►
From YouTube: 3/16/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
D
E
A
Here
we
do
have
a
quorum,
I
believe
assemblywoman
krasner
is
in
the
building.
It
should
be
joining
us
shortly.
So
I'll
know
when
that
happens,
and
assemblywoman
summer's
armstrong
is
also
running
just
a
little
bit
late.
So
if
we
could
mark
those
two
absent
excuse
until
they
arrive
and
again
I'll,
try
to
remember
that
so
good
morning,
everybody
good
morning,
members
of
the
committee
good
morning,
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
watching
on
the
legislature's
website
or
on
our
youtube
channel.
A
I
want
to
welcome
you
to
day
44
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
on
this
morning's
agenda.
Just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
for
those
on
the
zoom.
Could
you
please
mute
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
feedback
we
sometimes
get,
and
then,
if
you
could
also
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
you
speak
particularly
for
our
presenters.
If
you
could
remember
to
state
your
name
after
you
are
asked
a
question
that
will
help
with
the
preparation
of
the
minutes.
A
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy.
That
is
perfectly
fine.
We
just
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
institution
and,
most
importantly,
of
our
very
hard
working
staff.
Finally,
many
of
the
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
the
meeting
that
includes
desktops
laptops,
iphones,
ipads
and
the
like.
A
A
Members
of
the
committee
members
of
the
public
you'll
see
that
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda.
Today
we
are
going
to
take
those
two
bills
in
order,
so
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
58
assembly
bill
58,
makes
changes
relating
to
the
authority
and
duties
of
the
attorney
general
and
before
we
before.
I
turn
it
over
to
attorney
general
ford.
A
I
wanted
to
let
the
members
know
and
members
of
the
public
know
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
from
the
attorney
general's
office
that
can
be
found
on
nellis
under
the
exhibit
tab.
So
welcome
attorney
general
ford,
and
I
see
you
have
your
team
with
you
as
well.
So
welcome
back
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
and
when
you're
ready
to
begin
on
assembly
bill
58.
Please
proceed.
G
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
good
morning
and
before
I
begin
assemblywoman
kasama,
you
are
correct.
Daylight
savings
time
is
taking
its
toll.
I
still
feel
like
it's
seven
o'clock
and
I
would
have
only
been
up
six
minutes
in.
In
any
event,
that's
that's
the
joke.
Really.
That
would
have
been
up
a
long
time
ago.
Anyway,
it's
good
to
see
you
all
and
thank
you
so
much
for
having
us
good
morning
again.
Trey
yeager
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
aaron
ford
and
I
am
your
attorney
general
joining
me.
G
Virtually
and
in
person
are
members
of
my
staff,
my
chief
of
staff,
jessica,
adair
first
assistant,
kyle,
george
second
assistant,
christine
jones,
brady
and
special
assistant
teresa
harp,
I
believe,
assistant
second
assistant,
christine
jones
brady,
will
be
joining
us
shortly.
G
While
I
have
not,
while
I've
long
since
been
an
advocate
for
and
worked
on,
criminal
justice
reform,
our
efforts
reached
new
urgency
after
the
killing
of
george
floyd
and
the
public
outcry
that
immediately
followed.
Most
of
us
in
law
enforcement
are
horrified
saddened
and
angered
by
the
videos
of
police
brutality.
G
G
The
united
states
department
of
justice
currently
has
federal
authority
to
conduct
pattern
and
practice
investigations
of
state
and
local
law
enforcement
agencies.
Since
1994,
the
usdoj
has
conducted
70
investigations
into
police
departments
which
have
resulted
in
41
reform
agreements
or
court-ordered
consent.
Decrees.
G
In
january
of
2017,
then
attorney
general
jeff
sessions
announced
that
the
usdoj
believed
that
these
investigations
should
rightfully
be
conducted
at
the
state
level.
He
also
said
that
the
doj
would
no
longer
conduct
them
as
part
of
this
new
posture.
The
doj
issued
new
guidance
that
limited
the
scope
and
usefulness
of
future
consent.
Decrees.
G
G
Additionally,
this
bill
addresses
one
of
the
shortcomings
of
the
federal
investigative
investigatory
authority,
namely
the
lack
of
subpoena
power
under
the
federal
version.
If
an
agency
declines
to
cooperate,
the
doj
is
limited
in
its
ability
to
effectively
gather
information.
This
version
remedies
that
shortcoming.
G
My
understanding
is
that
the
bill
has
passed
the
house
of
representatives
and
has
now
been
considered
by
the
senate,
but
this
fact
does
not
obviate
the
need
for
state
action
in
this
area,
principally
because
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office
is
more
familiar
with
the
people
and
agencies
of
our
own
state
than
the
federal
government
to
our
office.
Home
means
nevada
and
we
have
a
vested
interest
in
ensuring
nevadans
are
safe
and
that
the
constitutional
rights
are
protected.
G
My
office
is
also
better
positioned
than
our
federal
partners
to
understand
the
diversity
of
communities
and
local
agencies
across
the
state
when,
in
fact,
realizing
these
benefits
and
because
of
attorney
general
sessions
call
to
do
so.
Other
states
have
given
their
attorneys
general,
the
ability
to
conduct
patent
or
practice
investigations,
and
even
more
states
are
seeking
such
ability
to
this
day.
G
Today
we
are
asking
you
to
add
nevada
to
that
list
of
states
that
has
given
their
attorney
general,
their
attorneys
general.
The
authority
to
conduct
pattern
and
practice
investigations
the
bill
before
you
today
is
a
culmination
of
a
collaborative
process
between
law
enforcement
leaders,
police
union
representatives,
law
enforcement
management,
district
attorneys,
members
of
the
criminal
defense
bar
the
aclu
and
community
organizations
and
organizers.
G
There
are
countless
others,
who've
also
offered
input,
and
I
thank
them
likewise
for
their
input
and
support
for
the
purpose
of
walking
you
through
this
bill.
We
will
be
working
off
of
the
amendment
that
chair
yeager
highlighted
a
second
ago
and
that
we
filed
with
the
committee
I'll
start
out
of
order
with
the
most
significant
change
in
this
amendment,
and
that
is
section
three
of
the
bill
as
introduced
is
now
stricken.
G
That
is.
My
office
is
not
at
this
point
seeking
concurrent
jurisdiction
over
certain
police
misconduct,
claims
and
all
honestly,
having
engaged
in
some
important
introspection.
My
office
determined
that
we
ourselves
needed
to
shore
up
our
own
ability
to
fulfill
our
statutory
task
of
investigating
and
prosecuting
misconduct
committed
by
state
officers.
G
My
brethren
in
law
enforcement
have
graciously
agreed
to
assist
us
with
the
training
and
tools
to
do
so,
and
I
want
to
thank
them
publicly
for
doing
that.
So
this
bill
will
only
address
pattern
or
practice
authority
and
in
that
regard,
subsection.
One
of
the
amendment
provides
that
no
law
enforcement
agency
or
agency
responsible
for
juvenile
justice
shall
engage
in
a
pattern
of
practice
that
deprives
people
of
their
rights
under
the
u.s
or
nevada
constitutions
or
any
other
law.
G
This
investigatory
power
is
discretionary
if,
after
an
investigation
has
been
conducted,
the
attorney
general
has
reasonable
cause
to
believe
that
there
is
a
pattern
or
practice
of
unlawful
policing
at
an
agency.
The
attorney
general
must
first
notify
the
agency
of
that
belief
and
the
factual
basis
for
alleging
the
agency
has
a
pattern
or
practice
of
unlawful
policing.
G
The
agency
will
in
fact,
have
60
days
to
make
good
faith
efforts
to
change
the
identified
deficiencies.
In
the
event,
the
attorney
general's
office
and
the
agency
are
unable
to
agree
on
a
plan
to
reform
the
problematic
activity.
The
attorney
general
has
the
authority
to
initiate
a
civil
lawsuit
against
the
agency.
G
G
Subsection
five
addresses
the
investigation
itself
and,
in
this
regard,
before
an
attorney
general,
can
notify
an
agency
of
an
identified
pattern
of
practice.
It
must
conduct
an
investigation
and
have
a
factual
basis
that
shows
that
there
is
indeed
an
unlawful
pattern
of
practice,
but
investigations
are
only
as
good
as
our
ability
to
collect
evidence.
G
For
that
reason,
subsection
4
grants
the
attorney
general's
office,
the
power
to
subpoena
witnesses,
documents
and
other
information
held
by
an
agency
authorities,
similarly
granted
to
several
other
units
within
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
This
subsection
also
provides
for
a
judicial
oversight
over
the
use
of
the
subpoenas
and
exercising
powers
pursuant
to
this
bill.
G
G
G
G
Some
of
the
information
gathered
in
a
pattern
of
practice
investigation
will
be
highly
sensitive
and
can
compromise
active
criminal
investigations.
For
example,
investigative
materials
could
identify
the
personal
details
of
not
just
the
individual
officers,
but
also
of
civilians
who
have
interacted
with
the
police.
G
G
That
concludes
my
presentation
on
the
provisions
of
ab58
and
that,
and
as
it
is
proposed
to
be
amended
where
this
bill
to
pass-
and
I
hope
it
does
it's
important
to
note
that
the
pattern
of
practice
authority
this
bill
grants
will
clearly
not
solve
all
the
problems.
G
G
This
bill
is
a
direct
result
of
that
recommitment,
we're
not
afraid
of
high
standards
or
excellence,
we're
not
afraid
of
public
scrutiny,
of
our
methods
and
actions,
and
we're
not
afraid
of
examining
those
parts
patterns
or
practices
of
our
agencies.
That
can
and
should
be
better
to
protect
and
serve
all
communities
in
nevada,
and
with
that
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
entertaining
this
bill.
Mr
chair,
and
I
look
forward
to
answering
any
of
your
questions.
Thank
you.
A
A
If
you
have
it
in
front
of
you,
the
title
page
of
the
amendment
lists
those
organizations
and
as
chair
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you,
because
I
think
we
reached
out
to
your
office
the
first
week
a
session
to
inquire
about
this
bill
and
whether
it
was
ready
to
be
heard,
and
we
were
advised
that
work
was
ongoing.
And
here
we
are,
I
think,
in
week
seven.
A
So
I
think
that
clearly
is
a
reflection
of
a
lot
of
input
from
interested
persons
in
this
legislation,
and
I
know
that's
not
easy
to
do
particularly
in
the
world
we're
living
in
right
now.
So
I
just
want
to
express
my
thanks
to
you
and
your
team
for
getting
us
to
where
we
are
today,
which
I
think
is
going
to
make
the
hearing
a
lot
smoother.
So
I
certainly
appreciate
that
I
have
some
questions.
A
Let
me
just
kind
of
put
together
a
list
for
the
moment.
Okay,
so
here's
who
I
have
so
far
we'll
start
with
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
Then
we
have
vice
chairwin,
assemblywoman,
bilbray,
axelrod,
assemblyman,
o'neill,
assemblywoman
cohen,
and
we'll
take
it
from
there.
So
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
Please
go
ahead
with
the
first
question.
B
Hello,
thank
you
so
much
chair
good
morning,
assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
I
have
two
questions.
So
in
the
beginning
attorney
general,
you
stated
that
there
was.
There
was
a
notice.
I
was
wondering
or
like
how
the
process
starts.
Is
it
a
notice
that
someone
has
filed
something
or
that
your
office
has
something
or
is
it
a
notice
of
investigation
and
then
a
follow-up?
B
Second
question:
after
ever,
like
you
know,
say
there
was
an
investigation.
You
guys
fixed
the
policy.
Is
there
a
follow-up
from
your
office?
Like
do
you
check
in
post
investigation
to
see
if
the
policy
or
person
changed
their
behavior
or
changed
the
policy?
Thank
you.
G
G
That
complaint
in
and
of
itself
may
be
insufficient
for
us
to
institute
an
investigation
into
a
pattern
of
practice.
But
if
that
complaint
is
accompanied
by
facts,
that
do
in
fact
enable
us
to
look
into
it
from
a
pattern
and
practice
perspective.
Then
we
would
pursue
it
that
way
if
we
receive
several
complaints,
for
example-
and
we
don't
want
to
put
that
suggestion
out
there,
that
people
should
just
be
following
several
complaints
for
them
for
the
heck
of
it
right.
G
But
if
these
are
legitimate,
credible
complaints,
we
would
institute
a
a
an
investigation,
but
that
begins
with
notice
to
the
agency
itself.
So
that's
the
notice
that
I
was
talking
about
assemblywoman
to
your
second
and
by
the
way,
to
the
extent
my
team
down
in
las
vegas
wants
to
chime
in
they
can
do
so.
Show
me
before
I
go
to
the
second
point.
H
Thank
you
attorney
general.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
gonzalez,
jessica,
derek!
You
could
stop
with
the
record
in
regards
to
notice.
The
specific
notice
mentioned
in
the
bill
is
a
notice
to
the
agency
that
the
attorney
general's
office
has
conducted
an
investigation,
and
the
attorney
general's
office
has
a
reasonable
cause
to
believe
and
a
factual
basis
to
support
that
there
is
a
or
or
one
or
more
identified
patterns
or
practices
of
unlawful
policing.
So
at
the
conclusion
of
an
investigation,
the
agency
receives
that
notice.
H
It's
mentioned
in
the
statute
or
the
in
the
amendment
that
the
investigation
has
concluded
and
here's
why
we
believe
that
you
have
engaged
that
you
have
an
identified
pattern
in
practice,
supporting
with
our
supporting
factual
basis.
So
after
an
investigation
is
concluded,
the
agency
receives
that
notice
and
then
the
agency
has
30
days
to
respond
to
that
notice.
Maybe
the
agency
wants
to
dispute
that
factual
basis.
H
Maybe
the
agency
has
additional
facts
that
might
lead
us
to
a
different
conclusion,
and
maybe
the
agency
says
you
know
what
we've
looked
into
this
and
over
the
past
30
days.
We
think
you're
right
and
here's
what
we're
going
to
do
to
fix
it.
As
to
your
second
question
about
whether
the
ag's
office
would
check
in
periodically
to
ensure
that
that
pattern
or
practice
was
being
rectified
and
that
plan
that
was
agreed
to
was
being
followed.
H
Yes,
absolutely,
and
that's
it
in
fact,
why
we
put
into
the
amendment
in
subsection
six
that
the
attorney
general's
office
can
seek
court
enforcement
of
of
a
plan
that
was
agreed
to
by
the
agency.
H
H
They
were
completely
supportive
because
they
too
agreed
that
an
agency
should
be
held
to
a
high
standard
and
they
absolutely
welcome
that
standard
and
that
accountability
it
included
in
this
amendment.
So
I
hope
that
answers
both
of
your
questions.
Yeah.
G
And
there,
and
for
the
record
just
so,
the
record
is
clear.
I
think
I
mistakenly
said
the
noises
before
the
investigation.
It
is
after
the
investigation
pursuant
to
the
the
bill
here
and
the
explanation
that
jessica
just
gave.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
before
we
take
the
next
question
I'll
note
for
the
record.
Assemblywoman,
krasner
and
assemblywoman
summers:
armstrong
are
with
us,
they
joined
us.
I
think
right
as
the
presentation
was
starting.
So
if
madam
secretary,
you
could
mark
them
present
in
some
retroactive
fashion
to
indicate
that
they
were
here
for
the
presentation.
I
would
appreciate
that
so
we'll
continue
on
with
questions
we'll
go
next
to
vice
chairwin.
I
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
on
this
bill.
I
know
a
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
it
and
I
appreciate
that
as
well.
I
like
this
bill.
I
have
a
little
bit
of
concerns
on
section.
Eight,
it
just
makes
me
feel
a
little
like
it
seems
a
little
broad,
so
I
just
have
a
kind
of
a
couple
of
questions
on
that.
A
lot
of
this
is
dependent
on
whether
or
not
the
record's
becoming
public.
I
If
the
attorney
general
decides
to
proceed-
and
I
understand
what
your
intent
is-
and
I
understand
your
integrity
in
this-
but
you
know
for
those
that
potentially
follow
you-
you
know
using
people
that
may
have
preceded
you
as
an
example.
What
do
you
do
with
an
ag
like?
Do
the
records
become
public
if
an
ag
decides
that
they're
going
to
ignore
these
statutes
or
ignore
these
enforcements?
I
Because
a
lot
of
them
seem
to
like
you
talked
about
just
recently
with
the
court,
you
know
enforcing
that
it's
still
at
the
direction
of
the
attorney
general
and
as
an
elected
official,
you
know.
How
does
the
public
have
the
ability
to
access
like
what
you
are
like
investigating
or
what
your
agency
and
your
elected
position
is
doing?
Does
that
make
sense.
G
It
does-
and
that
was
a
question
that
I
think
we
received
yesterday
mid
mid-afternoon
from
an
interesting
party,
and
what
I
want
to
do
is
to
I'm
looking
at
the
screen
here.
Oh
there
there
they
are
they're
the
middle
right
on
my
screen.
Here,
I'm
going
to
let
them
chime
in
on
this,
but
but
I
will
say,
as
a
general
matter,
investigative
items
are
shredded
from
public
scrutiny.
G
In
any
event,
during
the
course
of
an
investigation,
you
know
that's
that's
just
part
of
of
the
practice,
it's
one
of
the
exceptions
in
the
public
records
laws,
and
so
that's
at
the
outset,
something
that
I
would
want
to
to
mention.
But
let
me
go
to
southern
nevada
there
and
have
them
chime
in.
I
And
if
I
could
just
follow
up
with
one
thing,
because
I
think
they
could
probably
answer
this
question
as
well,
if
the
complaint
themselves
wants
to
make
it
public,
is
it
still
like
protected,
and
is
it
still
like,
secretive
for
lack
of
a
better
word
or
is?
Is
their
ability
for
it
to
be
open?
At
that
point,.
H
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
jessica,
adair
for
the
record,
or
rather
vice
chair,
all
right
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
so
to
answer
the
second
part
of
your
question.
Yes,
absolutely
anyone
who
files
a
complaint
with
our
office
is
able
to
make
that
complaint
public,
and
that
goes
in
any
in
any
instance,
when
we
receive
a
complaint
in
our
office
that
complete,
if
it
is
being
investigated
and
subject
to
an
active
investigation,
either
criminal
or
civil,
it
is
confidential
throughout
the
investigation.
H
At
the
conclusion
of
that
investigation,
however,
it
is
not
confidential
anymore
and
is
is
subject
to
public
records
requests
and
we
routinely
disclose
those
complaints
as
subject
to
public
records
requests
at
the
conclusion
of
an
investigation.
H
If
there
is
some
confidential
information
identifying
personal
information
about
a
complainant,
we
usually
redact
that
but
the,
but
the
complaint
itself
is
the
public
record,
and
if
someone
wanted
to
disclose
that
they
had
filed
a
complaint,
it's
absolutely
their
their
right
to
do
so
routinely
when
it's
part
of
our
practice.
H
So
they
will
know
that
their
complaint
is
being
investigated
in
terms
of
confidentiality
generally
in
terms
of
this
subsection
just
because
a
a
an
item,
a
piece
of
information
that
is
being
used
by
this
office
is
confidential
in
the
course
of
our
investigation
does
not
mean
that
it
isn't
also
a
public
record
if
it
is
rightly
a
public
record
at
wherever
agency.
It
may
be
located.
H
So
if,
for
example,
a
policy
manual
at
age
law
enforcement
agency,
a
would
normally
be
a
public
record.
Of
course
anyone
can
file
a
public
records
request
at
that
agency,
and
they
that
agency,
would
have
a
statutory
responsibility
to
respond
to
that
public
records
request
and
produce
any
documents.
That
would
normally
be
a
public
record.
H
So
we
are
number
one
protecting
the
integrity
of
the
investigation
and
and
because
anytime,
there
is
a
discussion
about
an
investigation
in
the
public.
It
can
have
a
very
detrimental
effect
on
the
ability
of
our
office
to
do
to
conduct
an
investigation,
but
also
we
expect
that
people
who
would
like
to
disclose
this
information
may
include
their
own
interactions
with
police
and
what
we
don't
want
to
do
is
have
a
chilling
effect
on
on
civilians
and
on
officers
who
wish
to
disclose
this
information
or
the
weaponizing
of
this.
H
These
investigations,
because
people
have
ulterior
motives.
So
that's
why
we
felt
that
this
confidentiality
provision
was
incredibly
important
and
also
consistent
with
how
investigations
are
currently
conducted
in
law.
As
the
attorney
general
mentioned,
I
will
say
that
there
are
exemptions.
If
someone
wants
to
to
disclose
that
information,
they
can
do
so
and,
of
course,
a
court
or
federal
federal
agency,
which
is
mentioned
in
the
amendment.
But
I
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that
question,
because
this
is
a
this
is
something
that
we
discussed
at
length
with
stakeholders
in
the
meeting.
H
It
is
important
provision
that
we
need
to
balance
the
integrity
of
an
investigation,
but
also
the
need
to
be
transparent
and
accountable
to
the
public.
G
Yeah
and
vice
chairwinner,
and
for
the
record
I
just
want
to
follow
up
on
two
points,
first
of
which
is
that
it
does
have
the
ability
for
a
a
court
to
disclose
this,
and
it
is
not
only
at
the
direction
or
as
an
impetus
from
the
ag's
office
if
someone
files
with
the
court
and
they
want
to
get
it
opened
or
released,
then
this
does
not
prevent
them.
From
doing
that.
I
also
want
to
say
this:
I
forget
what
phrase
jessica
just
used,
but
I
will
use
the
word
nefarious
motives.
G
There
are
some
people
with
nefarious
motives
and
if
we
conduct
an
investigation
and
determine
that
there
was
no
pattern
of
practice
against
and
that
you
know
it
involves
a
particular
officer
or
a
particular
individual
civilian.
There
are
folks
who
just
want
to
sully
somebody's
name,
and
we
need
to
be
conscious
of
that
as
well,
and
so
I
think
again
in
an
effort
to
balance
the
protections
and
interests
of
the
parties
involved,
especially
in
the
instance
where
no
violation
has
occurred
and-
and
this
is
purely
a
nefarious,
sullying
intent.
G
We
want
to
have
protections
and
statue
to
disallow
that.
I
No,
I'm
good.
Thank
you
so
much
and
I
I
I
I'm
glad
that
we're
having
this
conversation,
I
I
like
this
bill
and
I'm
glad
that
you're
working
with
all
the
stakeholders
to
find
that
balance.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
apologize,
I
know
you
said
it
attorney
general,
but
I
I
missed
it
somehow.
How
many
other
states
have
this
authority
currently.
G
I
did
not
say
it
so
you
did
not
miss
it
assemblywoman.
I
anticipated
the
question,
though
I
think
there
are
half
a
dozen
right
now
that
currently
have
it,
but
there
are
several
others,
including
illinois,
for
example,
who
are
pursuing
it
and
in
the
interest
of
full
disclosure,
understand
that
my
fellow
attorneys
general
and
I
several
of
us,
submitted
a
letter
to
congress
when
they
were
first
considering
a
draft
of
the
george
floyd
justin
policing
act
asking
them
to
give
us
this
authority
via
the
federal
statute
as
well.
G
So
there
are
efforts
that
are
taking
place
all
across
the
nation
to
afford
state
attorneys
general
offices
to
pursue
this.
B
B
The
only
question
I
have
remaining
is
it's
just
a
clarification
in
investigations.
Does
this
bill
I
mean
grand
juries
are
a
great
tool.
Does
this
bill
give
you
the
statutory
authority
to
empanel
or
utilize
grand
juries?
I
don't
read
it
in
there,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
it
correctly.
G
G
Very
seldom
are
grand
juries
empowered
for
non-criminal
items,
sometimes
is
simply
to
get
reports
from
from
jurisdictions
and
things
of
that
sort.
That's
not
what
this
contemplates,
but
let
me
turn
to
my
team
down
south
to
see
if
the
conversation
came
up
in
the
context
of
conversation.
H
I
think
attorney
general
and
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman
jessica
there
for
the
record
it
did
not,
and
that
is
because
this
bill
is
limited
to
civil
litigation,
not
prosecution
of
any
one
officer
or
a
group
of
officers
who
might
be
subject
to
an
investigation.
This
is
entirely
civil
in
nature.
H
That
is
the
only
question
that
would
be
before
the
court,
but
but
it
is
important
that
you
bring
this
up,
because
it
is
worth
reiterating
that
point
and
also
reiterating
that
if,
in
the
course
of
an
investigation
with
this
office
or
or
in
looking
at
a
pattern
or
practice
with
an
agency,
this
bill
does
not
change
an
agency's
ability
and
right
to
discipline.
Any
officer
that
may
have
broken
policy
and
it
does
not
change
the
right
and
statutory
jurisdiction
of
any
city
attorney
or
district
attorney
to
bring
a
charge.
H
If
a
particular
officer
violated
the
law,
so
those
agencies
rightfully
retain
that
jurisdiction.
And
I
I
want
to
make
that
point
very
clear
on
the
record,
because
it
is
important
that
we,
if
there
is
a
problem
at
a
particular
agency,
that
we
have
a
variety
of
tools
to
address
that.
B
Good
morning,
thank
you,
chair
for
the
opportunity
and
it's
good
to
see
you
attorney
general
ford
and
staff.
Actually,
a
couple
of
my
questions
might
just
be
law
school
101
for
a
lay
person
like
myself,
but
actually
I
want
to
follow
up
on
what
miss
adair,
just
expanded
on
to
make
sure
I
I
understand
what
exists
now
and
and
just
kind
of
what
the
bill's
looking
to
may
be
add
upon.
B
So
now,
if
an
agency
and
I'll
just
use
some
specifics
like
say
sparks,
has
a
situation
and
reno
investigates
them,
because
I
think,
if
I
understand
right,
if
there's
a
a
situation
in
question,
you
don't
investigate
yourself,
you
have
another
municipality,
investigate
so
say:
reno
investigates,
that's
still
allowed
to
go
on,
but
if
there
were
some
other
complaint
or
there's
not
a
satisfaction
with
it,
then
then
you
could
be
involved
in
the
process.
Am
I
understanding
that
right.
G
Well,
without
respect,
madame
no
ma'am,
there
are
two
different
issues
we're
talking
about
here,
so
norman
hanson,
the
context
in
which
I
think
you're
speaking,
for
example,
would
relate
to
an
officer-involved
use
of
force.
Claim
I
won't
mention
cities,
let's
say
city
a
has
a
office
involved,
shooting
city
b
may
investigate
city
a
or
that
shooting,
not
not
the,
not
the
department
itself,
but
that
shooting,
because,
as
you've
indicated,
you
know
that
that
particular
entity
doesn't
want
to
investigate
itself.
G
There
are
what
we
call
memory
memoranda
of
understanding
that
are
operative
throughout
the
state
right
now,
and
those
types
of
things
take
place
all
the
time
that's
separate
and
apart
in
qualitatively
different
than
what
we're
talking
about
here,
we're
not
talking
about
the
investigation
of
the
shooting
itself,
for
example,
to
see
if
a
particular
law
enforcement
officer
violated
policies
and
things
of
that
sort,
we're
looking
at
patterns
and
practice
of
an
agency
so
and
right
now,
my
understanding
to
my
knowledge.
G
G
What
this
bill
would
allow
my
agency
to
do
and
that's
the
the
current
ability
that
the
federal
government
has
to
the
extent
they
want
to
utilize
that
authority,
but
there
is
no
city
to
city
as
far
as
I
know,
and
and
I'm
looking
down
south
to
see
if
that
conversation
came
up,
but
I
think
I'm
right
in
that
regard,
so
I
hope
I've
helped
to
unconnect
those
two
issues:
they're
they're,
they're,
just
different
and
so
there's
a
follow-up,
similar
hands
and
I'm
happy
to
address.
B
Thank
you
that
that
helps
greatly.
I
appreciate
that
and
yes,
city,
a
and
city
b.
I
I
stand
corrected
also
in
in
section
one
sub
section:
four,
when
you
talk
about
civil
injunctive,
only
no
no
damages
injunctive.
Just
for
us
like
people
means
is
it
essentially
in
when
there's
an
injunction
kind
of
a
cease
and
desist.
You
need
to
stop
what
you're
doing.
G
It
could
be
a
stop
what
you're
doing.
Oh,
I
almost
had
to
rap.
You
know
what
I
was
about
to
say:
right,
stop
what
you're
doing,
because
I'm
about
to
ruin
the
image
and
the
I
better
stop,
because
this
has
been
filmed
and
I
can
guarantee
you
someone's
going
to
put
this
up
on
twitter
somewhere.
Vice
chairwin
is
shaking
ahead
and
I
see
she's
going
to
be
the
culprit
there
anyway.
G
It
could
be
a
stop
what
you're
doing,
or
it
could
be
start
doing
this
as
well,
to
the
extent
that
that's
what
is,
but
yes,
that's
what
injunctive
belief
is
money.
Damage
just
means
money,
so
this
is
there's
no
lawsuit
for
money.
B
A
A
I
don't
see
any
question
any
additional
questions
at
the
moment,
so
attorney
general
and
attorney
general
part
b
down
in
las
vegas.
We
just
ask
you
all
to
sit
tight
for
a
moment,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
any
concluding
remarks.
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
58.
I
believe
we
have
a
couple
individuals,
perhaps
more
with
us,
on
the
zoom
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support.
I
see
mr
pirro
has
his
camera
on.
So
mr
pirro,
if
you're
intending
to
give
support
of
testimony
we'll
start
with
you
and
then
we'll
go
to
ms
burchie,
so
please
go
ahead.
J
We
think
that
the
process,
the
deliberative
process
that
we
all
worked
on
together,
made
the
bill
a
better
piece
of
legislation
and
so
we're
grateful
for
his
ability
to
bring
us
all
together
to
work
on
issues
and
to
make
the
best
pieces
of
legislation
put
forward
to
the
legislature.
So
we
are
in
support.
K
K
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
burchie.
Is
there
anybody
else
on
the
zoom
who'd
like
to
give
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
58?
If
so,
if
you
could,
please
turn
on
your
camera
on
meet
yourself
and
let
me
know
doesn't
look
like
that's
happening
so
bps,
let's
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
58.
C
C
F
Ann
marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e
g-r-a-n-t
my
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
archetyped
by
reno
police
and
assisted
the
death
of
a
hog
tide
and
prone
by
four
deputies
on
his
back
neck
and
legs.
I
fully
support
this
bill
and
only
wish
it
was
in
place
when
my
brother
was
killed
by
police,
10,
8
2015
in
reno
nevada.
I
only
wish
it
didn't
take
five
years
and
for
a
man
in
another
state
to
be
a
fixated
death
to
death
by
police
for
this
bill
to
come
before
you
all.
F
My
brother
was
killed
at
a
time
when
the
jail
death
rate
of
incarcerated
loved
ones
was
five
times
the
national
average
at
washington,
county,
jail,
natho
smith,
smith
and
justin
thompson
of
the
two
other
officiation
best
by
deputies
at
the
jail.
The
doj
didn't
act,
and
I
can
state
that
there
was
no
true
investigation
by
reno
police
or
sparks
police.
Nor
do
I
believe
there
ever
truly
will
be
when
they
investigate
themselves,
given
why
chardier
chrissix
doesn't
even
review
the
deaths
at
the
hands
of
police.
F
If
the
method
of
death
is
a
fixation,
this
bill
is
needed.
I'm
not
sure
if
the
amendment
still
has
notification
requirements
to
the
attorney
general
within
72
hours,
but
it
is
stronger
with
it.
Perhaps
my
brother's
death
wouldn't
have
been
swept
under
the
rug,
no
mention
about
my
brother's
death
at
the
jail
for
over
two
years
from
the
media.
It
took
13
plus
people
losing
their
lives
at
the
deal,
but
my
brother's
death
to
be
made
known
to
the
public
by
someone
other
than
myself
injunctive
relief
is
what
our
families
truly
want.
F
C
C
E
C
L
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee
and
general
ford,
this
is
attorney
lisa
rasmussen,
r-a-s-m-u-s-s-e-n,
I'm
testifying
in
support
of
the
bill
with
the
proposed
amendments
on
behalf
of
nacj
nacj
believes
that
this
bill
is
good.
It
it
promotes
accountability
and
it
addresses
it
provides
a
mechanism
for
addressing
issues
that
the
attorney
general
has
previously
been
unable
to
address.
So
we
think
that
it's
good.
We
ask
that
you
support
it.
A
I
I
We
want
to
thank
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
important
bill
forward
to
help
increase
police
accountability
in
nevada
after
moments
of
police
violence.
We
often
hear
the
phrase
it
was
just
a
few
bad
apples.
However,
the
problems
often
continue
to
happen
over
and
over
again
pattern
and
practice.
Investigations
are
an
important
tool
to
address
systemic
racism
and
discrimination
in
law
enforcement
agencies.
We
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
C
M
Good
morning,
chair
yeager,
this
is
holly
welborn,
h-o-l-l-y,
w-e-l-b-o-r-n
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada
testing
and
testifying
in
support
of
abe
58.
We
appreciate
the
attorney
general's
office
for
bringing
all
stakeholders
to
the
table
and
accepting
our
request
to
make
the
outcome
of
these
investigations
public.
After
their
conclusion,
I
do
want
to
state
that
the
effectiveness
of
this
law
depends
on
who
occupies
the
attorney
general's
office.
M
Thus,
the
public
has
an
interest
in
monitoring
responsiveness
to
complaints,
but
as
an
organization,
we
believe
the
publication
of
an
annual
report
with
the
outcome
of
investigations
balances
that
interest,
but
the
compelling
need
to
monitor
systemic
racism
in
policing
pattern
and
practice.
Investigations
have
proven
to
be
an
effective
tool
to
rein
in
and
reform
dysfunctional
law
enforcement
agencies.
We
often
hear
that
cases
such
as
the
george
floyd
case
and
countless
others
is
the
result
of
a
few
bad
actors.
M
The
pattern
and
practice
investigations
in
cities
like
chicago
and
others
reveal
deep
systemic
issues
that
perpetuate
violence
and
disparate
treatment
of
black
and
brown
americans.
You
will
often
hear
us
and
other
police
reform
advocates
complain
that
we
are
passing
police
reform
policies
that
have
no
teeth,
while
there's
still
much
work
to
be
done.
This
bill
gives
us
a
valuable
tool
to
discover
and
weed
out
systemic
issues
in
nevada
police
departments
and
is
responsive
to
community
requests
for
the
for
attorney
general
intervention.
M
C
N
Thank
you,
cherry
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
good
morning.
My
name
is
troyce
krumi
t-r-o-y-c-e
k-r-u-m-m-e,
and
I
am
the
vice
chairman
of
the
las
vegas
police
managers
and
supervisors
association,
and
we
are
members
of
the
public
safety
alliance
of
nevada.
We
would
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
bringing
the
many
many
of
the
stakeholders
together
to
ensure
many
impacted
voices
are
heard
in
crafting
this
bill.
N
N
The
public
needs
to
have
an
avenue
and
an
agency
to
communicate
with
and
work
with
that
work
with
an
agency
that
have
the
authority
to
investigate
and
confirm
that
police
departments
are
conducting
themselves
in
a
manner
that
the
community
should
expect
or
if
it
is
found
that
the
agency
has
a
shortcoming,
have
the
authority
to
bring
upon
corrective
actions
with
the
proposed
amendment
language
entered
into
this
bill.
We
feel
this
bill
hits
the
mark
and
accordingly,
we
support
this
bill.
Thank.
C
C
E
Testimony
good
morning,
mr
chairman,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
rick
mccann,
r-I-c-k-m-c-c-a-n-n
executive.
Vice
president
excuse
me,
executive,
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers
and
a
member
of
the
nevada
law
enforcement
coalition.
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
ab58
as
amended.
E
This
bill
is
part
of
a
police
reform
movement
that
some
feel
should
be
opposed
and
denounced
in
their
entirety
by
all
law
enforcement,
but
we
recognize
and
embrace
those
efforts
that
seek
to
protect
the
public
while
the
same
time
not
losing
sight
of
the
important
and
dangerous
work
being
done
every
day
by
law
enforcement
throughout
our
state
attorney.
General
ford
and
his
staff
have
gone
to
great
lengths
to
balance
those
interests
and
we
applaud
those
efforts.
E
A
C
D
Tanya
brown
t-o-n-j-a-b-r-o-w-n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent.
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager.
Thank
you
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
bill
and
your
presentation.
We
support
this
bill.
Strong,
only
support
this
bill.
I
just
wish
that
it
this
bill
would
have
existed.
Some
years
ago,
I
personally
had
filed
a
police
comp
report
with
the
rpd.
D
I
personally
spoke
with
the
chief
of
police
over
some
officers
and
some
other
situations
that
were
involved
with
the
complaint
we
sat
down.
We
spoke
and
the
chief
of
police
at
the
time
agreed
what
their
officers
had
done.
They
were
involved
in
it,
but
because
of
it
being
a
conflict
of
interest,
they
could
not.
He
wouldn't
they
could
not
do
anything.
D
So
when
I
asked
to
have
the
attorney
general's
office
investigate
the
matter
and
for
them
to
put
in
a
request
for
the
attorney
general's
office
and
even
with
the
u.s
justice
department,
they
refused-
and
this
has
been
an
ongoing
problem
over
the
years
with
people
who
want
to
file
complaints
against
law
enforcement
officers
in
their
agencies.
D
D
It
went
through
the
renal
pd
and
it
has
never
made
it
past
intake
now.
The
officer
involved
who
took
the
complaint
actually
gave
me
a
copy,
so
I
could
submit
it
to
the
attorney
general's
office,
which
I
did
do
and
it
really.
I
have
not
heard
anything
so
I'm
hoping
that
this
bill
will
help
in
both
areas.
C
C
M
Hyphen
p,
a
r
r
rraga-
and
I
am
here
representing
battleborn
progress
and
we
are
in
strong
support
of
this
bill
and
thank
the
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
forward
and
doing
all
the
work
to
create
more
transparency
in
our
law
enforcement
practices.
This
is
exactly
what
our
communities
have
been
asking
for,
and
this
is
a
very
good
first
step,
a
very
good
first
step
and
instead
of
taking
up
more
time,
everyone
has
already
mentioned
where
we
stand
basically
so
ditto
to
everything
that
everyone
has
said.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
A
C
And
we
will
start
with
caller
eight
zero,
seven
caller
eight
zero
seven.
You
have
please
slowly
state
and
then
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes
and
they
begin
now.
C
E
Good
morning,
everybody,
my
name
is
richard
carpell,
that's
k-a-r-p-e-l,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
press
association.
Although
its
aims
are
laudable,
we
take
no
position
on
the
larger
bill.
However,
we
are
concerned
with
section
eight,
which
makes
all
information
collected
during
the
investigar.
E
E
C
O
My
name
is
benjamin
zenson
e
n
j,
a
m,
I
n
z,
e
n
s,
e
n
l.
I
p
m
a
n,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
madame
vice
chairwoman.
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
open
government
coalition
and
as
the
like,
the
npa
before
us.
We
do
not
take
the
position
and
they're
not
here
to
speak
in
opposition
to
the
basic
promise
of
the
bill,
but
rather
oppose
and
are
deeply
concerned
about
the
portions
of
the
bill
that
inadvertently
or
not
would
shroud
the
system
in
secrecy.
O
Knowing
that
one
person
has
the
courage
to
come
forward,
encourages
others
to
come
forward,
we've
seen
time
and
time
again
in
this
state
and
across
the
country,
situations
in
which
victims
of
abuse
have
come
forward
after
they
know
that
other
victims
have
had
the
courage
to
step
forward.
There
is
some
safety
in
numbers,
and
many
of
these
problems
would
never
have
come
to
light
and,
in
fact,
even
statutes
like
this
would
likely
never
have
been
proposed
if
there
wasn't
a
public
understanding
and
a
demand
for
accountability.
O
We
are
not
expressing
concerns,
of
course,
about
about
attorney
general
ford,
his
efforts
to
bring
this
statute
or
are
laudable,
but
whether
it's
this
administration
or
wants
to
come.
We
have
to
have
accountability
by
the
public
and
the
only
way
we
can
have.
O
C
P
P
P
It's
it's
ironic
to
me
that
confidentiality
has
historically
hindered
federal
civil
rights
investigations
as
well
as
civil
rights
litigation,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
the
provision
is
currently
drafted
would
do
exactly
that.
It
would
hinder
things
by
covering
it
in
a
blanket
of
confidentiality,
and
I
just
wanted
to
also
note
to
the
committee
that
it's
important
when
assessing
this
confidentiality
provision
to
consider
the
mandates
of
the
nevada
public
records
act.
The
democratic
principles
are
best
served
by
broad
access
to
public
records,
with
only
narrow
confidentiality
exceptions.
P
Transparency
regarding
these
sorts
of
investigations
not
only
promotes
public
trust
in
the
attorney
general
by
allowing
the
access
by
allowing
the
public
access
to
assess
how
well
the
attorney
general
is
carrying
out
the
law.
It
would
also
promote
public
trust
in
the
police,
and
I
I
thank
the
chairman
and
the
committee
for
your
time.
A
C
E
This
is
scott
nicklaus
from
the
las
vegas
police,
protective
association.
Vice
president
s-c-o-t-t
n-I-c-h-o-l-a-s,
we
oppose
this
bill
for
several
reasons.
E
One
there's
been
zero
cases,
as
the
ag
has
already
pointed
out
that
have
come
to
light
in
any
recent
memory
for
this
bill
to
need
to
investigate
or
this
this
office
to
investigate
the
doj
already
has
the
ability
to
investigate
the
departments
so
again
duplicated
services,
the
departments
are
doing
a
great
job
and
that's
why
we
have
zero
cases
in
this
state
to
because
they
have
the
ability
to
investigate
and
do
a
thorough
investigation.
They've
been
doing
a
great
job
with
that,
especially
here
at
lvmpd.
E
The
next
reason
is
that
the
bill
would
cause
resources
to
be
impacted
severely
that
are
in
place
right
now
and
if
they
aren't
impacted,
that
means
that
there's
going
to
be
a
large
fiscal
and
costly
impact
for
this
to
the
state
taxpayers.
So
for
these
reasons,
we
don't
believe
this
bill
is
necessary.
A
You
you,
mr
nicholas,
and
I
will
caution
callers
to
please
limit
your
comments
to
the
substance
of
the
bill.
We're
not
here
to
question
the
motives
of
a
sponsor
of
legislation,
we're
here
to
vet
whether
the
policy
in
front
of
us
is
good
or
not
bps.
If
there
are
additional
callers
in
opposition,
let's
take
the
next
one.
Please.
A
A
C
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
aaron
ford,
for
the
record,
your
attorney
general.
I
have
a
few
responses
to
some
of
the
comments
made,
but
I
do
want
to
offer
my
chief
of
staff
jessica.
Dare
a
few
comments
on
the
confidentiality
division
and
then
I
will
like
to
speak
on
that
as
well.
Go
ahead,
jesse.
H
Thank
you,
jessica.
Dare
for
the
record,
I
I
want
to
specifically
address
some
of
the
comments
need
about
subsection
8,
the
confidentiality
provision
of
this
amendment,
because
I
think
that
there
is
some
misunderstanding
and
confusion
that
may
lead
to
some
opposition
test
that
led
to
some
of
this
opposition
testimony.
H
There
was
a
statement
that
civil
rights
litigants
would
be
in
a
worse
position
because
of
this
provision.
I
would
argue
that
is
a
misunderstanding
of
this
provision.
H
Section
subsection
8
of
this
bill
does
not
change
any
of
the
existing
statutory
responsibilities
that
lay
on
any
law
enforcement
agency
that
currently
exists
in
the
nevada
public
records
act.
If
law
enforcement
agency,
a
has
documents
that
are
subject
to
public
records
disclosures,
whether
or
not
those
documents
are
used
in
by
our
office
in
investigation
does
not
change
that
agency's
responsibility
to
respond
appropriately
to
public
records
requests.
H
All
of
the
normal
processes
that
occur
for
litigation
discovery
would
still
be
in
effect,
so
civil
rights
litigants
would
be
in
the
exact
same
position
that
they
are
in
right
now
in
in
the
state
of
play
here
in
nevada.
This
bill
would
not
change
that.
Additionally,
a
caller
noted
that
the
public
needs
to
know
what
the
allegations
were
that
led
to
an
investigation,
whether
or
not
the
ag's
office
filed
a
civil
action
and
you're
right,
and
that
is
why
we
included
that
in
subsection,
seven.
H
That
specifically
requires
the
ag's
office
to
publicly
disclose
the
existence
of
an
investigation
and
the
conclusion
of
that
investigation.
Whether
there
was
an
identified
pattern
of
practice
or
not,
or
if
there
could
have
been
a
pattern
of
practice,
but
the
fact
the
factual
basis
was
not
substantiated.
H
That
is
why
we
included
that
section
subsection,
seven,
and
that
was
at
the
specific
request
of
some
groups
who
have
a
vested
interest
in
transparency
and
open
government.
I
I
would
have
encouraged
these
these
folks
to
come
to
our
office
and
discuss
these
concerns
with
us
and
we're
happy
to
do
that
in
the
future.
As
soon
as
we
leave
here
to
maybe
clarify
some
misunderstanding
in
that
regard,
I
would
also
state
that
complaints
made
to
our
office
are
subject
to
public
records
disclosure.
H
In
addition,
so
in
terms
of
the
allegations
made
yes
that
those
would
be
subject
to
public
the
public
records
act
in
the
normal
course
of
a
public
records
request
to
our
office,
I
hope
that
clears
up
some
of
the
confusion
that
was
brought
to
to
light
in
the
opposition.
Testimony.
G
And
thank
you
again,
secretary
aaron
ford
for
the
record.
I
also
want
to
highlight
the
fact
that
it
is
not
a
blanket
confidentiality
provision.
The
statute.
The
law
itself
says
that
it
can
be
disclosed
if
authorized
by
a
district
court.
So
this
isn't
a
blanket
confidentiality
division
to
to
be
clear
and
I'll
also
say
this.
You
know
we
didn't
hear
about
the
concerns
until
yesterday.
Unfortunately,
the
language
has
been
out
since
november.
G
We
have
had
working
groups
ongoing
for
months,
including
a
humongous
one
last
week,
and
it
would
have
been
great
and
in
fact
some
of
the
members
of
the
open
government's
coalition
were
part
of
the
discussion
group,
so
this
bill
has
intended
to
incorporate
a
lot
of
those
concerns.
That
said,
we're
happy
to,
as
mr
adair
said,
disabuse
folks
of
any
misconceptions
or
misunderstandings
around
the
bill,
and-
and
that
leads
me
to
another
couple
of
points
we
did
invite
the
ppa
to
participate
in
the
discussion
on
this
issue.
G
G
We
asked
them
to
submit
to
us
language
for
consideration
if
they
had
any
suggestions,
and
this
was
months
back
and
it
has
not
taken
place,
and
so
it's
unfortunate
to
hear
them
opposed,
especially
when
we
have
other
comparable
labor
unions
in
favor
of
this,
because
they
participated
in
the
process.
G
I
will
also
say
this
to
the
to
the
point:
if
you
will
indulge
me,
mr
chair,
there
was
an
allegation
that
this
is
political.
It
is
not
political,
it's
policy,
and
frankly,
it's
also
a
little
personal.
The
truth
is,
I
have
done
ride
alongs
with
law
enforcement
recently
in
elco,
and
I
have
seen
and
appreciate
the
day-to-day
interactions
that
our
law
enforcement
have
to
engage
in
I
get
a
day
in
their
life.
G
G
Let's
figure
out
a
way
to
accommodate
the
interest
of
our
community,
which
is
demanding
better
relations
and
more
trust
in
law
enforcement,
and
I'm
a
member
of
it,
whether
they
like
it
or
not,
and
what
I've
endeavored
to
do
here
through
my
justice
and
injustice
forums
through
dozens
of
conversations
and
through
the
work
of
this
working
group,
is
to
come
up
with
a
bill
that
accommodates
the
interests
and
concerns
of
all
parties
interested,
and,
if
you
allow
me
a
little
vulnerability,
I
will
tell
you
this
is
not
easy.
G
The
people
who
sat
in
that
room
last
tuesday
can
hash
this
out
on
both
sides
on
all
sides
of
this
issue.
They
did
this
and
I'm
I'm
immensely
grateful
to
them
for
coming
together.
Understanding
the
importance
of
this
moment
and
figuring
this
out.
They
did
this
and
it
wasn't
easy.
G
I
said
I'm
not
on
the
aclu
side,
I'm
not
on
I'm,
not
on
the
d.a
side,
I'm
on
the
side
of
justice
in
our
office.
We
say
our
job
is
justice,
and
this
bill
helps
to
effectuate
justice
in
our
state
and
so
to
the
extent.
Those
who
are
opposing
have
misunderstandings
and
misconceptions
around
this
bill.
G
We
invite
you
to
come
talk
to
us
happy
to
hear
what
you
have
to
say
and
to
try
to
disabuse
you
of
those
of
those
notions,
and
we
would
also
as
going
forward
that
you
engage
us
before
the
night
before
so
that
we
can
see
if
there
are
other
things
that
can
be
done
to
address
your
concerns,
and
the
last
thing
I'll
say
is
on
a
bright
note,
mr
yeager.
G
Unless
you
have
additional
questions
for
me,
and
that
is,
I
am
prone
to
do
a
little
karaoke
here
and
there
you
know,
I
seems
like
I
may
need
to
add
humpty
dance
to
my
repertoire,
in
addition
to
brick
house
and
ain't,
nothing
but
a
jeep
thing,
the
clean
version
of
course,
and
so
thank
you
all
so
much
for
engaging
me
in
this
conversation
today.
G
I
certainly
hope
that
we
can
have
your
support
in
what
has
been
a
great
bipartisan
effort,
a
multi-party
effort,
and
I
have
a
lot
of
gratitude
to
my
team
down
there
in
southern
nevada
for
pulling
this
off
and
putting
putting
folks
in
the
same
room
and
for
those
who
got
into
that
room
to
work.
This
out,
you
are
appreciated,
as
tupac
would
say.
So.
Thank
you
so
much
jerry
yaeger.
A
Thank
you
attorney
general
ford,
miss
adair
and
the
rest
of
the
staff
who
helped
present
this
morning,
certainly
appreciate
it
and
again
just
want
to
thank
those
who
did
engage.
I
know
this
bill
was
a
lot
of
work
and
a
long
time
coming.
So
I
appreciate
that
as
well
and
thank
you
all
for
joining
us
here
this
morning
and
we
hope
you
have
a
really
great
rest
of
the
day,
all
right
goodbye.
A
A
We
have
our
own
assemblywoman
krasner
to
present
the
bill
this
morning
and
before
I
hand
it
over
to
her,
I
will
let
members
know,
and
members
of
the
public
know
that
there
is
a
an
amendment
to
the
bill
that
can
be
found
on
nellis
under
the
exhibit
tab,
and
I
believe
assemblywoman
krasner
and
her
co-presenters
will
go
over
that
with
us,
so
assemblywoman
krasner
welcome.
I
think
this
is
the
first
time
you're
presenting
an
assembly
judiciary,
this
committee,
this
session.
It's
a
pleasure
to
have
you
and
please
proceed.
Q
Q
Ab251
will
help
to
make
sure
that
a
child
under
age
18
does
not
waive
their
fifth
amendment
constitutional
rights
without
first
talking
to
a
parent,
a
guardian
or
an
attorney
assembly
bill.
251
will
also
help
address
the
harsh
impact
that
a
child's
juvenile
record
might
have
on
their
future
success
in
society.
Q
Q
First
of
all,
ab251
requires
a
police
officer
or
probation
officer
to
ensure
that
a
child
in
custody
first
consults
with
a
parent
guardian
or
attorney
before
awaiting
their
fifth
amendment
constitutional
right
to
miranda
and
the
custodial
interrogation
of
the
child
begins
second
assembly
bill.
251
also
establishes
provisions
for
a
juvenile's
records
to
be
automatically
sealed
at
age,
18
years
old,
currently
in
nevada
law,
juvenile
records
are
automatically
sealed
at
age
21
years
old.
Q
The
court
held
that
children
facing
prosecution
in
juvenile
court
have
the
same
due
process
rights
as
adults,
including
the
right
to
remain
silent,
the
right
to
notice
of
the
charges
against
them
the
right
to
an
attorney
and
the
right
to
a
full
hearing
of
the
merits.
On
the
case.
A
more
recent
case
also
involved
due
process.
Q
Q
Jdb
was
not
given
his
miranda
warnings
during
the
interrogation,
nor
an
opportunity
to
contact
his
parent
or
his
legal
guardian
attempts
to
suppress
the
statements
given
by
jdb
because
he
was
not
given
his
fifth
amendment.
Rights
to
miranda
were
denied
on
the
grounds
that
jdb
was
not
in
police
custody.
Q
According
to
the
national
conference
of
state
legislators,
several
additional
states
have
begun
to
address
this
matter,
at
least
regarding
the
fifth
amendment
constitutional
rights
under
miranda.
Recently,
two
states
enacted
laws
increasing
due
process
protections
for
our
young
people
when
they
are
being
interrogated
by
police
in
california.
Q
Turning
to
the
topic
of
juvenile
records,
one
commonly
held
misconception
is
that
once
a
child
turns
18,
their
juvenile
record
disappears
and
they
can
go
forth
with
a
clean
slate
in
many
instances.
That
is
not
the
case,
and
young
offenders
may
face
serious
consequences
and
obstacles
as
a
result
of
their
juvenile
record.
Q
In
the
last
15
years,
many
state
legislators
have
included
provisions
in
their
juvenile
justice
statutes
to
seal
expunge
and
implement
other
confidentiality
safeguards
for
juvenile
records.
As
most
of
you
know,
sealing
refers
to
closing
records
to
the
public,
but
keeping
them
open
and
accessible
to
court
personnel
and
to
law
enforcement
in
general.
The
child's
record
remains
accessible
to
law
enforcement
officers
and
to
prosecutors
and
sentencing
judges
for
purposes
of
investigating
and
prosecuting
any
future
crimes
in
which
the
youth
may
be
involved.
Q
Expungement,
on
the
other
hand,
involves
the
complete
physical
destruction
of
a
juvenile
record.
All
references
to
the
juvenile's
arrest,
detention,
adjudication
disposition
and
probation
must
be
deleted
from
the
files
of
the
court
law
enforcement
and
any
other
person
or
agency
that
provided
services
to
a
child
under
court
order.
An
expunged
record
is
to
be
treated
as
though
it
never
happened.
Q
Q
Our
next
step
as
a
state
is
to
update
our
treatment
of
juvenile
records
and
to
conform,
the
laws
that
are
shaping
the
juvenile
justice
system
to
what
the
united
states
supreme
court
has
now
mandated
in
terms
of
how
we
treat
children
sections
of
the
bill.
So
we
are
working
off
of
the
amendment
in
the
bill
found
in
the
exhibit
section
in
ab251
on
nellis
assembly.
Bill
251
contains
three
components.
Q
Q
We
are
the
people
who
make
the
law
in
this
state.
We
are
the
people
who
can
really
give
our
kids
a
fresh
start
or
a
second
chance.
Please
join
me
in
supporting
ab251
next,
you
will
hear
from
the
co-presenter
of
ab251
miss
kendra
burchie
from
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
after
ms
burgie's
testimony.
A
K
K
The
first
issue
is
whether
or
not
the
when
the
police
speak
with
the
child,
whether
or
not
they
would
like
to
speak
with
their
attorney,
a
parent
or
a
guardian
in
my
prior
practice.
This
element
itself
has
been
crucial
because
it
requires
for
the
police
officers
to
indicate
that
not
only
would
an
attorney
be
appointed,
that's
a
free
attorney.
K
The
reason
why
that
is
extremely
important
is
a
lot
of
children
and
even
adults
don't
understand
what
appointment
of
attorney
means,
and
so
this
clarifies
that
it
is
a
free
attorney
who
would
be
available
to
them.
Right
then,
in
the
second
part
of
that
paragraph
is
us
is
what
it
means
to
waive
your
constitutional
rights,
and
it
provides
not
only
the
child
with
that
opportunity
to
specifically
state
that
they're.
They
want
to
waive
the
right,
but
then
also
that
parent
or
guardian,
to
also
state
that
they
wish
for
that
individual
to
waive
their
right.
K
The
human
rights
watch
states
that
this
is
additionally
a
very
important
thing
for
for
juveniles
to
understand,
because
a
lot
of
juveniles,
think
of
when
you
say
the
right
to
remain
silent.
That
means
that
you
have
the
right
to
remain
calm,
which
certainly
isn't
the
case.
So
this
is
crucial
to
ensuring
that
all
the
parties
understand
what
is
happening
and
that
when
the
juvenile
does
speak
with
law
enforcement,
that
everyone
is
on
the
same
page,
that
it
is
necessary
and
that
they
wish
to
do
so.
K
This
new
law
will
ensure
that
no
child
is
left
to
figure
out
their
options
alone.
When
facing
the
prospect
of
interrogation,
it
will
enhance
the
child's
understanding
ability
to
exercise
this
vital
constitutional
right
and
reduce
the
coercive
pressures.
It
will
hopefully
mean
fewer
false
confessions
and
fewer
wrongful
convictions
in
our
state
and
terry
yeager.
With
that
we
are
open
and
available
for
questions.
Thank.
B
Hello
good
morning,
thank
you
so
much
assemblywoman,
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
for
presenting
this
bill
and
bringing
it
forward.
I
just
had
a
few
questions
so
in
the
amendment
when
the
first
sentence,
where
it
says
having
consult
an
attorney
parent
or
legal
guardi
guardian,
is
that
that
is
that
to
consult
all
of
those
parties.
Is
it
if
they've
consulted
one
of
those
parties,
they're
good,
to
go
the
word
or
is
just
throwing
me
off
there?
Q
Yes,
thank
you
for
your
question.
Assemblywoman
gonzalez
assemblywoman,
lisa
costner.
For
the
record.
We
are
working
off
the
amendment
posted
in
nellis
in
section
one
of
the
amendment
in
the
bold
area,
it
does
say
that
a
child
may
consult
with
an
attorney
a
parent
or
a
legal
guardian.
So
any
of
those
things.
K
K
Apologize
kendra
virtue
of
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office
just
by
way
of
context
in
in
negotiating
this
bill
and
negotiating
this
topic
during
the
last
session.
This
was
one
of
the
issues
that
was
raised
with
the
stakeholders,
including
the
district
attorney's
office
and
law
enforcement,
that
it
should
be
an
ore
of
that
it
should
be
an
attorney
or
a
legal
guardian
or
parent.
B
Thank
you
so
much
and
then
my
follow-up
question.
Well,
it's
kind
of
two.
No,
so
there
are
quotations
in
here
of
of
a
scenario
right
so
like
did
you
have
enough
time
to
speak
with
your
parent
or
a
legal
guardian?
You
can
have
more
time.
If
you
need
do
you
want
to
waive
your
constitutional
rights
and
speak
to
me,
you
can
say
no
do.
Do
you
give
consent
to
the
minor
to
speak
to
law
enforcement?
So
are
these?
B
Q
Thank
you,
miss
gonzalez,
assemblywoman,
lisa
krasner
for
the
record,
the
public
defender's
office
prepared
this
specific
language.
I
believe
that
this
is
the
language
that
we
do
in
fact
want
in
statute,
because
it's
so
important
that
a
child's
constitutional
rights
are
taken
into
account.
Q
I
mean,
I
know,
you're
all
familiar
with
the
case
of
miranda
versus
arizona
where
a
rapist
was
denied
his
constitutional
rights
as
an
adult
and
was
eventually
set
free.
According
to
our
united
states
supreme
court.
We
just
think
that
a
child
should
have
the
same
rights
to
have
their
fifth
amendment
constitutional
right
of
miranda
given
to
them
and
consult
with
a
parent
guardian
or
attorney
before
they're
able
to
waive
their
constitutional
rights.
J
And
if
I
made
chair
yeager
john
pure
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
assemblywoman
gonzalez
all
police
officers,
and
for
those
that
don't
know,
I
know
mr
assemblyman
o'neill
knows
all
police
officers
carry
around
a
miranda
card
in
their
pocket
and
they
generally
read
from
that
card.
There
was
a
case
from
the
federal
district
court
of
nevada
that
determined
that
the
current
miranda
usage
that
they
were
using
at
the
time
was
inadequate
and
metro
quickly
corrected
that
and
put
it
in
their
police
reports.
We
are
using
this
updated
version
of
miranda.
J
When
we
read
police
reports,
very
often,
police
officers
will
go
through
the
miranda
warnings
in
the
report
that
they
went
through
with
a
client
so
that
we
all
know
on
the
back
side
whether
they
were
adequate.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
assemblywoman.
What
I'm
reading
here
and
what
I
have
a
question
on
is
the
definition
of
custodial.
E
I
know
there's
been
many
different,
you
know
definitions
of
this
and
it's
still
kind
of
vague
and
law
a
little
bit
here
and
there.
But
I
what
I'm
wondering
about
is
unintentional
utterances.
E
For
instance,
a
police
officer
pulls
up
in
a
shopping
district
and
sees
this
huge,
broken
window
and
little
12-year-old
steve
is
standing
in
front
of
it
and
he
walks
up
to
a
little
12
year
old,
steve
and
says
what
happened
here
and
he
says.
Well,
I
didn't
do
it,
he
says.
Well,
you
know,
do
you
know
what
happened?
He
goes
yeah.
I
saw
pk
swing,
a
bat
and
slipped
out
of
his
hand
went
through
the
window.
So
that's
that's.
An
unintentional
utterance,
I
believe,
is
what
it's
called
or
an
utterance.
E
Would
that
no
longer
be
admissible.
J
Chairman
yeager
to
assemblyman
wheeler
john
pirro
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
assemblyman
wheeler-
I
I
do
agree
with
you
that
the
definition
of
custodial
is
something
that
is
litigated
often.
I
do
not
believe
that
this
law
would
change
it
any
more
or
make
it
any
harder
to
litigate
when
a
person
is
not
free
to
leave.
We
consider
that
under
custodial
interrogation,
however,
excited
utterances
are
generally
not
excluded
prior
to
miranda
under
current
case
law.
E
Okay
generally,
but
it's
not
actually
in
current
case
law,
is
it
I,
you
would
know
more
than
I.
J
John
piero
for
the
record
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
they
are
generally
not,
but
it
is
an
issue
that
does
get
litigated
right.
So
if
I
was
defending
assemblyman
o'neill,
I
would
be
litigating
that
issue.
There
is
a
likelihood
that
I
would
lose
that
issue
though,
but
I
would
still
litigate
it
to
protect
his
rights.
K
And
if
I
may,
jerry
jaeger,
kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
just
assemblywoman
assemblyman
wheeler,
just
to
also
respond
to
your
question
in
the
text
of
the
of
the
introduced
bill,
which
I
believe
would
still
be
included
in
conceptual
amendment-
is
the
definition
of
custodial
interrogation.
K
I
believe
it
does
specify
that
individual
needs
to
be
detained,
and
so
that,
wouldn't
unfortunately,
mr
assemblyman
pk
o'neill
would
not
then
qualify
for
having
this
law
apply
to
him.
A
And
I
am,
I
am
trying
to
confirm
with
my
mother
whether
I
did
in
fact
break
any
windows.
When
I
was
12.,
I
don't,
I
don't
think
I
did,
but
I
will
let
you
know
when
she
gets
back
to
me
in
terms
of
further
questions.
The
list
I
have
right
now
is
vice
chairwin,
assemblywoman,
kasama
and
then
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong.
Is
there
anybody
else?
That
has
a
question.
I
see
we
have
assemblyman
o'neal,
so
I'm
going
to
add
him
to
the
list.
Anyone
else
out
there
with
questions
at
the
moment.
I
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
not
sure
who
can
answer
this
question.
I
was
looking
at
the
proposed
amendments
that
we
receive
that
are
on
nellis
and
I'm
looking
at
number
three
and
it
talks
specifically
about
expungement.
I
Q
Thank
you
chairwin
vice
chairwin
assemblywoman
lisa
krasner
for
their
record,
yes,
section.
Three
of
the
amendment
would
allow
an
18
year
old
to
petition
the
court
for
expungement.
Currently
in
nevada
we
only
have
stealing
and
now
whether
that
would
necessitate
creating
or
writing
a
news
section
in
the
nrs.
I
would
assume
it
would
but
I'll
let
the
public
defenders
office
respond
to.
Q
J
Assemblywoman
krasner
is
right
that
currently
we
only
have
ceiling,
but
this
may
be
a
question
best
suited
for
legal.
In
this
case,
I
would
say
that
assemblywoman
krasner
is
going
for
the
gusto
because
she
wants
to
give
kids
a
fresh
chance
at
life
and
we
fully
stand
behind
that.
I
Thank
you
and
I'll
reach
out
to
legal
and
if
they
have
any
other
potential
details
on
how
we
can
implement
that,
I
will
let
the
other
committee
members
know.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair,
and
I
wanted
to
let
you
all
know
that,
according
to
my
mother
who
texted
me,
she
doesn't
think
I
broke
any
windows,
but
she
also
said
that
my
two
brothers
and
I
probably
have
done
things
in
life
that
she
is
not
aware
of
so
there's
a
possibility.
Assemblyman
wheeler,
that
your
your
analogy
there
might
have
actually
happened
some
years
ago,
I'll
try
to
get
confirmation
on
that.
We.
M
Thank
you,
chair
assemblywoman,
heidi
kasama
assembly,
district,
two
assemblywoman
crafter.
I
have
a
question
just
kind
of
an
overall
question,
so
this
is
reducing
it
to
age,
18
and
currently
in
statute.
It
was
21..
What
was
the
original
thinking
between
21
and
18?
Q
Q
Q
Q
M
Q
I'll
let
the
public
defender's
office
respond.
Maybe
they
have
an
answer
for
you.
K
Andrew
burchie,
for
the
record,
through
you
cherry
yeager,
to
assemblywoman
kasama,
what
we
found
really
interesting
is:
we've
actually
had
this
conversation
with
the
courts
regarding
a
bill
that
you'll
be
seeing
coming
over
from
the
senate,
judiciary
and
senate
bill
7..
K
What
we
learned
is
really
no
one
knows
why
21
was
selected
and
we've
had
these
conversations
that
perhaps
it
should
be
at
18,
and
so
I'm
very
grateful
that
as
assemblywoman
krasner
is
bringing
this
in
order
to
have
it
more
in
line
with
our
other
statues,
where
a
child
is
now
an
adult
at
age,
18.
M
So
explain
to
me
from
a
layman's
term:
what
is
the
difference
between
ceiling
and
expungement?
I
know
definitionally,
the
record
are
still
there
in
expungement
they're
completely
destroyed,
but
from
a
from
a
law
enforcement
standpoint.
If
it's
sealed,
does
it
mean
that
some
courts
could
eventually
still
have
access
to
it?
Is
that
the
current
ruling
of
of
for
a
sealed
record
versus
expungement,
which
means
is
completely
destroyed
and
and
would
some
courts
still
perhaps
need
access?
So
is
it
better
to
keep
it
sealed
versus
expunged.
Q
Assembly,
woman,
lisa
krasner
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
your
question.
Assemblywoman
kasama
stealing
refers
to
closing
records
to
the
public,
but
keeping
them
accessible
to
court
personnel
and
law
enforcement.
Expungement,
on
the
other
hand,
involves
the
complete
physical
destruction
of
a
juvenile
record
as
if
it
never
existed.
M
K
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record.
If
I
made
terry
jager
for
you
to
assemble
osama,
I
believe
that's
the
reason
why
assemblywoman
krasner
has
specified
that
it
would
be
for
certain
misdemeanor
offenses
so
that
it's
not
for
felony,
offenses
or
anything
of
that
nature.
So
it's
really
the
small
minor
offenses.
M
So
expungement
is
strictly
for
misdemeanors
or
less.
J
You
and
john
pirro
for
the
record
just
to
add
a
certain
level
of
comfort
as
well
assemblywoman
kasama.
There
are
certain
things
that
cannot
be
sealed,
like
sexual
offenses
things
that
we
want
to
keep
track
of,
to
make
sure
that
something
like
that
never
happens
again.
That's
not
going
to
be
sealed
under
this
legislation.
A
And
the
you
know
the
way
that
I
read
the
proposed
amendment,
it
looks
like
the
expungement
would
be
accomplished
by
filing
a
petition
with
the
court,
so
I
take
it
that
there
would
be
court
involvement
in
deciding
whether
the
record
should
be
expunged.
But
you
know,
as
we
get
to
testimony
on
this
bill,
I
certainly
would
invite
anyone
who's
offering
testimony
who
has
a
perspective
on
assemblywoman
kasama's
questions
to
offer
that
perspective.
A
When
you
provide
your
testimony
and
we'll
see,
we
have
a
number
of
folks
who
are
still
on
the
phone
line,
so
we'll
see
who's
going
to
actually
testify
on
the
bill,
and
they
may
have
some
of
that
information
that
you're.
Looking
for
assemblywoman
kasama
a
couple
more
questions
before
we
move
along
we'll
go
next
to
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong.
D
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
chandra
summers,
armstrong
assembly,
district,
6.,
thank
you,
assemblywoman
krasner,
for
your
bill
and
I
am
very
excited
to
see
this
and
I
just
have
a
clarifying
question
and
I'm
sure
that
the
public
defenders
could
possibly
help
with,
because
I'm
not
quite
sure
about
the
difference
between
a
custodial
investigation
or
custodial,
and
you
know
how
where's
the
line
drawn
between
if,
if
a
young
person
or
any
person
for
that
matter,
is
being
questioned
and
when
it
becomes
custodial
where
miranda
needs
to
be
read.
Q
Assemblywoman
lisa
cross
record.
I
will
let
the
public
defenders
office
answer
that
question.
J
And
john
pure
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
summers-
armstrong,
that's
always
going
to
be
ish
litigation
for
for
us.
From
our
standpoint
the
moment
a
child
is
not
free
to
leave,
not
free
to
walk
away,
that's
custodial.
J
J
That
is
the
precise
moment
before
any
further
questioning
occurs
that
your
miranda
rights
need
to
be
read
to
you,
and
I
just
want
to
let
the
committee
know
as
well,
because
I
didn't
say
this:
our
office
is
willing
to
take
the
step
that
we
haven't
taken
before
in
the
past
to
if
this
legislation
gets
passed,
we
will
be
available
by
phone.
We
will
have
a
phone
line
available
and
attorneys
will
be
on
deck
to
answer
the
phone
when
something
like
this
happens.
K
In
kendrick
virtue,
the
record
I'll
just
echo
that
we
are
also
doing
the
same
with
our
office,
and
I
can
note
that
the
department
of
indigent
defense
services-
they
are
responsible
for
the
rural
jurisdictions
in
order
to
ensure
that
policies
and
procedures
are
put
into
place.
And
so
it's
my
understanding
that
they
would
be
responsible
to
ensuring
that
there
is.
D
If
I
might
ask
the
follow-up
question,
yes,
please
go
ahead,
thank
you
because
that
was
my
my
next
concern
and
that
is
we've
heard
previously
in
a
previous
bill
that
wanted
to
have
an
attorney
that
that
child
know
that
they
can,
or
the
person
know
that
they
can
call
and
speak
with
an
attorney,
and
I
think
that
sometimes
we
look
at
these
things
from
our
perspective,
because
we
might
have
some
more
knowledge
and
and
have
worked
in
environments
that
give
us
some
insight-
and
I
was
sitting
here
listening
to
all
this
conversation
and
I
could
think
just
see
in
my
mind
a
situation
where
a
young
person
may
have
called
their
mom
or
dad
or
grandma
and
said
I'm
gonna
be
taken
down.
D
D
Is
that
allowed
then
that
that
child
would
be
able
to
have
a
follow-up
to
then
ask
for
an
attorney,
or
is
that
one
phone
call
to
the
custodial
parent
or
guardian?
It
and
they
have
to
make
a
decision
right
on
the
spot
then
or
are
they
allowed
that
agency
to
say
maybe
mom
and
dad
can't
answer
for
me
or
help
me?
I
need
to
call
an
attorney
and
get
some
assistance,
so
if
someone
could
speak
to
that
just
regular
people
stuff.
Thank
you.
Q
Q
So
a
couple
of
things:
the
public
defender's
office
again
working
off
of
the
amendment
in
section
one
crafted
this
entire
section
of
what
must
transpire
when
a
child
under
the
age
18
is
in
a
position
where
they
may
have
to
waive
their
fifth
amendment
constitutional
right
to
miranda
warnings,
and
I
think
that
the
way
that
they
called
it
out
that
the
consultation
may
be
in
person
by
video
conference
or
telephone,
that
a
police
officer
shall
not
conduct
a
custodial
interrogation
on
a
juvenile
under
the
age
of
18
without
first
having
the
juvenile
consult,
an
attorney,
a
parent
or
a
legal
guardian.
Q
The
consultation
must
be
made
confidential
but
may
be
in
person
by
video
communication
or
telephone.
The
juvenile
must
be
informed
that
they
can
speak
to
an
attorney
for
free
after
the
consultation.
The
police
officer
must
ask
the
juvenile
did
you
have
enough
time
to
speak
with
your
parent
or
legal
guardian
or
attorney?
Q
You
can
have
more
time
if
you
need
it.
If
no
additional
time
is
needed,
the
police
officer
must
ask.
Do
you
want
to
waive
your
constitutional
rights
and
speak
to
me?
You
can
say
no.
I
have
to
respect
that
and
not
ask
you
any
questions.
If
you
do,
I
can
tell
anyone
what
you
tell
me.
This
means
that
you
are
waiving
your
fifth
amendment
constitutional
right.
Q
I
feel
like
it's
important
that
we
have
parent,
legal,
guardian
or
attorney
there.
Parental
rights
are
also
very
important,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
an
adult
rapist
who
doesn't
get
their
fifth
amendment
constitutional
right
to
miranda
said
to
them,
gets
off
free
according
to
the
united
states
supreme
court
in
the
seminal
case,
but
a
child,
they
don't
have
to
be
given
their
constitutional
right.
They
don't
get
to
consult
with
their
mom
or
dad
or
their
guardian
or
an
attorney
that's
wrong.
K
K
That
means
that
they
are
invoking
their
rights
and
that
the
law
enforcement
cannot
continue
flashing
them
without
the
presence
of
their
attorney.
So
that
is
our
intention
with
this
bill.
Is
that
even
if
they
start
by
speaking
to
a
parent
or
guardian,
who
also
may
not
know
their
rights
or
may
not
know
how
to
proceed?
That?
K
If
a
child
then
says
I
want
to
speak
to
an
attorney
that
they
are
still
afforded
that
right
according
to
our
laws
and
that
they
will
be
afforded
that
right
to
speak
to
an
attorney
and
just
for
the
committee's
information.
This
is
already
taking
place
in
communities
across
the
nation,
king
county,
which
was
a
county
up
in
washington
that
was
mentioned
during
assembly
bill
132.
B
Thank
you,
chair
I'll,
try
to
be
brief
on
my
questioning
and
probably
be
best
answered
by.
I
think
one
of
the
public
defenders
who
did
questionable
job
and
representation
of
poor
little
pk,
but
the
first
question
I've
gotten
it's
basically
just
two
is:
I
know
what
an
attorney
is.
That's
easily
dis
defined.
I
know
what
a
parent
is.
K
Custody
bertie
for
the
record
cherry
eager
through
you,
two
assembling
amanda
o'neill
legal
guardian,
does
have
a
specific
definition
in
the
law.
If
a
child
is
taken
into
cairn
custody,
432b
cases
that
then
it
becomes
the
the
social
services
or
the
human
service
agency
in
that
jurisdiction.
K
Additionally,
there
could
be
a
legal
guardian
as
determined
through
the
guardianship
proceedings,
so
that
is
someone
who
then
steps
into
the
shoes
and
the
court
has
determined
that,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
they
are
and
should
be,
acting
as
the
that
parent.
A
B
K
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
I
cherryjager
threw
you
to
assemblyman
o'neill.
I
think
you
raise
a
very
valid
point
and
if,
in
the
writing
process,
it's
determined
that
we
need
to
add
that
additional
clarification.
I
know
that
we're
happy
to
do
so
in
order
to
ensure
that
everyone's
on
the
same
page
regarding
these
rights
and
that,
if
I
any
of
those
parties,
the
parent,
legal
guardian
attorney
or
child,
decides
that
they
want
to
invoke
their
rights,
that
it
does
actually
evoke
their
right
to
juveniles,
rights.
B
K
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
I'm
through
you,
terry
yeager,
to
assemblyman
o'neil.
That
is
a
great
question.
I
don't
think
that
this
law
states
who
has
the
overriding
it's.
If
somebody
invokes
the
right,
then
the
right
is
invoked.
B
Well,
I
know
in
adult
court
a
adult
can
override
the
advice
of
the
attorney
and
decide
to
speak,
but
I'm
just
asking
for
clarification
here
in
the
way.
I
read
it
that
if
there's
any
any
of
the
four,
the
parent,
guardian
attorney
or
juvenile,
wants
to
invoke
no
matter,
it
doesn't
matter
what
the
juvenile
war
is.
B
Am
I
reading
that
wrong
under
that
last
part
of
the
amendment
there
either
the
adulterer
juvenile
do
not
wish
for
the
juvenile.
The
speed
question
should
stop
immediately.
Q
Assemblywoman
lisa
krausner
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neal,
for
your
question,
you're
right
that
should
be
clarified
and
I'm
happy
to
amend
that.
It
should
be
very
clear
that
a
child
cannot
waive
their
right
to
miranda.
A
A
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
john
phil,
from
the
clark
county
public
defenders
office
and
yes,
we
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
krasner
for
bringing
forward
this
bill.
As
she
said
previously,
we
treat
children
differently
in
all
other
areas
of
our
law
and
it's
time
to
respect
that
difference
in
cognitive
ability
here
and
assemblywoman.
Krasner
is
doing
that
both
in
the
juvenile
miranda
portion
of
this
law
and
giving
children
a
fresh
start
after
they
may
have
messed
up
in
the
past,
so
that
they
can
go
on
to
become
productive
adults
and
leave
the
past
in
the
past.
A
C
C
M
M
We
also
support
efforts
to
seal
the
records
at
an
earlier
time,
allowing
kids
to
move
forward
they're
applying
for
colleges
at
that
time
and
having
in
a
variety
of
other,
you
know
applying
for
it
for
employment
and
getting
their
lives
started
as
adults.
The
sooner
we
conceal
these
records
the
better.
We
also
support
efforts
to
permanently
delete
charges
from
children's
records
and
we'll
continue
to
work
with
the
bill
sponsors
to
find
you
know
the
best
mechanism
through
which
to
delete
these
charges
from
children's
records
as
they
move
into
adulthood.
C
N
Hi,
I'm
chairman
eager
james
dold,
representing
human
rights
for
kids,
for
the
record
last
name
dold.
We
just
want
to
start
by
thanking
assemblywoman
krasner
for
bringing
this
very
important
piece
of
legislation.
This
bill
is
critical
to
protecting
the
due
process
and
constitutional
rights
of
children
in
the
justice
system.
N
As
was
mentioned
previously,
the
national
exoneration
registry
shows
that
children
at
a
high
rate,
a
high
risk
for
false
confessions,
nearly
60
percent
of
14
and
15
year
old
children,
who
were
later
exonerated,
falsely
confessed
to
a
crime
that
they
did
not
commit,
and
nearly
all
children
under
the
age
of
14
falsely
confessed
high
profile
cases
like
the
central
park
5
highlight
why
it
is
so
important
to
protect
the
due
process,
rights
of
children
and,
lastly,
I'll
just
highlight
that
from
a
law
enforcement
perspective.
N
N
Would
you
want
to
be
notified
that
your
child
has
been
arrested
and
would
you
want
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
them
and
to
help
advise
them
as
they
go
through
a
process
of
interrogation,
and
so
that's
why
this
bill
is
so
very
important,
we're
very
much
in
support
of
it,
and
we
hope
that
the
committee
will
vote
in
favor
of
this
very
important
legal
protection
for
children.
Thank
you.
C
C
F
N-E-D-R-A-C-O-O-P-E-R
as
a
mother
of
a
son
and
grandson,
I
am
in
support
of
this
bill
for
many
reasons,
it
is
unfortunately,
that
minorities
that
happen
to
be
african-american
are
more
likely
than
not
to
be
those
who
are
misrepresented
and
who
are
not
giving
the
fair
due
process.
I
think
it's
imperative
that
when
a
child
is
arrested
or
detained
that
a
parent
be
present
to
help
ensure
that
the
rights
of
those
of
their
children
are
not
violated.
F
So
I
think
that
if
a
parent
is
there-
and
I
I
prefer
that
a
parent
be
there
the
minute
that
they
need
to
be
questioned
and
not
give
ask,
do
you
want
to
have
your
parent
there,
or
do
you
want
to
have
an
attorney?
I
think
when
you're
under
duress?
Sometimes
you
don't
understand
exactly
what
that
means,
and
I
think
sometimes
it
may
not
be
presented
to
that
child
in
a
manner
that
they
know
that
they
could
ask
for
their
parents.
F
See
what
happened
to
this
young
man?
I
want
to
thank
you
for
being
astute
enough
to
put
such
a
bill
on
the
on
the
books
I
really
introduced
in
this
bill.
I
really
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
am
also
in
favor
of
expunging
at
18
and
please
don't
allow
to
decide
that
you're
going
to
conceal
because
it's
easier
than
rewriting
or
adding
to
the
law.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
L
I
am
the
chief
deputy
public
defender
supervising
our
juvenile
division
in
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office.
My
thanks
first
to
the
chair
and
the
assembly
judiciary
for
the
opportunity
to
be
heard.
Today
we
do
support
ab5251
and
thank
assemblywoman
krasner
for
her
support
in
addressing
these
very
important
issues
requiring
youth
to
have
the
opportunity
to
consult
with
an
attorney
or
a
parent
or
guardian
before
waiving
their
miranda
rights
and
participating
in
a
custodial
interrogation
is
extremely
important.
L
L
L
During
my
tenure
with
the
public
defender's
office,
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
interview
hundreds
and
likely
a
lot
more
juveniles
and
discuss
what
miranda
rights
are
and
what
they
mean
when
asking
the
youth
their
understanding
of
what
the
miranda
rights
mean.
The
typical
responses
is
usually
some
variation
of.
I
cannot
talk
back
to
the
police
officer.
I
cannot
speak
out
of
turn
that
I
must
sit
there
be
quiet
and
answer
the
officer's
questions.
L
You
simply
do
not
understand
these
rights,
and
nor
do
they
comprehend
the
consequences
of
waving
them.
As
you
heard,
assemblyman
woman
krasner
note,
we
as
a
society
do
have
standards
and
laws
that
treat
youth
differently.
Children
cannot
get
married
without
parental
consent.
They
cannot
enter
into
contracts.
L
We
also
support
the
lowering
of
the
age
for
automatic
stealing
of
juvenile
records
to
18..
This
change
will
allow
youth,
who
are
no
longer
active
in
the
juvenile
justice
system,
the
chance
to
move
into
adulthood
with
a
clean
slate
and
without
the
concern
that
the
transgressions
they
committed
in
their
youth
will
follow
them
into
their
adult
life.
C
I
I
C
C
D
D
C
E
Good
morning,
nathaniel
erb
n-a-t-h-a-n-I-e-l-e-r-b
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
rocky
mountain
innocent
center
and
the
innocence
project
in
support
of
ab251
as
amended,
we
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
krasner
for
putting
this
bill
forward.
The
rocky
mountain
innocent
center
and
the
innocence
project
worked
to
prevent
and
address
the
causes
of
wrongful
convictions
in
nevada
and
throughout
the
united
states.
It
is
for
these
reasons
that
our
organizations
respectfully
request
the
committee
pass
ab251.
E
There's
our
organization's
submitted
testimony.
We
focused
on
the
assets
of
the
bill
related
to
interrogations,
but
we
fully
support
the
bill
as
amended
as
a
whole.
A
b
251
will
provide
important
protections
against
wrongful
convictions
of
children
in
nevada
in
a
myriad
of
circumstances,
one
of
the
most
serious
circumstances
and
it
would
protect
against,
is
false.
E
Concessions
of
the
cases
tracked
by
national
registry
of
exonerees
49
of
false
confessions
were
of
children
under
the
age
of
21
at
the
time
of
arrest,
wrongful
confessions
by
four
wrongfully
convicted
adults
in
nevada
alone,
point
to
the
compounded
vulnerability
of
children
to
the
same
issue
which
demands
better
protection
under
nevada
law.
Children
do
not
have
this
mental
maturity.
To
judge
the
consequences
of
confessions
in
the
way
adults
do
they
are
more
likely
to
focus
mainly
on
the
immediate
potential
outcomes
of
making
a
false
confession,
such
as
going
home.
E
Ab2C1
protects
against
false
confessions
and
statements
that
may
lead
to
a
wrongful
conviction
and
has
led
to
wrongful
convictions
in
adults
in
nevada.
It
is
for
these
reasons
that
the
rocky
mountain
innocence
center
and
the
innocence
project
support
abc
ab5251
and
request
its
passage
by
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
bill.
A
C
L
L
As
others
have
mentioned,
you
know
we
don't
allow
children
to
enter
into
contracts
prior
to
age
18
for
a
reason,
so
it
stands
to
reason
that
we
wouldn't
allow
them
to
make
important
decisions
about
their
constitutional
rights
without
first
consulting
an
adult.
We
know
from
all
of
our
litigation
that
we've
been
doing
and
all
of
the
legislation
we've
passed
in
recent
years,
that
juvenile
brains
are
different
and
we
also
know
as
citizens
that
children
are
some
of
our
most
vulnerable
populations.
L
This
bill
is
similar
to
what
other
jurisdictions
have
done.
The
amendment
is
particularly
well
done
because
it
addresses
many
of
the
questions
that
I've
listened
to
here
this
morning
on
this
bill.
I
just
want
to
highlight
a
couple
things
in
response
to
some
of
those
questions.
One
is
on
the
issue
of
expungement.
It's
very
important
to
note
that
there
is
a
judicial
review
process
associated
with
a
expungement,
and
a
court
will
be
deciding
whether
juvenile
offenses
should
be
expunged
and
basically
completely
eradicated
from
the
record.
So
it's
not
the
legislation
that
does
it.
L
It
is
a
court
who
will
decide,
and
it
also,
as
mr
pirro
pointed
out,
does
not
apply
to
sex
offenses
murders.
Things
of
that
nature
on
the
there's
been
a
lot
of
questions
about
what's
custodial
interrogation.
The
answer
to
that
is,
when
you're
not
free
to
leave
that
doesn't
get
litigated.
What
does
get
litigated
are
the
facts
surrounding
whether
someone
was
not
free
to
leave
so,
and
I
think
that
it's
important
to
clarify,
because
that
standard
is
clear
in
the
law.
L
It's
the
facts
about
whether
someone
was
free
to
leave
or
not
free
to
leave.
That
are
the
aspect
that
gets
litigated
and
on
the
issue
of
miranda
itself.
Without
this
bill,
what
currently
often
gets
litigated
is
whether
or
not
a
child
who
says
something
like
I
want
to
talk
to
my
mom,
whether
that's
an
invocation
of
miranda.
L
This
makes
it
clear
that
he
has
an
absolute
right
to
talk
to
his
mom
and
it
takes
away
the
need
to
litigate.
Whether
saying
can
I
talk
to
my
mom,
can
I
talk
to
my
dad?
Is
a
child
or
juvenile
invocation
of
miranda,
so
this
bill
is
really
well
done
in,
particularly
so
with
the
amendment
that
assemblywoman
krasner
has
proposed,
and
I
would
urge
all
of
you
to
support
it.
Thanks
for
letting
me
talk.
A
C
O
E
Mayor
and
council
of
north
las
vegas
have
made
protecting
and
educating
our
young
people
a
high
priority,
and
so
the
legal
process
for
an
adult
can
be
very
complex
and
confusing.
So
I
commend
the
bill
sponsors
for
their
wisdom
and
in
providing
a
bill
that
will
help
young
people
navigate
a
complex
process.
Thank
you,
chairman.
For
your
time.
O
O
We
we
have
seen
when
I
ran
the
juvenile
division,
especially
interviewing
a
number
of
kids
and
being
involved
with
the
kids,
the
importance
of
them,
knowing
their
rights,
adults
have
a
difficult
time,
understanding
their
own
constitutional
rights.
The
miranda
warning
you
could
tell
by
many
of
the
questions
today.
It's
it's
confusing
and
difficult.
So
imagine
a
16
year
old
that
doesn't
have
that
understanding,
but
potentially
facing
with
certifications
and
things
like
that,
an
adult
sentence
many
years
in
prison,
it's
absolutely
vital
that
they
are
aware
of
their
rights.
O
A
C
C
L
Thank
you,
assemblyman
yeager,
and
thank
you
to
the
rest
of
the
committee
members.
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
hit
the
star
9
to
get
into
the
queue
I'll
be
quick.
I
am
in
clark
county.
I
am
a
mother
of
two
young
boys
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
could
not
imagine
not
being
contacted
if
my
children
found
themselves
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
law
and
in
custody,
and
I
would
be
incredibly.
L
I
could
not
support
my
children,
advise
my
children
and
be
able
to
provide
representation
for
them
in
that
situation,
and
I
just
don't
know
how
I
can
teach
my
children
to
respect
the
law
and
respect
authority
if
they're
not
given
basic
rights
to
protect
themselves
if
they
do
get
into
some
trouble.
So
I
think
the
sponsors
of
this
bill
for
bringing
it
forth
and
there's
so
much
in
it
that
is
so
important
for
our
children
to
treat
them
as
as
human
beings
and
and
give
them
that
shot
in
life.
L
If
they
do
get
into
trouble
to,
you
know,
be
able
to
really
become
something
and
become
a
good
part
of
society,
even
if
they
find
themselves
into
some
trouble
when
they're
young.
Thank
you
for
for
bringing
forth
this
bill,
and
I
and
I
hope
it
does
pass
and
thank
you.
Everyone
for
letting
me
speak.
A
C
A
We
can
hear
you
if
you
are
in
support
of
the
bill.
Please
go
ahead
and
state
your
name
and
provide
your.
C
That's
a
mistake:
caller
user
number:
two,
if
you
want
to
testify
in
support
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
provide
your
testimony
in
support
of
bill.
C
A
C
N
Hello,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
chuck
callaway
c-a-l-l-a-w-a-y,
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
Unfortunately
we're
here
today
in
opposition
to
ab251,
our
officers
do
carry
the
juvenile
miranda
cards
and
we
do
make
every
effort
when
we
contact
juveniles
to
notify
parents
that
their
child
is
in
custody.
N
However,
there
are
many
situations
that
might
occur
out
there.
N
Sometimes
parents
are
not
home
or
they're
not
available,
sometimes
the
juvenile
is
afraid,
and
so
they
lie
and
give
a
false
number
and
make
it
difficult
to
contact
parents
and
basically,
as
was
was
stated
in
the
testimony,
this
bill
makes
it
so
that
a
person
under
18
cannot
waive
their
fifth
amendment
rights
at
all,
and
every
situation
is
different
and
obviously
a
11
or
12
year
old
is
a
completely
different
scenario
than
somebody
who's,
17
plus
and
turns
18
in
a
couple
months-
and
I
I
understand
that
assemblywoman
krasner's
heart
is
in
the
right
place,
but
my
fear
is
that
this
bill
will
actually
cause
more
harm
than
good.
N
We
have
situations
where
it's
by
our
policy
that
we
work
with
kids.
We
divert
them
from
the
criminal
justice
system.
We
use
the
harbor
and
the
family,
justice
courts
and
family
justice
center
down
in
clark
county
and
to
just
give
you
one
example.
If
we
had
a
case
where
a
fight
occurred
between
a
17
year
old
and
a
22
year
old
and
an
officer
arrives
on
the
scene,
we
can't
based
on
this
law.
N
We
can't
even
get
this
side
of
the
story
of
the
17
year
old
without
having
an
a
parent
contacted
without
getting
hold
of
an
attorney.
Potentially,
if
a
parent's
not
there,
and
as
was
the
concerns
raised
by
assemblyman
o'neill,
this
17
plus
year
old,
would
not
even
have
the
ability
to
waive
their
own
rights
and
decide.
N
They
want
to
speak
with
us
about
what
happened,
and
so
my
fear
is,
is
that
in
these
cases,
if,
if
we
can't
get
hold
of
a
parent-
and
we
can't
get
a
hold
of
an
attorney,
we'll
simply
make
an
arrest
and
take
the
juvenile
to
juvenile
hall
and
there
won't
be
an
opportunity
to
maybe
smooth
out
a
situation
or
or
avoid
that
consequence
from
happening.
So,
as
I
said,
you
know,
I
understand
the
intent
of
the
assembly
woman,
but
unfortunately,
as
the
bill
is
written
and
specifically
with
the
amendments
we
we
are
opposed.
C
I
E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H-F-L-O-R-E-Z-
and
I
am
the
interim
director
of
the
washoe
county
department
of
juvenile
services,
I
reached
out
to
the
sponsor
yesterday
and
appreciate
her
offer
to
meet
with
us
regarding
our
concerns,
but
we
were
not
able
to
do
so
before
today's
hearing.
Ab251
has
two
distinct
elements.
The
first
is
to
require
that
youth
consult
with
either
a
parent
or
attorney
prior
to
custodial
interrogation.
I
It
is
also
unclear
if
this
requirement
would
apply
to
probation
officers
who,
in
the
normal
course
of
duties,
meet
with
juveniles
at
the
office
in
their
homes
and
in
the
community.
Juveniles
are
required
to
meet
with
their
pos
as
a
condition
of
probation.
These
meetings
are
not
necessarily
voluntarily
voluntary
as
written.
This
would
greatly
hamper
the
relationship
we
established
with
the
youth
we
serve
and
the
court's
orders
we
are
required
to
follow
for
those
in
custody.
Youth
will
likely
remain
detained
for
longer
amounts
of
time,
awaiting
either
parental
consultation
or
assignment
of
legal
counsel.
I
I
I
The
recent
proposed
amendment
allows
youth
to
petition
for
the
expungement
of
all
misdemeanor
offenses,
but
not
all
misdemeanor
offenses
are
created
equal,
for
example,
brandishing
a
weapon
in
a
threatening
manner.
Domestic
batteries,
duis,
stalking
and
violations
of
tpos
are
misdemeanor
offenses
as
a
probation
department
who
continues
to
embrace
juvenile
justice
reform
and
who
continue
to
divert
the
vast
majority
of
youth
away
from
formal
court
proceedings
and
who
pride
ourselves
in
developing
relationships
with
them.
We
fear
this
legislation
will
result
in
extended
detention
time
for
our
youth
and
will
compromise
public
safety.
Thank
you.
E
L,
I
h
a
clark
county
department
of
juvenile
justice
assistant
director.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
their
time.
Ddgs
opposes
the
bill,
but
supports
the
ideas
of
the
juvenile
rights
custody
for
a
peace
officer
can
be
placing
a
use
into
handcuffs
or
giving
them
a
verbal
command
to
stay
in
the
car,
room,
etc.
The
the
language
is
very
broad
and
confusing.
The
difference
between
custodial
and
detainment
are
different,
but
in
this
language
it's
unclear
as
to
when
the
rights
would
it
would
occur.
E
The
unintended
consequence
of
this
bill
would
lead
more
youth
to
being
detained
or
arrested
probation
officers.
Primary
roles
are
to
protect
the
community
of
role
model
and
melter
mentor
and
build
relationships
with
children.
This
would
be
hard
to
do
without
having
conversations
violation
of
probation
arrest
will
increase
in
2019,
our
violation
of
probations
dropped
nearly
20
percent
an
example
would
be
a
gps
violation
where
kids
have
an
ankle,
monitor
on
leaves
of
the
home
and
goes
to
7-eleven
parents,
not
home.
We
go
by
the
house
to
see
what
the
kids
doing.
E
We
can't
even
ask
a
simple
question:
why
did
you
leave
your
home?
A
simple
drug
test
where
a
test
pause
is
for
opioid.
We
can't
ask
the
child:
what's
the
did?
You
have
to
take
a
prescription
of
your
parents,
or
did
you
have
a
poppy
seed
muffin,
so
the
unintended
consequences
these
children
will
be
detained.
E
Clark
county
has
a
program
called
the
harbor
which
has
diverted
over
fifteen
thousand
uses
exception
in
2016
and
their
probation
officers
that
work
there
that
help
process
these
cases
many
misdemeanors
are
diverted.
The
harbor
is
a
successful
multi-agency
approach
to
diverting
youth
from
entering
the
juvenile
justice
system.
Questions
needs
and
risk
assessments
are
often
used
to
determine
appropriate
resources,
and
services
are
provided
to
the
youth
and
family
dg
has
diverted
over
5700
cases.
Out
of
it.
There
are
11
700
in
2019.
E
The
harbor
will
be
significantly
impacted
as
well.
The
efforts
made
by
juvenile
justice
to
divert
youth
if
a
parent
or
attorney
does
not
answer
the
phone.
A
schedule
will
have
to
be
made.
It
could
be
several
days
to
a
week
later.
Unnecessary
detainment
of
youth
will
occur,
an
example
we
do
domestic
violence
in
the
home.
Often
the
children
are
victims,
and
if
the
parent
and
the
step
parent
are
involved
in
this,
we
can't
police
officers
cannot
even
ask
the
child,
were
they
the
victim
or
were
they
a
perpetrator?
E
E
E
Djs
also
has
concern
about
the
bill
when
it
comes
to
the
automatic
ceiling
of
records.
What
is
the
impact
for
when
a
child
has
a
hold
open
charge
or
is
currently
on
probation
past
the
age
of
18?
Would
these
charges
be
sealed
and
the
child
would
not
be
able
to
get
the
services
that
they
need
prior
to
getting
off
probation?
C
P
The
clark
county
juvenile
division
strongly
supports
juvenile
justice
reform,
but
unfortunately,
with
the
time
frames
that
we
will
receive
this
piece
of
legislation
and
specifically
the
amendments,
we
were
unable
to
have
a
meeting
with
the
assemblywoman
to
discuss
our
concerns
and
come
to
some
consensus
so
just
to
state
my
opposition
on
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
district
search
attorneys
association,
I
want
to
state
one
in
section
one
that
section
ignores
that
some
of
our
children
are
foster
children
that
come
into
the
juvenile
justice
system,
and
I
disagree
with
miss
burchie
that
the
term
guardian
would
envelop
the
child
welfare
agency.
A
P
P
Also
in
the
past,
we've
had
a
similar
bill
in
different
sessions,
where
there
was
a
lot
of
testimony
from
our
public
defenders
around
concern
that
if
the
children
were
had
to
consult
with
their
parents
prior
to
waiving
their
rights,
that
the
parents
would
influence
the
children
to
waive
their
rights,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
opposition
to
that.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
addressing
that
issue
that
if
the
issue
is
that
the
child
gets
the
opportunity
to
consult
with
a
parent
or
an
attorney
and
the
parent
is
standing
there
are.
P
We
is
that
really
what
everybody
wants,
because
in
the
past
there
was
a
lot
of
opposition
to
that,
and
I've
spoken
to
a
lot
of
my
juvenile
public
defender
friends
around
some
of
the
problems
that
they
have
with
parents
influencing
their
their
child's
juvenile
justice
case.
Also,
while
I
applaud
the
public
defenders
for
being
available
by
phone
24
7.,
many
of
our
cases
have
multiple
co-defendants,
so,
for
example,
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
I
may
get
a
call
about
a
series
of
robberies
in
a
casino
specifically.
P
We've
had
one
recently
with
five
children,
pepper,
spraying
elderly
in
the
parking
lot
with
casinos,
disabling
that
elderly
victim
and
taking
their
property,
including
their
vehicles
that
drive
to
the
next
casino.
To
do
the
same
thing,
there
were
five
co-defendants
in
that
case,
so
going
with
the
thought
that
a
public
defender
may
be
available
for
one
of
them.
Oftentimes
public
defenders
are
conflicting
off.
They
can't
represent
all
all
of
those
co-defendants
at
the
same
time.
So
I
think
we
need
to
address
that
issue
and
make
sure
we
have
the
resources
available.
P
P
So
while
I
also
I
know,
I
only
have
two
minutes
so
I'm
trying
to
speed
it
up.
I
also
love
the
banter
because
it
makes
these
really
long
hearing
way
more
exciting
and
entertaining,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
record
is
clear.
We
have
hearsay,
which
is
an
out
of
court
statement
and
there
are
exceptions
to
hear
say
like
excited
utterances
and
party
admissions
and
we
have
miranda.
P
P
Finally,
good
policy
to
allow
children
to
re
feel
their
record
and
move
on.
We
all
make
mistakes.
We
all
make
poor
decisions
as
children
as
adults.
What
is
important
is
that
we
teach
our
children
that
we
accept
their,
they
accept
their
consequences
and
they
learn
from
their
mistakes
and
they
don't
let
it
define
their
future.
How
I
teach
my
children,
it's
how
I
teach
to
foster
children
and
the
delinquent
children
that
I
handle
every
single
day.
P
You
don't
want
to
make
a
mistake.
You
can't
come
back
from
you
make
a
mistake.
You
learn
from
it.
You
take
your
consequence
and
you
move
on.
Never
let
it
define
your
future,
so
I
appreciate
that
we
are
clarifying
that
we
want
children
to
be
able
to
move
on.
I
just
need
this
statute
to
be
very
clear
that
it
is
not
intended
to
steal
cases
where
we
are
still
providing
rehabilitative
services
to
children.
I
don't
want
to
close
cases
prematurely.
P
We
do
have
a
section
under
the
statute
for
child
victims
of
sex
trafficking
that
they
automatically
feel
at
18..
I
want
to
make
sure
we
are
very
clear
that
this
is
not
the
case,
because
the
reason
to
address
I
believe
it
was
assemblywoman
kasama's
issue
about
y21
in
the
past.
Juvenile
court
has
jurisdiction
until
21.
P
That
is
very
significant,
because
children
may
be
arrested
at
17
years
old
and
11
months
for
offenses,
for
which
we
really
want
to
provide
them
with
rehabilitative
services
so
that
they
can
go
on
and
be
productive
children
and
put
my
criminal
division
out
of
business
right.
If
I
can,
if
I
get
you
at
17
for
committing
an
act
and
we
provide
services,
I
don't
want
that
case
automatically
closing
at
18,
so
we
allow
them
to
stay
in
juvenile
court
jurisdiction
until
21
and
receive
services.
P
So
that
is
our
goal
and
why
21
was
before
because
it's
automatic,
we
have
case
management
systems
that
at
21
seal
the
cases.
So
just
so
you
know,
I
need
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
any
issues
there.
I
want
to
support
ms
flores
from
washoe
county
juvenile
justice
services.
We
are
embracing
juvenile
justice
reform.
I
am
so
proud
of
the
steps
that
we've
taken
to
come
forward
and
and
move
on.
P
I
see
some
solid
opportunity
here
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
in
opposition
and
I
appreciate
chair
yeager
that
I
know
I
rambled
on
more
than
two
minutes.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
miss
duffy.
It
was
more
than
two
minutes,
but
I
wanted
to
give
you
adequate
time
to
to
make
your
points
in
opposition.
I
know
things
are
a
little
different
with
the
zoom
meetings
and
the
call
in
so
appreciate
those
comments.
Bps.
I
think
there
might
be
one
or
two
others
in
opposition.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
and
check
on
that?
Please.
C
N
Good
morning,
sherry
yeager
members
of
the
summit
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
alex
ortiz
a-l-e-x-o-r-t-I-z,
representing
clark
county.
Even
though
this
is
a
policy
committee,
it
is
our
only
opportunity
to
express
our
concerns
about
the
fiscal
impact
on
clark.
County
clark.
County
opposes
assembly
bill
251,
as
written
as
and
amended
due
to
the
fiscal
impact
on
clark
county.
I
did
reach
out
to
the
sponsor
yesterday,
but
was
unable
to
connect
with
her
and
discuss
our
concerns
specifically
related
to
our
department
of
juvenile
justice
services.
N
My
opposition
is
only
based
on
the
fiscal
impact
to
the
county
and
not
the
policy
issues
discussed
today.
Some
of
our
policy
concerns
were
mentioned
by
our
assistant
director
of
the
department
of
juvenile
justice
services,
mike
wielahan.
To
my
knowledge,
we
were
not
asked
to
submit
a
fiscal
note
on
this
bill.
However,
the
fiscal
note
of
this
legislation
is
significant
on
our
department
of
juvenile
justice
services
and
will
necessitate
opening
staffing
and
operating
an
additional
housing
unit
in
juvenile
justice
detention
at
the
cost
of
over
2
million
a
year.
N
C
C
A
C
D
D
W-I-L-D-E-V-E-L-D
and
I
am
testifying
as
a
private
criminal
defense
attorney
in
support
of
ab
251,
this
piece
of
legislation
should
be
important
to
all
of
us
section.
One
would
require
a
peace
officer
or
probation
officer
to
consult
with
parents
or
an
attorney
before
an
interrogation
is
conducted
and
sections
two
through
nine
actually
allows
a
juvenile
to
put
their
juvenile
behaviors
behind
them
by
sealing
their
records
at
18
and
further
provides
a
mechanism
to
re-evaluate
a
child's
record
after
after
18th
birthday
to
allow
parties
to
seal
previously
unsealable
records.
D
It
recognizes
child
children
as
children,
as
assemblywoman
krasner
indicated.
As
someone
with
extensive
experience
working
in
the
juvenile
justice
system,
I
can
attest
to
the
fact
that
our
system
still
needs
improvement.
We
encounter
kids
in
the
juvenile
system
that
are
often
experiencing
great
crisis
in
their
life,
not
only
because
they
are
dealing
with
ordinary
juvenile
issues,
but
also
issues
that
include
homelessness,
substance,
abuse
and
undiagnosed.
Untreated
mental
health
conditions.
D
Children
are
brought
into
custody
for
everything,
including
a
fight
at
school,
graffiti
or
homicide.
The
focus
on
representing
a
child
in
juvenile
court
includes
helping
them
deal
with
their
life
problems.
To
ensure
that
they
do
not
return
to
court,
the
model
of
adult
court
is
not
the
same,
and
representations
in
the
adult
court
are
much
different
than
the
representations
of
a
child
in
juvenile
court.
D
The
juvenile
system
is
focused
on
rehabilitating
a
child,
not
tricking
them.
Children
under
arrest
under
understand,
do
not
understand
miranda
warnings
and
are
only
familiar
with
the
words
they
know
from
television.
The
warnings
for
children
include
asking
a
child
if
he
or
she
would
like
a
parent
or
an
attorney
present
under
this
bill.
The
child
cannot
waive
counsel
or
a
parent
present
at
that
point,
they're
not
given
a
choice
that
they
do
not
understand.
D
Instead,
it
recognizes
that
children
are
different
from
adults.
The
supreme
court
has
recognized
that
teens
are
too
young
to
exercise,
let
alone
comprehend
their
rights,
so
they
become
easy
victims
of
the
law.
This
legislation
fixes
that
and
recognizes
that
children
are
in
fact
different
to
waive
that
right
is
a
powerful
thing
that
children
in
the
situation
do
not
understand
and
provides
for
procedural
protections
for
juveniles,
while
recognizing
the
characteristics
of
youth
sections.
D
Therefore,
the
act
that
one
commits,
while
still
a
juvenile,
should
not
be
used
against
them
if
they
have
contact
with
the
system
again
as
an
adult.
Instead,
it
is
consistent
with
what
we
preach
to
kids
in
the
juvenile
court.
We
are
here
to
help
you
not,
but
if
we
can't
we'll
make
sure
this
comes
back
to
haunt
you
in
the
future
as
an
adult
until
we
fix
our
inadequacies
in
the
juvenile
system,
the
lack
of
options
to
help
kids
in
the
system,
we
need
to
put
safeguards
like
this
in
place.
D
D
There
are
some
situations,
real
situations
like
one
I
am
currently
dealing
with
in
a
case
in
lovelock
the
case
of
matthew
hutchinson.
Our
client
was
arrested
months
after
his
18th
birthday
53
days.
I
think,
to
be
exact.
He
was
offered
a
deal
that
can
considered
parole
because
of
his
juvenile
history,
which
consisted
of
delinquent
acts
as
well
as
typical
juvenile
acts.
Juvenile
acts,
including
plugging
the
toilets
in
juvenile
detention,
name,
calling
in
juvenile
detention
throwing
pencils
in
juvenile
detention.
D
His
adult
counterpart
received
seven
years
for
the
same
offense.
It
is
incredibly
important
that
our
state
keeps
abreast
of
the
latest
trends,
data
and
research
concerning
juvenile
rehabilitation,
and
this
bill
is
another
step
in
the
right
direction.
This
bill
will
help
to
make
our
juvenile
justice
system
more
effective
and
to
really
give
meaning
to
the
words
childhood
matters
and
show
that
when
we
call
a
child's
child,
he
cannot
then
have
his
childhood
used
against
them
once
they
magically
become
an
adult
at
age
18..
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
wildevelt.
Thank
you
for
your
patience
this
morning,
bps
I'm
going
to
close
supportive
testimony.
Let's
go
to
neutral
testimony
on
assembly
bill
251..
We
don't
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
neutral
bps.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
phone
who'd
like
to
offer
neutral
testimony.
C
A
Q
Q
K
Thank
you,
terry
yeager.
Again,
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
krasner
for
bringing
forward
this
extremely
important
bill
to
help
put
in
safeguards
to
ensure
that
we
are
not
wrongfully
convicting
our
youth.
It
is
disheartening
to
hear
from
the
opposition
that
law
enforcement
feels
that
their
only
option
is
to
arrest
youth
when
they
cannot
engage
in
custodial
interrogations
on
scene
or
immediately.
K
K
The
the
language
in
the
bill
indicates
that
the
officers
must
reach
out
to
one
to
the
parent
or
legal
guardian
or
the
attorney.
If
a
parent
is
not
available,
there
would
be
a
attorney
present.
I
would
note
that
the
concerns
regarding
conflict
of
interest
we've
been
able
to
resolve
those
in
other
cases,
and
we
will
certainly
be
able
to
resolve
those
issues
if
we
are
called
upon
for
multiple
individuals
at
a
time.
K
I
do
note
that
there
are
some
concerns
regarding
the
language
specifically
with
some
terms,
and
I
appreciate
that
conversation
and
look
forward
to
working
with
the
stakeholders
and
assembly
women
to
ensure
that
we
are
covering
all
faces
to
fill
those
gaps,
to
ensure
that
we
are
protecting
our
children.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
assemblywomankresner,
ms
burchie
for
presenting
assemblybill251.
We
appreciate
it
and
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day
at
this
time.
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
251
committee
that
takes
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Callers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
A
C
E
As
many
of
you
know,
the
federal
and
state
eviction
moratorium
are
set
to
expire
on
march
31st
a
near
two
weeks
from
today.
Meanwhile,
according
to
the
gwen
center,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
nevadans
are
at
risk
of
eviction
and
the
battle
will
experience
eviction
surges
statewide
without
increasing
tenant
protections.
This
looming
crisis
will
hurt
those
who
are
most
vulnerable
in
our
state.
That's
people
of
color,
undocumented
renters,
as
well
as
low-income
individuals
and
families.
E
These
communities
have
already
been
disproportionately
impacted
by
coca-19
due
to
job
loss
and
economic
insecurity
at
no
fault
of
their
own.
We've
been
one
year
since
nevada,
officially
recognized
the
covet
19th
pandemic.
Although
a
recovery
seems
closer
than
ever.
I
urge
you
to
take
these
steps
so
that
no
nevadan
has
to
fall
through
the
cracks
and
be
left
behind.
You
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
by
implementing
the
protections
in
ab141
and
ab161.
A
C
F
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
my
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
38
years
old
when
he
was
hog-tied
and
affixiated
to
death
by
reno
police
and
washer
county
sheriff's
office.
Today
I
want
to
talk
about
philip
serrano,
who
was
killed
by
reno
police.
Also,
phillip
serrano
was
44
years
old
when
he
was
shot
by
reno
police
and
killed
on
september.
23
2018.
F
F
D.A
chris
hicks
doesn't
didn't
release
any
body
cam
or
his
justification
of
phillips
murder
until
11,
4,
2020
and
philip
was
murdered
in
september
of
2018..
He
waits
for
a
reason.
He
hopes
the
community
will
forget.
I
can
assure
you
phillips,
daughter,
desiree
and
sister.
Michelle
will
never
be
able
to
forget
their
loved
one
in
crisis
was
shot
multiple
times.
51
shots
were
fired
in
total
by
officer
brandon,
nagel,
shawn
manning
vincent
robles,
stephen
smith
and
sean
schwartz.
The
report
states
that
multiple
witnesses
indicated
phillip
indicated
through
his
vehicle
window.
F
He
was
going
to
park
his
vehicle
on
the
curb
and
speak
with
police
as
his
vehicle
slowly
rolled
towards
the
curb
offices
unloaded
on
philip
these
people.
I
talk
about
in
my
brother's
life
mattered.
They
are
someone's
brother
sister
friend
lover,
son
daughter.
Please
do
not
support
bills
that
further
protect
police.
Please
support
bills
like
ab268
ab271
that
provide
transparency
and
accountability
from
law
enforcement.
My
family
and
so
many
others
are
counting
on
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
A
We
will
be
starting
at
eight
o'clock
in
the
morning.
The
next
three
days.
We
have
one
bill
on
tomorrow's
agenda
and
then
two
bills,
each
on
thursday
and
friday's
agenda
and
then,
as
we
get
towards
the
end
of
the
week,
we'll
talk
about
what
next
week
will
look
like.
I
do
want
to
remind
members.
We
have
a
floor
session
at
11
30
today.
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
bills
we'll
be
introducing,
so
I
want
to
encourage
you
to
try
to
get
down
there
for
hopefully
an
on-time
start.
Thank
you
again.
Members.