they
be
brought
back
before
the
court.
F
There
is
no
relief
in
the
meantime,
and
so,
when
someone
who
is
violating
a
no
contact
order
comes
and
shows
up
at
your
door
and
you
seek
response
from
the
police
it,
it
is
my
understanding
that
it
is
often
difficult
to
enforce
those,
no
contact
orders
at
that
point
with
the
assistance
of
an
officer.
Of
course
again,
you
can
call
your
prosecuting
attorney.
Let
them
know
have
that
person
brought
back
before
the
court,
but
that
is
a
back-end
remedy.
H
Chair,
may
I
follow
up,
I
guess
my
other
question
and
I
see
mr
solferino
when
I
see
mr
callaway
here,
so
they
might
be
in
a
position
to
answer
this
question
for
the
record
when
I'm
sure
they
will
come
up
to
the
table
and
if
they
aren't
planning
on
to,
I
would
ask
them
to
and
if
there's
anyone
from
the
court
system.
H
I
see
mr
lee
here
to
to
kind
of
describe
how
this
would
take
place,
because
I'm
imagining
various
law
enforcement
agencies
use
different
record-keeping,
like
processes
and
how
that
information
even
gets
into
it,
because
I
know
that
there's
potentially
a
delay,
you
know
someone
seeking
a
tpo
or
any
other
type
of
protection
order.
So
if
we
put
this
in
place
like
who's
entering
this,
where
are
they
entering
this?
How
are
law
enforcement
officers
able
to
see
this
in
the
background?
F
F
I
can
tell
you
that
I
have
worked
with
the
central
repository
who
handles
the
temporary
restraining
order
system
that
officers
have
access
to
now
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
this
bill
is
coming
to
you.
At
this
point
we
were
able
to
get
a
small
appropriation
that
would
allow
the
central
repository
to
also
take
in
no
contact
orders
in
a
similar
manner
that
they
take
in
restraining
orders
today,
and
so
any
officer
who
already
has
access
to
that
restraining
order
system
will
also
have
access
to
the
no
contacts
moving
forward.
H
F
F
A
All
right
we'll
go
next
assemblyman
o'neill
did
you
have
a
question?
Please
go
ahead.
G
Thank
you
chair,
believe
it
or
not.
There
will
be
a
question
in
this
statement,
but
senator
harris.
I
just
want
to
summarize
and
make
sure
that
I
understand,
because
I
was
in
law
enforcement,
and
I
know
some
of
the
issues
you're
discussing
so
really
what
your
bill
is
trying
to
do
is
protect
the
victim
of
a
crime,
make
it
more
expeditious
for
them
to
attain
that.
G
Once
the
judges
ordered
that
no
contact
as
part
of
their
bail,
the
law
enforcement
will
know
about
it.
The
courts
will
transmit
that
to
the
repository
it'll
be
put
in
the
computer.
So
if
you
call
the
police,
they
can
run
a
background
check
on
the
individual.
It'll
show
up
right
away
that
there's
a
no
contact
order,
condition
of
their
bail
and
they
can
be
carted
off
back
before
the
judge.
To
answer
that-
and
it's
really
just
a
very
expeditious
saving
grace
for
our
victims
is
that
here's.
My
question
is
that
correct.
F
Thank
you.
Yes,.
G
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman.
Oh
neil.
Let
me
the
latter
part
is
correct.
I
I
wish
the
bill
could
make
it
quicker
to
get
tpos
or
quicker
to
get
a
no
contact
order.
It
does
not
do
that.
It
doesn't
expedite
the
process
by
which
these
no
contact
orders
will
be
issued.
It
does,
however,
do
the
latter
part
of
your
statement.
It
makes
it
easier
for
officers
to
know
if
a
no
contact
order
has
been
issued
by
looking
it
up.
They'll
be
able
to
see
it
and
and
they'll
be
able
to
enforce
it.
F
Thank
you
for
the
questions
statement.
Assemblyman
o'neill.
Yes,
this
is
this-
is
about
being
able
to
protect
victims
and
also
which
we
haven't
hit
on
as
much
gives
the
statutory
right
for
a
victim
to
request
from
the
court
themselves
that
the
no
contact
be
a
condition
of
pre-trial
release.
A
E
E
So
I
really
appreciate
that
and
in
addition
to
getting
a
tpo
like
you
just
stated,
they
can
request
the
court
issue
this
no
contact
order.
So
I
just
wanted
to
ask
in
here
it
says
not
to
exceed
120
calendar
days.
So
could
that
be
extended?
Could
the
victim
request
it
being
extended
or
could
the
court
extend
it.
F
F
If
officers
have
no
idea,
if
it's
still
good
or
not,
and
so
we're
saying
put
a
deadline
on
it
and
we
wanted
to
make
a,
we
wanted
to
walk
a
balance
here
where,
of
course,
if
you
haven't
been
convicted
of
a
crime
right
you're
going
to
put
a
condition
on,
you
have
a
right
to
have
that
condition,
reassessed
every
so
often
right.
We
don't
want
to
be
doing
these
in
perpetuity,
and
so
yes,
the
court
has
the
ability
to
extend
it
beyond
the
120
days,
if
necessary.
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
I
really
appreciate
the
problem
that
you're
trying
to
solve.
I
I
do
get
I'm.
I
just
am
a
little
concerned
that
this
is
a
little
bit
a
police
overreach.
If
that
makes
sense,
I
I
feel
like
at
least
what
I
felt
like
I
wanted
to
do.
This
session
was
to.
I
think
it's
very
easy
that
we
all,
of
course,
we
the
victims
of
a
crime
it.
H
You
know
it's
sort
of
like,
of
course,
we're
against
crime,
but
I
think
that
what
we've
seen
in
the
last
year,
especially
what
we've
become
very
aware
of,
is
that
there
are
there
is
profiling
right
and
I'm
just
concerned
that,
if
we're
giving
police
just
another
level
of
information
to
sort
of
size,
someone
up
and
make
determinations
about
them,
that
that
could
be
an
unintended
con
unintended
consequence
and
and
to
vice
chair's
point
when
I
was
reading
about
the
fact
that
it
was
in
the
trespass
statute.
H
That
worries
me
too,
because
I
just
feel
like
that's
so
open
to
interpretation,
and
so
there
there's
my
concern
is
in
there.
But
then
my
question
is:
I'm
in
in
section
three
was
added
another
another
or
so
I
feel
like
section
a
b
is
really
quite
so
we
added
more
to
bring
it
back
into
the
section
that
the
bill
is
really
doing.
I
I
was
just
hoping
that
you
could
maybe
explain
that
and
and
and
if
you
could
address
some
of
my
concerns
as
well.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman,
and,
and
thank
you
for
the
lens
upon
which
you
are
are
viewing
this
I
mean
I.
I
think
that
is
extremely
important.
F
What
I
believe
the
the
problem
we
have
now
is
that
these
no
contact
orders
are
are
too
difficult
to
enforce,
and
so
I
think
of
these
types
of
things
on
a
pendulum
right
and
right
now,
victims
are
feeling
like
they've
got
no
contact
orders,
but
they
have
no
teeth
to
them,
and
if
someone
violated
it
like
good
luck,
getting
the
police
to
do
anything
about
it
as
opposed
to
them
being
currently
a
bit
overbearing
on
their
enforcement
of
these.
If
that
was
the
problem,
I
wouldn't
even
need
to
bring
this
bill.
F
I
think
the
cleanest
way
to
do
this
is
to
just
make
it
a
trespass
and
so
that
there's
some
underlying
crime
that
officers
can
enforce.
Previously,
you
know
what
I
would
be
worried
about.
I
guess,
without
this
bill
is
officers
deciding
they're
going
to
enforce
no
contacts
on
some
people
and
not
enforce
them
on
others.
F
F
We
get
rid
of
that
kind
of
discrepancy
and-
and
frankly,
I'm
not
often
on
on
the
side
that
I'm
on
on
on
this
bill.
But
officers
need
the
information.
They
don't
even
know
if
no
contact
orders
exist.
I
don't
know
if
you
looked
at
court
minutes,
but
they're
kind
of
just
really
like
typed
out
right
and
yeah.
Maybe
they'll
say
that,
but
officers
know
that's
contempt
of
court
and
that
isn't
their
bailiwick
right.
F
That's
not
their
job
to
enforce
contempt
of
court,
and
so
we
have
to
give
them
something
to
use
to
be
able
to
enforce
these.
No
contact
orders
and
I've
tried
to
make
it
as
simple
as
possible
where
they
can
look
it
up
and
say:
there's
no
contact
order
or
there
isn't,
and
that
way
they
don't
have
to
go
on
anyone's
word
about
whether
the
no
contact
order
exists.
They
don't
have
to
get
the
victim
to
produce
the
minutes
which,
frankly,
today,
just
isn't
happening.
B
I
understand
the
concerns
here,
but
I'm
going
to
just
start
off
by
saying
that
one
of
the
things
that
has
that
is
concerning
me
in
this
entire
discussion
is
the
terms
of
art
that
are
being
used
which
make
me
very
concerned
about
this.
The
terms
that
are
being
used
are
offender.
B
When
pers
people
are
innocent
until
they're
accused
that
makes
them
an
accused
right,
you're,
not
an
offender
until
you
are
convicted,
so
we're
already
starting
off
the
discussion
like
from
the
wrong
lens
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
okay,
so
that's
the
first
thing
and
that's
just
a
statement.
My
question
is:
if
this
trespass
my
question
is:
why
is
this
not
in
the
bill
in
the
bail
section
of
law
and-
and
why
is
it
here
in
trespass,
because
I'm
we,
we
are
looking
at
other
legislation
that
is
out
there.
B
Allowing
folks
to
turn
people
in
right,
that's
the
premise
right
now
and
one
of
the
bills
that
is
out
pending,
and
I
would
hate
to
see
this
be
in
trespass,
because
now
we
have
a
premise
to
profile
people
and
then
arrest
them
on
trespass,
and
then
this
is
a
misdemeanor
and
then
contempt
of
court
which,
if
they
are
violating
a
no
contact
order,
is
a
misdemeanor
as
well.
So
are
you
going
to
combine
these
now?
This
person
has
two
charges
against
them.
Are
they
concurrent?
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
assume
a
woman
summer's
armstrong.
I'll
start
with
with
one
point
sections
one
and
two
are
in
nrs
178
and
that's
kind
of
where
all
of
the
bail
stuff
is
operating.
This
is
about
pre-trial
release
conditions.
F
We
could
do
that,
but
the
the
cleaner
way
to
legislatively
draft
that
is
to
go
into
the
trespass
statute
and
say
violating
a
no
contact
order
is
trespassed.
That's
where
we
have
all
of
the
things
that
could
be
trespass,
so
I
I
think
that's
just
a
question
of
where
we
put
things
in
the
nrs
and
how
the
law
works
together
as
to
your
concern
about
profiling.
F
That's
the
scenario
that
we're
in
right
we're
at
the
point
here
now
where
someone
has
already
been
brought
to
court.
The
judge
has
said
again
pre
as
you've
mentioned
pre-adjudication
of
guilt
or
innocence,
but
the
judge
has
determined.
I
want
you
to
stay
away
from
this
person.
Police
don't
get
called
until
that
person
is
now
in
front
of
you.
No
one
can
be
stopped
and
officers
are
going
to
be
looking
up,
whether
you
have
a
no
contact
order.
F
You
haven't
violated
the
no
contact
order
unless
you're
within
several
feet
of
whomever
you
aren't
supposed
to
be
contacting,
and
so
the
the
issue
of
let's
say
someone
who's,
just
walking
down
the
street,
an
officer
trying
to
find
out.
If
you
got
no
contact
order,
they
may
see
it,
but
unless
you're
on
the
property
of
someone
you're
not
supposed
to
be
in
contact
with,
you
haven't
violated
any
law
and
so
there's
no
ability
to
to
simply
arrest
you
when
you're
minding
your
own
business.
Frankly,.
B
I
wish
that
were
the
case,
but
we
already
know
that
that
there
are
so
many
things.
You
know
we
just
got
rid
of
jaywalking
right,
so
there
there
are
other
things
where
people
I
just
I'm,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out.
Why
and
it's
not
clear
to
me
and
I've
heard
a
lot
of
statements
already
and
and
I'm
just
not
clear
of
what
is
the
it?
What
what
is
already
available.
B
That
cannot
already
solve
this
problem
and
there
has
not
been
any
discussion
yet
about
what
happens
if
someone's
no
contact
order
is
removed
before
the
120
days.
How
efficient
and
effective
is
the
administration
of
this
going
to
be
so
that
someone's
no
contact
order
is
removed
in
sufficient
time,
because
we
know,
especially
in
domestic
violence,
things
that
it's
fluid
right,
so
you
have
something
on
there
and
and
the
relationship
is
fluid
and
a
person
changes
their
mind
or
they
want
to
reconcile.
B
F
Thank
you
for
the
the
comments
assemblywoman,
you
know
I
all
I
can
promise
is
as
efficient
of
administration
as
as
we
have
for
temporary
restraining
orders
if
something
is
expired
or
removed
prior
to
the
120
days,
by
the
way,
which
is
just
saying
you
can't
exceed
120
days,
so
you
need
to
put
a
deadline
on
it.
F
It
could
be
60
days,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
120,
just
can't
be
any
longer
than
120,
but
let's
say
the
judge
puts
60
days
on
it
and
decides
that
they
want
to
terminate
it
after
45
days.
Then
yes,
they're,
going
to
have
to
alert
the
central
repository
and
the
central
repository
will
then
reflect
that.
As
to
your
discussion
about
domestic
violence
victims,
I
mean
that
is
one
of
the
hardest
issues
that
we
struggle
with.
F
F
F
Part
of
the
problem
is
that
these
no
contact
orders
are
not
being
enforced,
and
so
you
know
you
at
your
question
is
what
what
is
the
the
kind
of
issue
and
I'll
be
more
than
happy
again
to
have
further
discussions
with
you.
But
this
is
a
request
brought
to
us
by
victims
who
are
at
a
loss
on
on
on
why
they
can't
get
these
things
enforced
when
they're
calling
for
assistance.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
senator
harrison.
I
apologize
if
you
touched
on
on
some
of
these
there's
a
lot
going
on
this
morning.
So
I
apologize.
If
I
ask
a
repetitive
question,
and
so
this
first
question
you
may
not
be
able
to
answer.
I
know
we
have
law
enforcement
and
we
have
the
courts
in
the
room.
But
kind
of
my
question
is
in
this
section
one
of
the
bill
about
the
court,
so
in
in
section
one
subsection,
five,
it
talks
about
a
court
can
do
an
order
imposing
modifying
suspending
or
canceling.
A
I
think
I
understand
imposing
I
understand,
modifying
suspending
the
canceling
one,
I'm
I'm
a
little
bit
interested
in,
because
now
that
it
goes
to
the
central
repository,
the
central
repository
has
to
know
that
the
order
is
being
cancelled
and
I
read
the
rest
of
the
bill,
particularly
on
page
3
line.
8
it
defines
cancel
and
cancel
essentially
means
it
can
mean
a
dismissal
of
the
action
or
if
the
person's
convicted
or
an
acquittal.
A
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair
yeager,
you
know
if,
if
I
need
to
you,
may
have
hit
on
a
good
point,
if
I
need
to
put
in
here
that
they
must
issue
an
order
when
this
these
are
are
canceled,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
do
that.
F
But
the
intention
here
is
that,
as
soon
as
that
happens,
they
need
to
send
that
over
to
the
central
repository
and
they
have
the
ability
to
cancel
it
at
any
time.
Based
upon
you
know,
acquittal
or
or
some
of
those
other
conditions,
especially
to
address
assemblywoman
armstrong's
of
concerns
about
you
know
how
things
are
fluid
and
things
may
change,
and
we
we
do
not
absolutely
do
not
want
folks
being
trespassed
or
arrested
when
the
no
contact
order
is,
of
course,
no
longer
any
good.
F
I
will
say
this:
this
is
the
quickest
way
to
do
it.
It
may
not
be
immediate,
but
this
is
the
quickest
way
for
officers
to
know
when
a
no
contact
order
is
in
place
and
to
know
when
it's
not
currently
the
victim,
often
no
contact
orders
by
the
way
don't
have
deadlines
on
them
right
now.
F
It
just
says
generally
for
the
pendancy
of
the
case,
and
so
theoretically,
under
the
scenario
someone
could
call
and
show
the
minutes,
but
even
though
the
case
has
been
dismissed,
it
may
still
appear
to
the
officer
like
the
no
contact
order
is,
is
still
in
place.
It's
not
perfect,
but
it's
a
lot
better.
A
Thank
you
and
then
the
second
question
I
have
we've
talked
a
little
bit
about
this,
but
on
the
top
of
page
street
indicates
what
the
what
the
penalty,
I
guess,
would
be
for
violating
one
of
these
orders,
and
so
we
have
subsection
a
which
makes
it
an
unlawful
trespass
bless
you
and
we
have
subsection
b,
dealt
with
as
contempt
of
court
and
there's
an
and
in
between
there.
So
I
I
think
it
was
brought
out
that
obviously,
trespass
is
a
criminal
misdemeanor.
A
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
intent
is
to
sort
of
take
remove
a
dangerous
situation
where
an
offender
is
violating
a
no
contact
order.
Whether
law
enforcement
is
this.
Is
this
a
mandatory
arrest
situation?
Is
this
a
site
situation
and
again
that
may
be
for
law
enforcement?
I
wanted
to
get
your
thoughts
while
you're
at
the
table.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair
yeager.
Let
me
just
be
clear
on
the
top
of
page
three,
it's
my
intent
that
that
should
be
an
or
I
missed
that
I
do
not
want
people
charged
for
both,
but
I
do
want
courts
to
have
the
ability
to
do
to
do
an
unlawful
trespass,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
take
away
their
ability
to
do
a
contempt
of
court,
which
is
what
they
do
today
and
so
that'll
be
up
to
the
court's
discretion
and
again
I
also
intend
to
add
a
a
third
condition.
F
F
Then
that
is
perfectly
fine
with
me
if
they
need
to
arrest
someone
because
they're
being
unruly
and
are
telling
them
to
insert
you
know
rude
things
here,
indicating
that
they
will
come
back
even
after
a
citation,
then
you
know
the
officers
are
going
to
to
need
to
provide
some
remedy
to
the
victim,
but
by
no
means
would
I
encourage
this
to
be
a
mandatory
arrest.
If
a
citation
and
being
able
to
escort
someone
off
the
property
will
suffice.
A
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
again,
so
I
just
had
another
question
listening
to
this
hearing,
so
this
is
a
remedy
for
victims.
So
would
the
victim
have
to
appear
at
the
bail
hearing
and
ask
for
this?
Would
they
have
to
go
to
the
district
attorney?
C
Also?
Is
it
easier
to
get
like
what
is
the
preponderance
of
the
evidence
here
to
say,
hey,
I
deserve,
or
am
in
need
of
this
and
then
in
the
process.
So
you
also
stated
I'm
sorry
and
I
might
have
multiple
questions,
so
you
said
that
this
was
the
fastest
way
for
for
a
victim
to
to
get
protection,
and
then
they
would
then
you
would
also
ask
them
to
seek
a
tpo.
C
So
I,
as
many
folks
know,
I'm
a
survivor
of
domestic
violence,
and
I
just
am
thinking
of
how
many
times
I
had
to
go
to
the
corps
for
a
hearing
right
then
I
had
to
show
up
in
court.
Then
the
court
case
got
delayed
right,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
how
or
what
the
burden
on
a
victim
would
be
to
seek.
C
F
So,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblement
gonzalez
a
couple
of
things
we're
giving
the
victim
the
ability
to
request
one
the
victim
is
by
no
means
the
only
person
who
can
request
one.
They
will
not
only
be
issued
if
the
victim
asks
for
it.
A
lot
of
prosecutors
as
a
matter
of
course,
especially
depending
on
what
the
crime
is,
will
ask
for
this
as
a
condition
of
bail.
The
court
can
issue
it
suspente.
F
You
know
on
the
on
their
own
as
a
condition
of
of
of
release.
If
they
find
that
to
be
appropriate,
the
victim
does
not
have
to
to
move
for
it,
but
they
now
can,
and
the
second
part
of
your
your
comment,
slash
questions
is
really,
I
think,
a
good
example
of
why
this
bill
is
needed.
It
can
be
kind
of
cumbersome
to
go
and
get
a
temporary
restraining
order.
You
do
have
to
go
to
court
multiple
times
and
maybe,
if
there's
a
pending
criminal
case
and
you've
got
a
no
contact,
that's
good.
F
Now
for
at
least
120
days,
you
now
have
some
way
to
have
that
no
contact
enforced.
I,
by
no
means,
however,
want
victims
to
simply
rely
on
no
contacts.
I
do
want
them
to
get
the
restraining
order.
It
is
a
stronger
mechanism
than
the
no
contact,
and
so
that's
why
I
say
yes:
victims
should
be
getting
temporary
restraining
orders.
However,
if
you
have
a
no
contact
order
in
your
criminal
case,
the
officers
will
now
be
able
to
look
that
up
and
know
it
right
away.
F
If
someone
shows
up
at
your
door,
I'm
hoping
this
gives
victims
time
to
get
the
temporary
restraining
order.
Because,
again
you
have
to
go
to
work,
and
that
takes
you
know
you
have
to
get
the
days
off.
You
got
to
go
back,
you
can
get
the
temporary
for
seven,
but
then
maybe
you
need
the
extended
right.
F
It
is
the
stronger
mechanism
and
and
that's
why
there's
a
bit
more
due
process
built
built
into
it,
and
so
what
we're
really
trying
to
do
is
is
put
a
little
bit
more
teeth
in
the
no
contact
so
that
victims
can
feel
safe.
In
the
meantime,.
C
Thank
you
so
much
senator
and
just
a
follow-up
in
listening
to
the
response.
So
is
the
issue.
C
F
You
for
the
question
officers
not
being
able
to
see
it
is
one
of
the
problems
of
why
they
can't
enforce
it.
The
other
problem
is
there's
no
underlying
crime
that
they
are
traditionally
tasked
with
enforcing,
and
so
that's
why
we
do
the
trespass
as
your
second
part
about
why
we
just
don't
do
it
as
bail.
We
do
right
now.
People
issue
no
contact
orders
as
part
of
a
pre-trial
release,
condition
that
happens.
F
We
just
now
need
a
way
for
officers
to
be
able
to
enforce
it
in
an
easy
manner,
and
I
I
think
the
best
way
to
do
that
is
to
put
it
into
the
same
system.
We
do
with
tpos,
so
officers
can
look
it
up
and
and
put
some
teeth
behind
it.
E
Hey
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
will
make
it
very
fast.
First
senator
I
want
to
thank
you
for
this
bill.
It
gives
the
officer
a
chance
to
de-escalate
a
situation
before
it
turns
into
something.
E
A
And
that
reminds
me
something
when
120
days,
maybe
too
long,
given
our
experience
that
we're
all
having
during
this
session
but
we'll
leave
it,
as
is
for
now
so
committee
members.
I
know
there
may
be
additional
questions
I
want
to
let
you
know,
obviously
we're
not
testimony
in
the
bill,
but
we
won't
work
session
this
bill
today,
because
I
want
to
give
members
an
opportunity
to
ask
any
follow-up
questions,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I
think
we
have
to
move
on
from
questions
at
this
time
and
take
some
testimony
so
senator
harris.
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
chuck
callaway
for
the
record
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
I
wasn't
going
to
testify
on
this
bill,
but
due
to
all
the
questions
for
law
enforcement,
I
thought
I'd
come
to
the
table
and
I
do
support
the
concept
behind
the
bill.
I
First
of
all,
this
is
not
a
bill
that
law
enforcement
asked
for.
I'm
not,
I
believe
the
senator
said
it
came
from
victims
groups,
but
I
think
it
is
important
because
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
we
see
is
the
communication
factor
and,
if
someone's
in
a
courtroom
and
a
judge
gives
an
order
that
they
stay
away
from
someone
and
that
order
is
strictly
in
the
records
of
that
hearing.
An
officer
in
the
field
has
no
way
of
knowing
that
and
then
what
typically
happens
is
the
victim.
I
This
would
allow
for
that
communication
gap
to
be
closed,
where
this
information
could
be
given
to
our
records
section
and
put
into
scope
and
then
what
typically
happens
on
a
temporary
protective
order,
and
I
believe
this
would
apply
in
this
situation
as
well,
when
the
officer
responds.
First
of
all,
we
don't
just
take
the
word
of
someone.
We
have
to
confirm
and
verify
so
through
our
dispatch
center.
We
we
verify
that
we
do
have
on
record
that
there
is
an
order
from
the
court.
I
If
the
person
needs
to
be
served
like
in
the
case
of
a
tpo,
and
they
have
not
been
served,
then
we
will
give
that
person
service
and
give
them
an
opportunity
to
leave
and
then,
if
they
were
to
return
or
to
harass
the
victim
after
being
served,
then
an
arrest
could
be
made
there
isn't.
I
will
say
this:
there
is
no
leeway
or
discretion
when
it
comes
to
a
court
order.
I
These
orders
say:
shall
an
officer
shall
make
an
arrest
if
the
person
violates
the
order,
and
so
if
an
officer
shows
up
and
someone
has
violated
a
court
order,
the
officer
doesn't
have
the
discretion
to
say
well
for
this
guy
all
in
force,
and
for
that
guy
I
won't
enforce.
I
like
your
smile,
so
we'll
let
you
go,
you
look
mean
I'm
going
to
arrest
you.
It
doesn't
work
that
way
when
we
enforce
court
orders
and
in
particular,
temporary
protective
orders.
These
are
orders
from
the
court.
I
I
realize
that
in
the
case
of
this
bill,
this
applies
to
a
misdemeanor,
the
trespass
statute,
typically
for
a
trespass,
someone
has
to
be
given
a
warning
and
given
an
opportunity
to
leave
it's
and
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
but
it's
my
opinion
that
the
judge
telling
the
per
given
the
person
the
stay
away
order
would
would
serve
as
the
warning
to
that
person
and
then,
if
they
subsequently
violate
the
order
and
show
up,
then
an
arrest
would
be
warranted.
I
I
would
be
very
leery
about
giving
someone
a
warning
or
giving
them
a
citation
and
sending
them
on
their
way
when
they
are
actively
harassing
a
victim.
We've
had
48
murders
this
year
in
our
in
our
jurisdiction
in
clark,
county
and
a
significant
portion
of
those
are
domestic
violence
related.
So,
if
someone's
in
a
dangerous
relationship
and
the
suspect
in
that
relationship,
is
violating
a
court
order
and
showing
up
at
their
doorstep,
I
don't
see
an
officer
giving
that
person
a
ticket
and
letting
them
go
their
merry
way.
I
I
I
believe
that
pretty
much
covers
it,
but
it
is
our
opinion
that
you
know
it
is
important,
and
this
is
one
of
the
issues
that
we
worked
hard
on
in
in
ab236
last
session.
My
opinion
is
that
if
a
judge
tells
somebody
to
do
something
as
a
stipulation
of
the
conditions
of
their
case,
they
should
listen
to
the
judge,
regardless
of
what
that
is.
If
the
judge
says
don't
drink
alcohol
because
you
were
involved
in
a
domestic
or
in
a
dui
and
the
person
says,
I
don't
care
what
the
judge
says.
I
I'm
going
to
drink
alcohol
anyway
or
the
judge
says,
don't
go
near
this
person
because
you've
battered
them
in
the
past
or
you're
accused
of
battering
them
and
the
person
says
I
don't
care
what
you
say.
Judge
I'm
going
to
go,
show
up
this
person's
doorstep
anyway.
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
teeth
in
the
law
to
address
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
J
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee
cory
selfrino
representing
the
wash
county
sheriff's
office.
It's
good
to
see
everybody
in
person,
so
my
first
opportunity
to
testify
in
person
this
this
session
in
front
of
your
honorable
committee,
director
callaway
hit
the
nail
right
on
the
head.
He
explained
it
eloquently.
We
wanted
to
garner
our
support
for
sb147
and
want
to
thank
the
senator
for
her
work
on
this.
It
by
no
means
is
perfect
legislation,
but
it's
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
J
You've
heard
several
bills
this
session
and
there's
several
bills
that
are
coming
in
other
committees
regarding
siege's
modernization
and
communications,
and
the
ability
to
talk
to
criminal
justice
agencies
across
the
state
and
share
that
real-time
information
and
and
that's
what
this
is
trying
to
do.
This
is
trying
to
assist
victims,
there's
nothing
more
heart-wrenching
than
an
officer
on
scene
dealing
with
a
victim
not
being
able
to
do
anything
for
that
victim
other
than
say,
well,
call
us
next
time
they
come
because
no
crime's
been
committed.
J
K
K
I
wanted
to
make
a
comment
that
this
session,
this
committee
and
the
senate
judiciary
committee
and
this
body
as
a
whole
have
prioritized
the
prompt
release
of
persons
accused
of
crimes
and
part
of
being
able
to
release.
People
quickly
is
to
fashion
conditions
that
assure
safety
for
the
community
and
particularly
the
victim,
and
I
know
that
you
all
are
aware
that
we
have
a
constitutional
mandate,
marsy's
law,
to
consider
the
rights
of
victims
and
the
safety
of
victims
when
we're
fashioning
these
conditions
of
release.
K
So,
while
we
have
concerns,
perhaps
about
enforcement
of
this
stop
gap
measure
that
senator
harris
has
proposed,
I
ask
you,
when
you're
thinking
about
it,
to
consider
that
constitutional
mandate
and
to
consider
that
when
you
have
measures
like
this,
it
can
provide
judges
with
more
tools
to
assure
safety
of
the
victim
and
safety
of
the
community,
thus
letting
the
person
out
of
custody
faster.
Thank
you.
A
D
K
L-I-Z-O-R-T-E-N-B-U-R-G-E-R
and
I'm
the
ceo
for
safe
nest
and
I'll
start
by
saying
that
the
34
homicides
that
mr
callaway
mentioned
24
of
those
are
domestic
violence.
In
fact,
seven
domestic
violence
victims
have
been
murdered
in
clark
county
since
your
session
began
safeness
as
part
of
our
suite
of
domestic
violence.
Services
includes
advocates
in
clark,
county
justice,
court
annually,
safe
nest
supports
over
25
thousand
victims,
batterers
and
children
affected
by
domestic
violence
within
the
justice
court.
We
support
more
than
two
thousand
domestic
violence
survivors
each
year.
K
The
survivors
are
navigating
the
court
case
associated
with
the
violence
that
was
committed
against
them.
Clark.
County
justice
system
is
currently
using
no
contact
orders.
However,
they
lack
the
enforcement
necessary
to
provide
more
than
a
piece
of
paper
to
survivors,
while
judges
work
to
ensure
a
defendant
understands
the
order
without
enforcement
once
they
leave
the
courtroom,
it
does
not
help
a
survivor
feeling
safe
or
supported
here
is
what
we
see.
K
The
law
enforcement
does
not
have
a
copy
of
the
no
contact
order
as
they
do
of
protection
orders.
So
if
it's
violated
the
survivor
calls
the
police
and
says
they
have
a
no
contact
order.
They
don't
know
what
they're
talking
about
if
the
no
contact
order
is
violated,
the
burden
of
notification
and
proof
is
on
the
survivor.
K
The
survivor
has
to
call
my
staff
at
the
da's
office
or
the
da
advocate
and
then
notify
the
da
that
they
will
have
to
ask
the
courts
to
put
it
back
on
the
calendar,
which
will
take
a
few
weeks.
Safenet
supports
this
bill,
as
it
includes
two
critical
elements
that
help
our
court
systems.
It
makes
survivors
safer
because
it
can
be
enforced
and
it
includes
law
enforcement
as
a
critical
element
in
combating
domestic
violence
and,
in
its
case,
an
increased
risk
of
domestic
violence.
K
A
D
L
A
A
E
Good
morning,
terry
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
First,
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
senator
harris
for
all
of
her
work
in
the
pre-trial
release
bills.
She
led
the
committee
on
the
interim
committee
on
pre-trial
release
and
we're
very
grateful
for
all
the
hard
work
that
she's
done
to
reform
bail.
E
I
would
just
start
that
this
is
not
a
bail
reform
legislation,
as
you
heard
her
indicate,
this
was
a
request
from
the
city
of
henderson,
and
I
think,
what's
really
important
to
note-
is
the
process
for
obtaining
a
tpo.
If
someone
wants
to
request
an
emergency
temporary
protective
order,
they
have
the
ability
to
ask
one.
24,
7.
courts
are
open
at
any
hour
of
any
day
in
order
to
ensure
that
someone
has
access
to
it.
I
know
I've
had
the
privilege
of
working
with
the
after
hours
tpo
program.
E
Where
what
happens
is
the
police
officers
will
give
the
victim
the
our
cell
phone
number
to
be
able
to
reach
us?
Where,
then,
I
would
go
through
the
application
fill
it
out.
Call
the
judge
and
work
on
everything
so
that
to
ensure
that
the
victim
had
that
tpo
before
someone
would
be
released,
the
problem
with
this
bill
is
well
first,
I
want
to
start
with.
I
have
concerns
regarding
section
1,
subsection
7..
E
I
appreciate
that
it
in
indicates
that
this
the
victim
doesn't
have
to
provide
the
information
to
the
court
before
that
the
condition
of
release
could
be
enforced.
My
concern
with
that
is
that
the
victim
may
not
even
be
requesting
this
and
then
it
automatically
gets
imposed.
I
believe
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
testimony
from
the
sponsor,
as
well
as
from
some
of
the
support,
is
that
this
should
not
be
considered
as
a
way
to
find
good
cause
to
continue
that
bail
hearing.
E
What
we're
currently
seeing
is
that,
if
someone's
not
unable
to
contact
a
complaining,
witness
or
the
victim
prior
to
the
bail
hearing,
it
gets
continued
and
I
don't
because
this
could
be
done
suspente.
I
don't
think
that
should
be
a
basis
of
it.
I
would
also
note
that
these
stay
away.
Orders
aren't
just
placed
on
for
victims
it's
on
places,
so,
for
example,
if
there's
a
store
that
was
involved
in
a
crime,
then
the
person
would
be
just
told
to
stay
away
from
that
property.
E
So
I
do
appreciate
that
we're
discussing
this
in
terms
of
tpos,
but
I
would
just
note
that,
for
the
epos
and
tpos,
those
are
very
important
procedures
that
also
come
with.
Sometimes
child
support
can
be
attached
to
at,
and
so
my
concern
is
that,
if
we're
using
this
as
a
tool,
then
people
aren't
obtaining
those
tpos
and
epos
that
they're
needed
they're
not
getting
the
help.
It's
confusing
the
process.
E
It's
confusing
the
victims
to
know
how
to
change
the
orders,
modify
the
orders
because
they're
having
now
potentially
two
different
orders
and
two
different
judges
to
go
to.
So
that's
our
our
main
concern
is
just
the
confusion
that
will
be
caused
if
this
is
put
into
an
effect
and
that
it
could
have
a
chilling
effect
on
the
victim,
actually
obtaining
that
tpo
and
epo,
which
will
provide
them
with
services,
access
to
grants,
access
to
funding,
and
so
that
is
our
biggest
concerns.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
john
pure
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
testifying
in
opposition,
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
trying
to
walk
what
I
think
is
a
tightrope
with
this
bill.
We
do
have
some
concerns,
though
one
of
the
concerns
is,
if
you
are
charged
with
a
crime,
you
are
innocent
until
proven
guilty.
So
what
if
the
underlying
charge
is
dismissed,
but
then
this
charge
sticks
and
then
you
still
have
a
crime
on
your
your
record,
we're
also
counting
on
the
criminal
history
repository
and
I've
dealt
with
them
extensively.
M
M
Another
thing
of
concern-
I
I
do
agree
with
senator
harris
both
of
the
police
agencies
and
ms
noble,
that
the
court
minutes
are
not
really
helpful
to
police
officers,
so
this
would
provide
more
help,
but
then
the
court
is
going
to
have
to
give
a
more
stringent
order
in
that
sense,
because,
right
now
the
courts
are
just
verbalizing
it
to
people
so
that
the
court
is
definitely
going
to
have
to
give
an
order
in
the
form
of
a
tpo
as
people
are
given,
because
when
you
get
are
given
the
tpo
you
you
have
that
order
on
you,
you're
able
to
show
it
to
the
police.
M
So
both
parties
will
need
to
have
this
order
on
them,
and
sometimes
victims
are
not
present
at
the
bail
hearings.
M
The
last
thing
that
I
do
want
to
say
is
that
we
have
continued
to
criminalize
things
and
it
really
hasn't
helped
the
systemic
domestic
violence
issues
that
we
have
in
this
state
and
that
that
is
very
concerning
we.
We
continue
not
to
fund
resources,
but
we
continue
to
criminalize
and
we
are
still
one
of
the
worst
states
in
the
nation.
A
Thank
you,
mr
pirro,
and
I
realize
there
may
be
questions
and
committee
members.
I
just
asked
you
to
take
those
offline
in
the
interest
of
time,
since
we
have
another
bill.
That
is
quite
interesting
as
well.
Anyone
else
in
the
room
here
in
opposition
to
some
senate
bill
147,
seeing
no
one
else
coming
forward,
seeing
no
one
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
please
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
opposition.
D
L
A
A
A
E
Welcome
good
morning,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
keith
lee
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
judges
of
limited
jurisdiction,
we're
the
justices
of
the
peace
and
munich
court
judges,
and
I
think
there
were
some
questions
out
there,
mr
chair,
so
I'm
here
to
try
to
answer
them
on
behalf
of
the
court.
If
there's
still
any
pending
questions
pending
with.
G
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
lee.
I
think
the
only
question
that
I
had
was
just
one
of:
is
the
court
going
to
be
equipped
to
be
able
to
provide
this
information
quickly
to
the
central
repository,
whether
they're
issuing
the
orders,
whether
they're
modifying
them,
extending
them
or
canceling
them,
and
your
discussions
with
the
courts
is.
Do
you
think
that's
going
to
be
an
issue
at
all?
Mr
chairman
keith
lee.
G
For
the
record,
I
do
not
believe
it's
going
to
be
any
any
any
problem
at
all,
and
I
might
just.
E
G
And
and
we
believe
the
courts,
and
they
do
in
fact
have
the
inherent
authority
to
impose
a
non-contact
order
as
part
of
a
condition
of
a
release
as
well.
So
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
this
puts
in
statute
what
we
believe
the
inherent
authority
of
the
of
the
justices
court
are
right
now.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Mr
lee
appreciate
you
being
here
and
committee.
If
you
do
have
questions
for
mr
lee
after
this
morning's
hearing,
please
find
him
he's
usually
over
here
in
the
judiciary
corner
somewhere
in
the
building.
So
you'll
probably
find
him
there.
Is
there
anybody
else
in
the
room
in
neutral?
A
D
L
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
serena
evans,
s-e-r-e-n-a
e-v-a-n-s
and
I'm
the
policy
coordinator
for
the
nevada
coalition
and
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
We're
thankful
for
senator
harris
and
her
comments
and
recognizing
that
these
stay
away.
Orders
should
not
replace
protectors,
and
we
just
want
to
go
on
record
and
emphasize
those
comments
that
this
process
should
absolutely
not
replace.
The
temporary
protection
orders
that
victim
survivors
of
domestic
and
sexual
violence
can
access.
Emergency
protection.
Orders
can
be
processed
for
victim
survivors,
24,
7.
L
and
temporary
protection
orders
have
a
proven
track
record
of
being
enforceable
and
they
allow
for
victim
survivors
to
then
apply
for
an
extended
protection
order,
which
offers
long-term
protection
and
safety
protection.
Orders
also
offer
more
robust
protections
aside
from
just
stay
away,
orders
because
of
the
high
risks
associated
with
leaving
an
abusive
relationship
and
having
the
perpetrator
arrested.
We
still
encourage
victim
survivors
to
access
the
traditional
temporary
and
then
extended
protection
orders
rather
than
these
stay
away
orders.
L
L
Excuse
me.
So,
while
these
stay
away,
orders
may
be
a
good
option
for
some
victim
survivors
and
as
an
intermediate
step,
we
still
want
to
make
sure
that
for
long-term
safety
planning,
victim
survivors
of
domestic
and
sexual
violence
are
encouraged
to
and
still
seek,
traditional
protection
orders.
Thank
you
so
much.
D
A
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
yeager
and
I
promise
I'll
keep
it
as
brief
as
possible.
I
want
to
turn
the
committee's
attention
to
section
four
of
the
bill
where
we
have
appropriated
forty
four
thousand
five
hundred
twenty
two
dollars
for
computer
programming
if
they
use
that
to
put
stuff
in
an
excel
sheet,
we're
gonna
have
some
problems,
and
I
mean
that
right.
F
I
might
have
been
able
to
keep
a
fiscal
note
off
of
it
if
I
was
going
to
allow
them
to
just
put
an
excel
sheet.
That
is
not
the
intention
of
how
this
will
be
enforced
and
then,
lastly,
you
know
mr
pierre
brought
up
the
idea
of
whether
the
underlying
crime
is
is
dismissed,
but
they
violate
a
no
contact
order,
whether
they've
committed
a
new
crime
and-
and
we
have
maybe
we
have
philosophical
differences.
In
my
estimation,
yes,
you
have.
F
A
Thank
you
so
much
senator
harris,
I'm
not
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
147
moving
right
along
committee,
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
236
senate
bill
236
makes
various
changes
relating
to
public
safety,
and
just
so
I
can
give
everyone
a
lay
of
the
land
folks
here
and
and
members
of
the
public.
Both
the
assembly
and
the
senate
have
a
floor
session
at
11
and
I'm
told
that
we
need
to
be
there
on
time.
A
So
what
we're
going
to
do
with
this
bill
is,
I
think,
we're
going
to
take
about
20
minutes
or
so
to
present
the
bill
in
questions,
and
that
should
give
us
ample
time
for
testimony
and
public
comments.
So
we
do
not
draw
the
ire
of
the
speaker
and
the
senate
majority
leader.
So
with
that
being
said,
senator
harris
please
go
ahead
in
presenting
senate
bill
236
and
then
we'll
take
as
many
questions
as
we
can.
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
yeager
members
of
the
assembly,
judiciary
committee.
Again,
I
am
dallas
harris
representing
senate
district
11,
and
I
will
try
and
keep
my
presentation
as
brief
as
possible
to
give
you
all
the
full
question
time
this
bill
does
a
couple
of
of
great
things:
one.
It
requires
police
departments
to
establish
an
early
warning
system
so
that
they
can
keep
an
eye
on
whether
some
of
their
officers
are
displaying
bias.
F
If
they
find
that
their
officers
may
be
displaying
some
bias
in
the
field,
then
there
are
some
curative
measures
that
can
be
put
into
place:
additional
supervision,
additional
training,
whatever
the
police
department
feels,
is
necessary.
If
the.
If
the
officer
is
repeatedly
identified
by
the
early
warning
system,
then
there
are
other
consequences
that
may
follow,
which
will
be,
of
course,
implemented
through
the
current
existing
collective
bargaining
agreements
and
existing
hr
procedures,
for
when
any
type
of
punishment
for
an
officer
is
put
into
place
simply
put
guys.
F
F
The
next
piece
of
this
bill
traffic
enforcement
data
we're
going
to
collect
some
data
on
how
traffic
stops
are
happening
in
our
state
to
determine
whether
there
is
any
bias
in
those
traffic
stops.
The
only
way
to
figure
that
out
is
to
start
taking
a
look
at
it,
and
we
did
this
once.
I
don't
know
if
you
all
are
familiar,
but
we
had
a
bill
and
I
believe
it
was
the
late
90s
that
did
some
traffic
stop.
Data
collection
and
officers
were
filling
out
these
handwritten
cards.
F
We
got
the
data
and
then
we
did
nothing
with
it.
That
data
is
now
well
outdated.
This
bill
will
again
put
into
an
electronic
system
that
officers
are
already
using,
allow
them
to
collect
a
little
bit
of
additional
data,
we're
going
to
make
that
data
public,
we're
going
to
do
it
statewide
and
then
us,
as
a
legislative
body,
we'll
have
additional
information
needed
to
decide
if
there's
something
that
we
need
to
do
to
address
that
bias
if
it
exists,
and
then
lastly,
there
is
a
a
legislative
commission
interim
study
here
in
this
bill.
F
One
thing
I'd
like
to
do
is
take
a
really
good
look,
and
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
very
long
discussion
about
what
police
respond
to
we've
taken
some
great
steps,
this
session,
with
setting
up
988,
where
we're
looking
at
the
mental
health
issues,
which
is
which
is
great,
but
if
you
think
about
it
for
a
second,
there
are
lots
of
different
types
of
crises.
Right.
If
your
house
is
on
fire,
we
call
the
police
if
you're
having
a
medical
emergency,
we
call
an
ambulance.
F
If
there's
a
gas
leak
in
your
home,
you
should
probably
call
your
gas
company
to
respond
to
that
particular
crisis.
We
expect
police
to
respond
to
every
other
type
of
crisis
under
the
sun.
Aside
from
those
three-
and
I
think
it's
time
we
take
a
look
at
if
that's
the
best
way
to
do
it
to
handle
policing,
and
so
that's
what
the
goal
of
the
interim
study
would
be
to
take
a
look
at
creating
a
a
call
center.
That
would
divert
some
of
those
police
interactions.
F
With
that,
I
will
take
any
questions.
It
is
a
a
big
bill
and
I
find
this
to
be
a
piece
that
goes
along
with
a
lot
of
the
other
things
that
we
are
doing
this
session,
but
it's
my
intention
to
take
a
really
good
look
at
some
of
these
things
and
see
if
we
need
to
address
anything
further.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
so
much
senator
harris
we'll
get
to
questions
in
just
a
moment.
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
really
appreciate
the
the
study
portion
of
this
bill.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
try
to
maximize
law
enforcement
resources
to
approach
respond
to
appropriate
calls.
I
think
we've
always
done
a
very
poor
job
in
the
state.
Frankly
of
responding
to
mental
health
issues
and
we've
expected
our
officers
to
try
to
handle
some
of
those
very
complex
issues
that
are
really
more
social
work
type
issues.
So
I
thank
you
for
that
study.
A
The
one
question
I
had
before
I
want
to
take
questions
from
other
committee
members.
In
section
one
of
the
bill
on
line
six,
we
talk
about
displaying
bias
indicators
and
I'll.
Tell
you
when
I
first
read
the
bill,
I
thought
well
bias.
Bias
must
mean
racial
bias.
A
I
just
thought
that
in
my
head,
I
don't
think
bias
is
defined
in
the
bill,
but
in
looking
at
the
examples
listed
of
the
bias
indicators-
certainly
I
I
was
reading
that
too
narrowly,
because
a
lot
of
these
things
listed
having
a
large
number
of
citizen
complaints
that
may
or
may
not
be
a
racial
issue
or
incidents
for
use
of
force.
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
on
the
record
since
there's
there's
not
a
definition
there.
What
your
intent
was
with
respect
to
using
the
word
bias.
How
did
you
envision
that?
To?
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair
yeager.
I
think
the
key
here
is
not
biased
but
bias
indicators
right.
I
think
a
lot
of
people
have
read
this
as
determining.
If
you
have
any
one
of
these,
you
must
be
biased,
and
that
is
by
no
means
the
goal
of
this
bill.
Okay,
and
so
the
reason
why
we
have
things
like
having
a
large
number
of
complaints
or
a
large
number
of
incidents
involving
the
use
of
force,
is
it's
meant
to
be
a
flag
that
says
hey?
F
Let's
take
a
deeper
look
at
this
and,
of
course,
maybe
you
are
using
force
excessively
against
people
indiscriminately
and
that's
a
whole
other
issue
that
the
officer
may
need
to
to
address
right
and
it.
This
is
also
not
designed
to
say
any
one
of
these
things
is
an
indicator
of
bias,
but
if
a
couple
of
these
things
happen,
if
you
meet
two
or
three
of
these
prongs
or
four
or
five,
whatever
the
police
department's
add-on
or
whatever
indicators,
they
think
would
be
sufficient,
then
it's
clear.
We
need
to
take
a
look.
F
It
really
is
just
a
flag
to
say:
hey.
Let's
look
a
little
bit
deeper.
Let's
look
into
the
data.
If
you
have
a
large
number
of
incidents
of
citizens,
complaints,
let's
take
a
look
at
who
those
complaints
are,
it
may
or
may
not
be
biased,
that'll
be
up
to
the
the
police
departments
to
determine,
and
so
you
know
your
question
was
defining
bias
and
I,
I
think
that's
a
fairly
general
term.
F
We
all
have
implicit
bias
and
we
all
don't
know
it,
but
the
goal
here
is
to
give
a
little
flag
and
say:
maybe
we
need
to
look
a
little
bit
deeper
into
this,
because
for
some
reason
you
have
more
resisting
arrest
than
anyone
else
or
you
have
more
use
of
force,
complaints
than
others.
Let's
take
a
deep
dive,
you
may
or
may
not
need
additional
training
and
and
that'll
be
up
to
the
police
departments
who
are
who
are
well
suited
at
doing
those
types
of
things.
A
K
Thank
you
senator
and
thank
you
for
presenting
the
bill.
My
question
is
just
so
I
can
understand
better
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
answer
this
question
or
if
it's
law
enforcement
that
can,
but
what
is
what
is
currently
being
done.
So
if
there's
behavior,
that
is,
is
erratic
from
a
current
police
officer,
I
would
imagine,
there's
probably
something
currently
in
place
and
I'm
just
wondering
what
is
currently
in
place
that
isn't
working
or
is
working.
That
brings
us
about
just
for
an
overview
of
you
know.
F
Thank
you
for
the
the
question
assemblywoman
kasama
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
law
enforcement.
There
they're
here
in
the
back.
I
do
know
that
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
has
an
early
warning
system.
They
are
looking
out
for
for
these
indicators.
F
K
F
Thank
you
for
the
question,
someone
because
I'm
a
yes,
that
is
the
goal.
Thank
you.
E
E
The
tremendous
amount
of
stress
and
adrenaline
that
I
see
in
these
interactions
lead
me
to
wonder.
Sometimes
if
reactions
are
not
necessarily
based
on
bias,
but
just
the
tremendous
amount
of
stress
and
life
and
death
that
an
officer
is
in
the
moment
and
I'm
just
curious.
If
we
have
a
way
of
do,
we
already
track
that
kind
of
stress
and
are
we
conflating
or
mixing
those
with
bias.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
hanson,
I
I
think
you're
right
officers
are
in
stressful
situations,
all
the
time
and
a
lot
of
time
that
drives
their
actions
in
the
moment,
which
is
why
we're
taking
a
look
at
a
large
number
of
complaints
right
or
a
large
number
of
resisting
arrests
and
the
way
that
we
could
figure
that
out
is
I'm
sure
police
departments
have
an
idea
of
what
the
average
is
right.
F
I
mean
I'm
sure
there
is
a
normal
curve
upon
which,
based
upon
your
years
of
expertise,
let's
say
across
the
state
officers
in
their
first
year
to
have
an
average
of
three
complaints,
let's
say,
but
if
you
have
an
officer
who
has
10
in
his
first
year,
you
may
want
to
take
a
look
at
that
right
and
again,
this
is
not
to
say
if
you
hit
one
of
these
flags,
you
are
in
indicating
bias
that
you
are
biased
against
folks.
It's
a
warning
system.
It's
saying,
let's
take
a
look.
E
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that,
and-
and
yes
I
I
mean,
I
love
this
idea
of
the
study
and
I
I
would
be
interested
to
learn,
maybe
as
we
go
a
little
bit
more
into
the
hearing
about
what
we
are
doing
right
now,
when
we
see
warning
signs
with
officers
whether
it's
related
to
some
sort
of
bias
or
it's
stress,
induced
and
has
nothing
to
do
with
a
bias
of
some
sort.
So
thank
you
so
much.
F
Oh,
thank
you
for
the
question
of
symbolic
hansen
and
you
know
I'm
not
entirely
sure.
Every
police
department
right
now
is
on
the
lookout
for
for
bias,
indicators
and
and
that's
the
goal
of
section
one.
C
So
much
chair
and
thank
you
so
much
senator
harris
for
the
spell
assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
I
don't
know
if
I
missed
it
in
your
presentation.
I'm
sorry
if
I
did
so
this
early
warning
system
is
this,
like
officers
are
like
reviewing
this
data,
are
we
creating
a
system?
Does
the
system
already
exist,
yeah
if
we
could
just
clear
that
from.
F
You
thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblewoman
gonzalez,
I
think
that's
going
to
vary
by
by
police
department,
so
I
do
know
las
vegas.
Metro
has
one
I
wanted
to.
I
intentionally
was
not
overly
prescriptive
on
this.
I
want
to
allow
police
departments
to
set
up
the
system
in
a
way
that
works
for
them,
without
putting
some
overly
burden
directive
from
us
here
at
the
legislature
on
how
it
must
be
done
or
what
software
they
must
use.
If
any,
the
key
to
me
is
that
they
are
on
the
lookout.
C
Thank
you
so
much,
and
so
with
that
we
would,
we
know
or
or
not
know
how
they're
reviewing
this
data.
If
the
data
is
reviewed
the
same,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
intent
is
there
for
each
that
we're
capturing
that
for
each
department.
F
Thank
you
for
that.
Assemblywoman
gonzalez,
you
know
I
I
did
not
put
a
reporting
provision
in
that.
They
must
come
to
us
and
tell
us
how
they
have
established
this
early
warning
system.
Initially,
I
had
in
the
bill
that
post
would
provide
some
rules
and
regulations
on
how
this
would
be
done,
but
they
put
a
fiscal
note
on
it.
So
post
will
now
not
be
providing
rules
and
regulations
and
each
law
law.
C
Thank
you
so
much
and
my
last
question
assembly
when
we
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record.
So
let's
say
that
this
system
does
identify
an
officer
right,
and
so
it
says
in
section
one
subsection
two,
it
I'm
sorry
section
three.
If
the
peace
officer
is
repeatedly
identified
by
this
early
warning
system
and
other
problematic
behavior,
then
the
agency
employs
the
peace
officer
shall
consider
the
consequences.
C
So
is
that
them
like?
Would
these
be
internal
reports
like?
How
would
we
know,
like
the
public
right
know
that
this
system
identified
an
officer
and
then
he
was
not
not
even
he
I'm
sorry,
they
were
either
sanctioned
or
not
sanctioned,
and
then
would
we
know
if
they
were
like
still
on
the
force
or
if
they
right.
So
I
just
I'm
wondering
more
so.
The
like
transparency,
part
of
the
intent
of
the
bill.
F
F
This
would
be
subject
to
what
I
believe
is
is
the
same
provisions
today.
Some
things
you
can,
you
can
put
in
a
foia
for
some
things
are
private.
I
do
want
to
make
it
clear
on
the
record
that
it
is
not
my
intention
that
people
will
be
able
to
look
up
any
particular
officer
and
be
able
to
you
know
kind
of
harass
them
right.
This
really
is
meant
to
be
a
preventative,
curative
measure
where
officers
should
not
feel
afraid
to
be
flagged
by
the
system.
F
I
want
them
to
be
able
to
be
like.
Oh
really,
I
had
no
idea,
let's
yeah
I'll,
take
some
additional
training.
Yeah
right.
I
don't
want
this
to
be
something
that
they
that
they
are
afraid
to
be
possibly
identified
by,
and
ideally
I
hope
that
it's
something
that
that
officers
will
embrace
and
be
willing
to
go.
Oh,
my
goodness,
really
I
had
no
idea.
I
was
accident.
You
know
that
I'm
arresting
a
certain
group
of
folks
more
than
another
yeah,
I'm
more
than
willing
to
get
a
little
bit
more
training.
G
G
Is
that
we're
inserting
government
into
the
daily
practices
and
telling
a
sheriff
or
police
chief
community
how
to
operate
law
enforcement
in
hawthorne,
mineral
county,
nye,
county
white
pine
county
is
totally
different.
G
I
think
you'd
agree
than
in
clark,
county
or
even
reno,
but
with
that
you
said
that
clark,
county
or
las
vegas
metro
is
already
doing
these
procedures
and
really
you
implied
that
they
wouldn't
need
this
bill
because
they're
already
doing
it,
have
you
surveyed
the
other
law
enforcement
agencies
throughout
the
state
to
see
who
is
and
who
isn't
having
some
kind
of
tracking
or
or
proactive
measurement
on.
This
is
my
first
question.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblyman
o'neill.
You
know
I
very
much
respect
that
every
police
department
is
different
and
that
is
why
the
bill
is
crafted
in
the
way
that
it
is
where
it
says
you
just
got
to
set
up
a
system,
I'm
not
directing
them
on
what
that
system
needs
to
look
like
or
or
how
they
do
it
or
what
the
numbers,
or
even
the
factors,
I'm
just
giving
some
examples
of
what
good
factors
might
be.
F
G
G
G
G
F
Statement,
I
I
I
would
a
supplement
o'neill
as
a
you
know,
a
difference
is
a
difference
of
opinion.
You
know
you
bring
up,
shall
consider.
I
find
that
to
be
the
lightest
touch
possible.
That
is,
if
you,
if
you
think
about
the
things
we
put
into
legislation
this
by
no
means
says
you
must
fire
someone
after
their
fourth
flag
on
an
early
warning
system.
It
says
you
shall
consider
some
consequences,
whether
you
enforce
those
consequences
or
not,
is
up
to
the
police
department.
F
A
Okay,
I
think
we
have
time
for
one
more
question
who's
going
to
ask
that
question.
Is
there
any
more
questions,
any
more
questions
up
here?
No,
no
more
questions
from
assemblyman
o'neill,
because
it'll
be
a
statement
and
then
it'll
be.
Do
you
agree
with
me?
I
I
give
you
credit
for
working
the
question
in
there.
I
appreciate
the
creativity
on
day,
116.,
okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
so
at
this
time,
we'll
leave
it
there.
Thank
you
senator
harris
and
thank
you
committee
members.
A
If
you
do
have
questions
later,
please
feel
free
to
follow
up
so
this
time
we're
going
to
open
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
236
we're
going
to
start
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city,
and
we
have
director
callaway
and
mr
chipak
from
the
aclu
at
the
table
together.
Please
note
that
committee
members
assemblyman
o'neill,
please
note
that
as
well
in
your
analysis
of
the
bill,
mr
calloway,
would
you
like
to
start
first.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
chuck
callaway
for
the
record
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
are
here
in
support
of
this
bill.
Today,
we've
worked
for
literally
months
on
this
bill
with
senator
harris.
She
has
been
a
great
legislator
to
work
with
this
session.
I
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
I
We
at
metro
have
had
an
early
warning
system,
it's
known
as
the
early
identification
and
intervention
program
we've
had
that
in
place
for
at
least
probably
20
years.
When
I
worked
the
street,
it
was
in
place,
it
has
evolved
over
the
years.
The
system
we
use
is
considered
a
best
practice
by
the
department
of
justice.
I
Basically,
it's
intended
to
identify
trends
in
behavior
and
to
give
a
supervisor
a
warning
when
an
officer
officer's
behavior
reaches
a
certain
threshold,
and
many
much
of
what's
in
this
bill
is
is
in
our
system,
for
example,
traffic
accidents.
If
an
officer
has
you
know
a
certain
number
of
traffic
accidents
in
a
in
a
short
time
frame,
that's
a
red
flag
that
the
supervisor
wants
to
look
into
that
and
find
out.
Why
is
there
problems
with
his
his
or
her
driving
practices?
I
Do
they
need
to
go
to
additional
training,
because,
obviously,
traffic
accidents
are
very
serious?
They
can
cause
injury
to
citizens,
injury
to
the
officer
and
and
costs
the
taxpayers
a
lot
of
money
and
then
there's
various
other
elements
of
the
system
that
also
are
tracked,
such
as
use
of
force.
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
early
warning
system
is
an
internal
tool
for
supervisors
to
track
and
correct
behavior.
I
It
is
not
intended
to
replace
internal
affairs
investigations.
It
is
not
intended
to
replace
labor
relations
practices
or,
in
some
cases,
criminal
investigations.
If
an
officer
has
a
complaint
against
them,
that
is
of
a
criminal
nature
that
will
be
investigated
by
our
criminal
internal
affairs
bureau
and
potential
charges
will
be
submitted
to
the
district
attorney's
office.
If
it
is
found
that
that
that
did
in
fact
happen
if
a
complaint
is
against
the
officer
for
a
policy
violation
such
as
discourtesy,
that
will
be
investigated
by
our
our
standard
internal
affairs
process.
I
In
some
cases,
the
citizens
review
board
will
will
look
at
issues
that
involve
an
officer
and
then,
of
course,
if
an
officer's
actions
warrant
a
sustainment,
then
our
labor
relations
board,
our
unit
uses
a
matrix
to
determine
the
appropriate
discipline.
Everything
from
a
contact
warning
from
a
supervisor
all
the
way
up
to
including
termination
of
that
officer
in
some
cases.
So
the
early
warning
system
is
one
piece
of
that
overall
puzzle.
I
E
Thank
you
chair
and
committee
members,
I'm
nick
chipak
with
the
hclu
of
nevada.
It
was
a
pleasure
to
be
up
here
with
mr
callaway
I'll
start
off
by
saying
that
if
our
version
of
this
bill
had
reached
the
committee,
we
would
probably
be
on
the
lookout
for
assemblyman
o'neal's,
bowie
knife.
E
I
recant
the
statement.
I
apologize.
We
we're
here
in
support
of
this
piece
of
legislation.
The
bias
in
policing
part
of
this
legislation
we
do
think
is
important.
We
do
not
believe
that
every
department
will
necessarily
get
it
right.
However,
by
giving
this
tool
to
many
departments,
we
believe
that
many
will
implement
this
correctly
and
it
can
be
beneficial
throughout
the
state
when
it
comes
to
the
traffic
stop
data,
we
believe
that's
the
best
part
of
this
bill.
E
E
As
far
as
the
study
goes,
I
think
we
all
know
that
we
are
moving
in
a
direction
where
we
want
to
find
ways
to
allow
police
to
do
police
work
and
have
mental
health
professionals
do
mental
health
work
and
that,
if
we
do
this
study,
it
may
lead
us
next
session
to
making
some
real
change
in
that
area.
That
is
well
informed
and
allow
police
to
really
focus
on
what
they're
best
at
and
what
we
need
them
for
and
for
those
reasons
we
support
the
bill
and
again
assemblyman.
I
apologize.
A
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
vice
chairwin
members
of
the
committee
corey
salfrieno,
representing
the
washoe
county
sheriff's
office.
I
do
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
put
on
the
record
our
support
for
sb
236.
I
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
our
long
conversations,
not
only
during
this
session
for
the
last
116
days,
but
also
during
the
interim.
J
We
had
some
very,
very
candid
and
courageous
conversations
during
the
interim
post
and
pre-incidents
that
changed
the
national
scope
of
policing
and
we
are
very
receptive
to
her
take
on
some
of
the
things
and
just
appreciate
her
willingness
to
work
with
us
and
become
an
you
know:
industry
expert
on
some
of
our
best
practices
so
to
like
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
also
utilize
an
early
warning
detection
system.
We
actually
have
a
couple
of
different
layers
of
protection
and,
just
briefly,
sir
I'll
walk
through
them.
J
Real
quick
through
our
blue
team,
there's
no
less
than
five
sets
of
command
level
eyes.
Looking
at
these
incidents
from
everything
from
a
traffic
accident
to
a
use
of
force
to
a
pursuit,
they're
first
looked
at
by
the
first
line,
supervisor
they're
found
within
or
outside
the
scope
of
the
policy
it
goes
to.
J
I
did
work
with
our
other
law
enforcement
agencies
in
northern
nevada
and
they
all
use
the
same
or
similar
systems.
So
we
do
find
this
to
be
a
good
management
tool
for
early
detection
type
systems
and
just
a
good
supervisory
supplement
to
identify,
what's
happening
outside
the
scope
of
maybe
your
days
off
your
days
on
and
understanding
what
your
people
are
doing
in
the
community.
We
do
believe
in
transparency.
H
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders
and
I'm
the
policy
director
of
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
236.
First,
we
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
forward
this
bill
and
for
taking
the
time
to
tackle
tough
issues
with
all
of
the
stakeholders.
H
This
session,
better
data
and
increased
transparency
is
needed
to
ensure
that
everyone
is
treated
fairly
by
law
enforcement
and
an
early
warning
system
to
detect
bias
and
problematic
behaviors
amongst
law
enforcement
can
prevent
an
officer
from
engaging
in
unlawful
use
of
force
or
profiling
in
the
first
place.
So
we
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
A
D
L
We
did
recently
oppose
the
bill
in
the
money
committee,
because
this
may
be
a
burden
to
agencies
who
cannot
afford
to
purchase
a
system
but
do
have
the
supervisory
command
structure
handling
this.
But
we
said
we'd
support
it.
With
the
prior
amendment.
We
wrote
a
letter
as
such
on
nellis
and
we're
here
in
support.
Thank
you.
D
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
in
support.
I
will
now
open
it
for
testimony
in
opposition.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city
in
opposition
to
the
bill?
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
We
don't
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
back
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
in
opposition,
please.
A
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
just
note
that
I
had
dr
neighbors,
I
believe,
signed
in
as
neutral,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
she
was
going
to
provide
testimony
or
perhaps
just
answer
any
questions
so
dr
neighbors,
if
you're
there
and
if
you're,
having
technical
difficulties.
If
you'd
like
to
email
the
committee,
we
would
appreciate
that
as
well.
So
at
this
time,
I'll
close
neutral
testimony
I'll
invite
senator
harris
back
up
to
the
table
to
make
concluding
remarks
on
senate
bill.
236.
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
yeager
and
committee
members
for
hearing
both
of
these
bills.
Today,
I
will
keep
my
closing
comments.
Short.
I
know
a
lot
of
you
have
questions.
We
are
on
day
116,
so
I
will
be
finding
each
and
every
one
of
you
and
in
hopes
to
make
a
serious
endeavor
to
address
any
and
all
concerns
that
you
have
again.
I
appreciate
your
time
today.
A
Thank
you
so
much
senator
harris,
I'm
now
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
236
and
senator
harris.
If
you
could
please
let
cher
scheible
know
that
we
wish
her
a
happy
birthday
today,
we
would
appreciate
it
and
I'm
sure
he's
not
listening,
but
is
also
a
former
assemblyman
justin
watkins
birthday.
So
happy
birthday,
mr
watkins,
I'm
not
gonna
tell
you
how
old
he
is
he's
a
little
bit
younger
than
me.
So
all
right,
so
we've
gotten
through
the
bills
that
takes
us
to
our
last
agenda
item,
which
is
public
comment.
A
I'm
gonna
now
open
public
comment.
We
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
provide
public
comment
this
morning?
A
D
L
Ann
marie
grant
a
n
n
e
m
a
r
I
e
g,
I
a
n
t,
sister,
thomas
purdy,
murdered
by
reno
police
and
washa
county
sheriff's
office
during
a
mental
health
crisis.
I
really
appreciated
the
ability
to
have
my
voice
heard
this
session,
and
I
know
it's
due
to
a
horrible
pandemic
covid,
but
it
has
given
me
the
ability
to
be
heard
and
for
so
long
I
haven't
been
heard
being
that
I
live
so
far
away
from
nevada.
L
But
I
did
just
book
my
ticket.
I
come
out
there
every
summer
to
hold
an
event
for
to
help
support
other
families
who
have
lost
their
love,
loved
ones,
to
law
enforcement
in
washoe
county,
so
I'll,
be
there
from
september
4th
till
the
15th
in
and
outside
the
jail
with.
My
banner,
hopefully
won't
be
surrounded
this
time
by
six
deputies,
with
one
of
them
keeping
his
hand
on
his
gun
the
entire
time
as
they
had
a
child
with
me,
but
I
also
wanted
to
mention.
L
A
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
public
comment
committee
members
anything
else
from
any
of
you
before
we
talk
about
what
comes
next.
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
so
committee.
We
have
heard
all
the
bills
that
are
in
our
possession.
We
currently
have
three
three
bills:
the
two
we
heard
today
and
the
one
we
had
in
joint
hearing
on
saturday,
so
we're
not
going
to
work
session
any
of
those
bills
right
now.
What
you're
likely
going
to
see
is
an
agenda
being
posted
for
each
of
the
next
four
days.
A
That
simply
say
work
session
call
of
the
chair,
so
I
do
anticipate
that
sometime,
we'll
be
getting
back
together
for
a
work
session.
I
just
don't
know
when
yet,
but
I
would
encourage
everyone,
particularly
for
the
bills
that
we're
on
today.
If
you
have
questions
for
senator
harris
to
try
to
reach
out
to
her
or
those
who
testified
today,
so
just
stay
tuned,
I
do
believe
we'll
be
getting
back
together
at
least
one
more
time
this
session.
A
So
again
we
have
floor
at
11,
so
make
sure
you
get
down
there
and
I'm
sure
we
will
see
you
all
soon
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
to
those
who
are
in
the
room
before
you
leave
it's
nice
to
have
you
back
in
the
room.
It
sure
is
nice
to
see
people
face
to
face
and
hear
your
testimony
live
and
in
person,
so
we
will
see
everybody
soon
have
a
great
day.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.