►
From YouTube: 2/17/2021 - 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
C
C
C
D
C
E
F
C
E
G
A
Here
we
do
have
everybody
present,
which
means
we
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
the
members
good
morning
to
those
of
you
joining
us
on
zoom
and
good
morning
to
those
of
the
public
who
may
be
watching
either
on
the
legislature's
website
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
page.
Welcome
to
day
17
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
for
anyone
on
the
zoom.
A
Could
you
please
mute
yourself
if
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
audio
feedback
for
any
of
our
presenters
today,
when
you
present
or
when
you
respond
to
a
question,
please
remember
to
state
your
name
for
the
record
that'll
make
our
committee
secretary's
job
a
little
bit
easier
when
preparing
the
minutes.
I'll.
Try
to
remind
you
to
do
that.
If
you
forget,
because
I
know
it's
not
a
natural
thing
to
do
in
conversation,
we
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy.
That's
perfectly!
Okay!
A
That's
why
the
legislature's
here
to
figure
these
things
out,
but
we
have
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
to
one
another,
to
staff
and
also
to
the
legislative
institution
and
finally,
members
have
multiple
screens
in
front
of
them
most
likely
trying
to
participate
on
zoom
and
also
look
at
exhibits.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
other
devices,
we're
probably
just
trying
to
get
a
grasp
on.
A
What's
going
on
in
the
meeting
with
that
behind
us
we're
going
to
move
to
our
agenda
members,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda
today.
The
good
news
is,
we
have
the
same
presenters
for
both
of
the
bills.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
assembly
bill.
The
hearing
on
assembly
bill
23
assembly,
bill
23,
revises
provisions
regarding
the
procedure
to
commit
an
incompetent
criminal
defendant
and
with
us
to
present
the
bill.
A
Today
we
have
dr
neighbors
and
ms
malay
from
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services.
So
I
want
to
welcome
you
to
to
the
committee
hearing.
What
we'll
do
is
give
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill,
then
we'll
take
questions
from
the
members
before
opening
up
for
additional
testimonies.
So
when
you're
ready
on
assembly
bill
23
the
floor
is
yours.
G
So,
thank
you,
chairman
yeager
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
elizabeth
nabors
and
I'm
the
statewide
forensic
director
for
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health,
and
we
would
like
to
thank
you
for
giving
us
the
opportunity
this
morning
to
present
in
support
of
ab23
first.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
to.
G
So
abe
23
proposes
changes
in
the
time
frame
for
submitting
a
the
comprehensive
risk
assessment.
That's
required
when
a
petition
is
filed
to
commit
a
an
incompetent
defendant
under
nevada,
revised
statute,
178.461.
G
G
Presently,
when
that
occurs,
when
there
is
a
petition
filed,
the
evaluators
at
the
facility
are
notified
by
the
prosecutor,
and
there
is
a
request
that
they,
we
complete.
A
comprehensive
risk
assessment.
Answering
the
question
about
whether
the
person
is
in
need
of
the
level
of
care
and
security
of
a
forensic
facility,
and
that
commitment
can
be
up
to
10
years
or
more.
G
G
That
limits
the
time
to
the
seven
day
period.
If
we
get
the
notice
on
a
weekend,
then
obviously
that
shrinks
the
time
frame
even
more,
and
so
we
have
been
working
this
with
this
for
a
number
of
years
now
and
found
that
it
is
very
difficult
and
frequently,
probably
almost
uniformly.
We
have
to
ask
for
extensions
in
order
to
do
this
in
an
appropriate
and
responsible
manner
to
deliver
the
recommendation,
that's
appropriate
to
the
court.
G
G
G
So
when
we
receive
a
request
to
complete
one
of
these
risk
assessments,
that
assessment
has
to
be
accommodated
within
the
workload
caseload
of
the
other
duties
that
these
evaluators
have
before
them,
which
can
be
kind
of
daunting.
We
operate
pretty
much
at
full
capacity
at
both
of
our
forensic
facilities
and
certainly
there's
no
shortage
of
work.
G
So
the
goal
that
we
have
here
is
to
balance
all
of
this
with
a
reasonable
time
frame
to
complete
these
evaluations
there
there
are
high
stakes.
As
I
said,
these
evaluations
have
an
outcome
that
may
result
in
an
individual
being
committed
for
up
to
10
years,
which,
for
certain
offenses
can
be
extended
by
five-year
increments
to
a
forensic
facility
which
is
a
psychiatric
hospital
and
they
receive
appropriate
treatment
and
care.
G
And
it
weighed
too
against
the
concern
about
if
an
adequate
decision
and
evaluation
has
not
been
done,
possibly
releasing
somebody
to
the
community
who
is
dangerous,
and
so
certainly
we
have
concern
about
protecting
the
community
as
well.
So
it
is
extremely
important
that
these
be
done
carefully
and
with
deliberation.
G
Another
point
in
terms
of
the
evaluators
certainly
need
to
invest
a
great
deal
of
time
and
care
with
these
is
the
fact
that,
in
all
cases
except
murder
and
sexual
assault,
the
recommendation
of
the
evaluator
is
is
the
court
is,
is
obligated
to
find
in
in
concurrence
with
that
recommendation.
G
G
G
And
collateral
interviews
with
individuals
who
have
known
the
person
in
order
to
complete
the
standardized
risk
assessments
that
we
re
require
in
the
protocol,
that's
used
to
come
to
the
conclusions
that
the
evaluation
that
the
evaluator
presents
to
the
court.
G
G
Recently,
I
was
reviewing
a
peer
review
is
also
part
of
this,
and
so
that
adds
to
the
time
these
evaluations
probably
consume
at
least
30
to
40
hours
of
professional
time.
G
A
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
dr
neighbors.
We
have
some
questions.
I
want
to
ask
just
a
couple
of
questions
to
delay
the
groundwork.
I
think
I
understand
this
process,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
I
have
it
accurate.
So
you
know
if
someone
is
deemed
to
be
incompetent
to
stand
trial,
then
they
are
transported
to
the
state
forensic
facility,
and
am
I
correct
that
the
only
facility
in
the
state
that
does
competency
restoration
is
lakes
crossing
which
is
up
here
in
sparks
nevada.
G
A
So
then,
just
procedure
wise,
you
know
if
you
look
at
section
one
of
the
bill.
Obviously
it
indicates
that
if
somebody
is
found
to
be
essentially.
A
If
under
178
425,
once
the
court
receives
notice
that
the
person's
incompetent,
without
probability,
that
statute
indicates
that
the
court
essentially
has
to
dismiss
the
case,
but
then
the
statute,
as
it
exists
today
allows
the
district
attorney
to
basically
file
a
petition
to
say:
wait,
a
second,
don't
release
this
person.
They
could
be
dangerous.
A
G
G
G
So
if
the
person
doesn't
qualify
under
the
461
section
and
they're
incompetent
without
probability,
then
their
charges
would
be
dismissed
and
we
have
a
window
in
which
we
can
petition
and
the
facility
does
that
for
civil
commitment.
If
we
believe
that
they
meet
criteria
for
civil
commitment,
if
they
do
not,
then
there
are
other
discharge
plans
arranged
and
they
are
discharged
to
services
in
the
community.
G
A
Thank
you
and
I
think
the
last
question
I
have,
and
I
I'm
not
asking
for
specific
numbers
unless
you
have
them
in
front
of
you,
but
when
the
situation
happens,
when
someone
is
incompetent
without
probability,
how
often
do
district
attorneys
file
these
type
of
petitions
that
are
referenced
in
the
bill?
Does
that
happen
a
lot?
Is
it
like?
Half
of
the
time,
do
you
have
any
kind
of
general
sense
of
how
often
they
file.
G
G
We
are
seeing
probably
more
petitions.
As
I
said
it's
it's
within
the
last
year,
we're
beginning
to
have
about
one
a
month
prior
to
that
we
would
have,
and
I'm
just
estimating
more
like
three
or
four
a
year.
A
Increased,
thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
and
before
I
move
on
to
other
questions.
Obviously,
with
kovid
options
are
limited,
but
I
did
have
an
opportunity
to
tour
lakes
crossing
up
here
in
sparks
back
in.
I
think
it
was
2013,
and
so
you
know
when
they're
back
open
and
ready
for
visitation
either
they're
stein.
I
I
would
commend
that
to
members
if,
if
you're
interested
to
just
take
a
tour
of
the
facility
and
see
what's
happening
there,
I
think
it
helps
inform
the
context
of
this
bill.
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
I
was
actually
looking
at
lakes
crossings
website
last
night
when
I
was
reading
the
bill
and
it
it
doesn't
mention
stein.
It
says
that
clark
county
uses
a
private
company
so
might
want
to
update
that.
But
that's
not
my
question.
E
My
question
is
you
mentioned
earlier
in
your
testimony
that
you
often
ask
for
additional
time.
Can
you
walk
me
through
what
the
process
in
asking
for
additional
time
looks
like,
and
how
long
do
you
typically
ask
for.
G
Certainly
yeah
through
you,
chairman,
yeager,
to
assemblywoman
bilbray,
so
it
varies
from
venue
to
venue.
Sometimes
it's
a
relatively
simple,
just
simply
contacting
the
court.
I
guess
one
thing
I
might
comment
is
on
is
we
have
a
specialty
competency
court
in
clark
county
which
really
helps
to
facilitate
and
expedite
matters,
and
so
all
of
these
proceedings
in
clark
county
are
carried
out
in
that
court
in
the
rest
of
the
state,
those
other
16
counties
we.
G
These
petitions
would
remain
in
the
criminal
court
where
the
charges
were
originally
filed,
so
we
would
have
to
ask
each
one
individually
in
clark
county,
it's
a
little
easier,
so
we
simply
contact
the
competency
court
and
the
court
approves
the
extension.
We
have
generally
been
asking
to
extend
the
seven
days
up
to.
F
G
G
E
Thank
you
for
that,
and
just
a
a
small
follow-up.
If
I
may
chair,
please
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
so
the
the
that
makes
sense
so
you're
at
and
you
you
use
the
term
30
judicial
days.
So
I
I
believe,
you're
familiar
with
the
the
amendment
offered
by
the
tds
and
when
I
look
when
I
I
think,
a
lot
of
the
committee
when
we
saw
the
term
reasonable.
E
I
think
that
we
all
kind
of
took
we're
a
little
taken
aback,
because
you
know
that
definition
of
reasonable
can
be
very
different
for
different
people,
like
my
daughter
in
fact,
has
a
very
different
definition
of
reasonable
than
I
do
so
other
than
are
we
just
a
stickler
on
judicial
or
calendar
days
with
the
amendment?
Is
that
correct.
G
G
We
also
have
furloughs
right
now,
so
we
have
people
who
cannot
work
on
their
furlough
days
and
are
limited
some
of
the
staff
that
do
this
are
part-time
staff,
and
so
they
can't
do
additional
work.
Sometimes
they
help
us
out
by
doing
paid
additional
regular
time
to
complete
these,
but
they
cannot
do
that
in
a
week
in
which
they
have
a
furlough.
A
Thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
and
let
me
just
ask
a
quick
follow-up
to
that.
While
it's
on
my
mind,
I
think
it's
probably
pertinent
to
the
question
that
was
asked,
so
I
certainly
understand
that
that
you
need
time
to
do
the
report.
I
guess
my
question
would
be
if
you
can
make
any
conclusions
when
you're
doing
these
reports.
A
How
long
on
a
typical
basis
has
the
defendant
already
been
in
state
custody,
either
at
stein
or
at
lakes
crossing?
Are
we
talking
months?
Are
we
talking
years?
Can
you
give
us
any
any
kind
of
conclusion?
I
think
that'll
sort
of
help
us
process
what
might
be
the
appropriate
time
frame
for
the
report.
G
There
are
serious
crimes
and
so
there's
a
tendency
for
those
folks
to
have
certainly
an
investment,
the
in
restoration
maybe
longer
than
un
under
lesser
offenses.
G
I
actually
can
think
of
two
of
these,
at
least
where
they
were
not
in
lakes
crossing
at
all,
and
there
was
a
very
expedited
process
that
had
this.
G
Petition
filed
and
then
a
subsequent
effort
at
conditional
release,
so
that
was
that
gave
us
very
little
past
record
for
us
to
review
most
of
the
time,
I
would
say
for
all
of
the
ones
that
are
here
right
now
that
the
time
frame
is
between
six
months
to
two
years.
That
they're
here,
for
and
and
with
an
effort
at
restoration
before
the
decision
is
made
to
say
that
they
can't
be
restored.
E
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
have
a
question
about
the
hearings
that
are
referenced
in
the
bill.
You,
I
think
you
already
answered
one
that
when
that,
when
you
file
a
referred
extension
that
that's
sometimes
the
court
asks
you
to
come
in
for
an
actual
hearing
in
the
court,
but
in
section
1,
sub
5
and
sub
7
b.
There's
all
other
hearings
that
are
addressed
are
those
hearings,
court
hearings
or
are
those
done
in
chambers
just
based
on
the
pleadings.
G
Okay,
I'm
not
I'm
aware
of
other
hearings,
I'm
not
exactly
I'm
looking
here.
Sorry,
it's
so.
G
178.46361
through
six
three,
every
the
the
person
once
they
are
committed
under
four
six
one
for
up
to
ten
years,
the
individual
has
the
ability
to
petition
once
a
year
for
conditional
release.
We
are
also
required
to
do
an
annual
report
in
which
the
question
is:
is
the
person
eligible
for
conditional
release?
Have
they
improved
and
recovered
to
the
extent
that
they
could
be
safe
in
the
community
on
a
conditional
release
program?
G
E
Okay,
that's
that's
an
actual
hearing
in
an
open,
a
hearing
in
court
with
with
the
person
having
counsel
and
that
type
of
thing,
not
in
chambers
hearing,
yes,
okay,
thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
assemblywoman,
heidi
kasama,
for
the
record.
I
I
certainly
based
on
your
presentation,
certainly
understand
and
and
see
the
need
for
you
to
have
more
time
for
the
comprehensive
risk
assessment
and
in
the
changes
here.
It
just
has
in
a
reasonable
period
which
you
you've
talked
about.
E
Would
it
is
it
typically?
I
think
you
were
saying
you
could
get
it
done
in
30
days
or
60
days.
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
should
be
instead
of
a
minimum
time
that
if
we
were
to
have
a
cap
on
the
time
within
a
reasonable
period
of
not
more
than
60
days
or
90
days
or
120
days,
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's,
if
there's
a
time
frame
that
you
feel
comfortable
with,
that,
could
always
be
met
to
get
the
risk
assessment
done.
G
Through
you,
chairman,
yeager,
to
assembly,
I
these
individuals
are
each
unique.
G
And
and
to
set
an
absolute
maximum
time
frame
it,
I,
I
guess
in
part,
I
would
say
it
depends
on
what
it
is
a
120
days
would
be
a
lot.
Probably
60
days
would
work.
I
would
be
a
little
hesitant
to
make
the
cap
the
absolute
30-day
cap.
In
case
there
was
some
unforeseen.
G
E
I
I
can
certainly
sense
your
your
hesitation
that
you
just
want
the
flexibility,
and
I
guess
I
guess
so
long
as
the
the
process
is
moving
along,
so
that
you
know
comprehensive
risk
assessment
for
some
reason
somebody
wouldn't
linger
for
three
years.
I
mean
I'm
sure
you
have
the
process
and
you
move
it
forward.
I
guess
that
was
the
thought
I
had
in
my
in
my
mind,.
G
Well-
and
I
would
agree
with
that-
and
and
we
are
sensitive
to
the
you-
know-
the
person's
constitutional
rights
not
to
be
held
longer
than
is
appropriate
in
a
more
restrictive
setting
without
the
appropriate
due
process,
and
I
I
actually
have
to
kind
of
do
kudos
for
the
staff.
I've
recently
had
at
least
two
occasions
where
the
person
got
it
done
sooner
than
the
extension
which
we
had
asked
for.
G
So
there
is
a
considerable
effort
to
to
meet
those
needs
and
parameters.
Okay,.
E
G
E
D
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
for
your
presentation.
I
have
two
questions
just
for
clarity
when
you
request
an
extension,
is
it
generally
for
30
days.
H
G
D
Thank
you
for
that,
and
my
follow-up
question
would
be:
when
does
therapy
for
those
who
are
in
your
care
begin
during
this
assessment
program.
While
you
are
doing
your
background,
do
you
begin
any
assessment
to
get
them
along
their
way
or
are
they
just
held
in
stasis
during
the
time
that
you
are
conducting
your
review.
G
G
We
have
a
very
comprehensive
program
to
restore
individuals
which
addresses
their
psychiatric
needs
as
well
as
their
medical
needs
within.
Although
we
do
have
medical
clearance,
because
there
are
some
things
that
is
a
psychiatric
hospital,
we
cannot
address
our
focus
because
we
are
working
to
restore
individuals.
Competency
is
very
focused
on
that
goal
and
we
have
regular
classes
in
legal
process.
We
have
a
poor
treatment
teams
that
the
clients
are
assigned
to.
G
The
program
is
a
little
bit
different
for
individuals
who
are
committed
long
term,
and
in
that
case
the
goal
is
obviously
not
to
go
back
to
court,
but
to
become
to
recover
to
the
point
that
they
can
be
in
the
community
and
function
and
hopefully,
eventually
be
discharged
from
our
supervision.
D
Thank
you
is
this
facility
strictly
for
criminal
commitment,
or
is
it
open
to
the
public
or
other?
Is
it
a
strictly
for
your
purposes
or
do
other
folks
use
that
facility
as
well?
The
stein
facility
in
las
vegas.
G
G
So
even
the
long-term
clients
who
stay
here
and
and
after
their
charges
are
dismissed
without
prejudice,
they
have
the
path
into
a
forensic
facility
is
always
through
the
courts.
There
is
a
provision
if
there
is
someone
who's
in
a
civil
hospital.
G
A
Hey
do
we
have
further
questions
from
committee
members
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
camera
and
if
you
have
a
question,
I
will
call
on
you.
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time.
Dr
neighbors,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
presenting,
obviously
I'll
ask
you
to
stick
around
to
do
any
follow-up
or
any
concluding
remarks
after
we
take
a
testimony
on
the
bill.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
the
bill.
A
I
don't
believe
we
have
anybody
on
the
zoom
who
will
be
testifying
in
support,
but
if
I'm
wrong
about
that
just
turn
the
camera
on
and
let
me
know,
I
don't
see
anyone
on
zoom
so
bps.
If
we
could
go
to
the
phone
line
please
and
check
to
see.
If
there's
anybody
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
23.
H
H
A
H
H
F
Good
morning,
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o,
representing
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
per
the
rules
of
the
committee,
because
our
proposed
amendment
is
on
friendly.
We
are
currently
in
the
opposition
position.
We
agree
with
dr
navers
that
the
previous
deadline
of
seven
days
was
far
too
short
and
frankly,
we
always
ask
too
much
of
our
state
workers
who
bear
the
brunt
of
a
lot
of
the
things
in
this
state
without
a
lot
of
support.
F
We
agree
with
dr
neighbors
that
we're
not
trying
to
release
dangerous
folks
into
the
community
without
a
full
evaluation.
However,
we
were
originally
opposed
to
the
reasonable
language,
reasonable,
as
a
legal
term
has
been
around
since
1835.
It's
a
legal
fiction
and
it
has
provided
numerous
arguments
between
courts,
lawyers
and
parties
since
1835,
so
we
are
glad
that
they
had
taken
some
of
our
suggestions
to
put
a
30-day
cap
on
it.
However,
we
are
still
in
talks
about
judicial
days
or
30
calendar
days.
F
We
believe
that
our
amendment
30
calendar
days
with
the
ability
to
ask
for
extensions
if
needed,
provides
a
little
bit
more
certainty
to
both
the
courts.
The
person
awaiting
evaluation,
the
person
doing
the
evaluation
as
well
as
the
public,
but
to
be
clear,
we
don't
want
this
bill
to
die.
We
just
think
our
version
is
better
and
we
thank
dr
neighbors
and
the
staff
working
on
this
bill
for
discussing
it
with
us
at
this
time,
and
that
concludes
my
testimony.
H
C
K-E-N-D-R-A-B-E-R-T-S-C-H-Y
and
I
am
the
lobbyist
for
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
first,
I
want
to
thank
dr
nabor,
as
well
as
the
other
sponsors
of
this
bill
for
spending
so
much
time.
Speaking
with
mr
piro
and
myself
to
go
over
our
concerns,
our
main
concern,
as
mr
pero
indicated,
is
the
issue
of
the
language
for
reasonable.
C
Reasonable
is
a
slippery
standard,
especially
when
there's
a
chance
that
a
community
member
can
be
released
safely.
Specific
dates
are
necessary
to
monitor
the
case,
to
ensure
that
the
proceeding
continues
and
does
not
get
lost
in
the
system.
We
agree
that
seven
days
is
not
enough
time
for
the
division
to
complete
this
very
important,
comprehensive
risk
assessment.
C
I
would
just
note
that
the
rules
of
in
essence
what
we're
dealing
with
is
almost
a
quasi-civil
issue,
because
at
this
point
the
legal
criminal
case
is
going
to
be
dismissed.
The
concern
is
just
if
that
person
is
to
remain
in
at
lakes
crossing
or
sign
or
if
they
can
be
safely
released
into
our
community.
C
I
believe
that
it's
important
to
look
at
the
rules
of
civil
procedure
that
discuss
computing
and
extending
time
in
2019.
This
was
adopted
to,
or
the
state
nevada
adopted,
the
federal
time
computation
standard,
which
includes
calendar
days.
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
wanted
to
request
calendar
days
to
ensure
that
there
are
very
specific
time
frames
so
that
everyone
all
the
parties
the
victim
if
there
is
one
at
the
defendant.
C
Everyone
knows
what
the
next
step
in
the
process
is
going
to
be
like,
and
with
that,
I
appreciate
that
dr
neighbors
is
still
willing
to
speak
with
us
in
order
to
figure
out
how
we
can
come
to
an
agreement
in
order
to
ensure
that
all
individuals
are
handled
in
the
same
manner.
In
terms
of
that
there,
there
is
a
definite
time
for
their
next
hearing
that
they're
fully
aware
of
what
that
is
and
that
it
also
balances
the
safety
interests.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
today.
H
D
T-O-N-J-A-B-R-O-W-N
tonya
brown
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent.
I
concur
with
the
two
with
the
spricket
and
and
mr
pearl
that
we
are
in
opposition.
Thank
you
and
have
a
good
day.
Thanks
steve,
go
away
bye-bye.
H
A
H
F
F
Are
you
s-h-I-n
from
virginia
as
an
example
of
why
mental
health
concerns
should
be
decriminalized
before
folks,
sometimes
unfairly
enter
the
criminal
justice
system
so
in
broad
strokes
with
the
time
that
I
have,
mr
russian
was
sentenced
for
a
car
crash.
F
F
A
A
G
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager
I'd,
just
like
to
say
that
I
appreciate
that
the
public
defender's
office,
north
and
south
has
been
very
open
to
talking
with
us,
and
I
assume
we
will
have
some
more
conversation
about
this,
and
so
I
we
are
looking
at
their
concerns,
certainly
as
well.
A
Thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
and
please
just
keep,
keep
keep
me
updated
on
the
progress
of
those
conversations.
Certainly
we
would
we
would
appreciate
if
you're
able
to
come
to
some
kind
of
agreement,
but
if
you're
not
that's
what
we're
here
for
and
you
know
we'll
make
the
best
decision.
We
think
that
makes
sense
for
the
state.
But
if
you
could
keep
us
updated
on
how
that's
going,
we
would
appreciate
it.
A
And
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
23
we're
now
going
to
move
to
our
second
bill
on
the
agenda.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill,
24
assembly
law
24
revises
provisions
relating
to
a
forensic
facility
to
which
certain
offenders
and
defendants
with
a
mental
illness
may
be
committed.
A
G
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
yeager
elizabeth
neighbors.
I
don't
think
I
spelled
my
name
last
time,
so
it's
e-l-I-z-a-b-e-t-h,
neighbors
capital,
n-e-I-g-h-b-o-r-s,
so
assembly
bill
25,
I
believe,
is
very
straightforward.
G
What
we're
really
asking
for
here
is
to
update
the
definition
of
a
forensic
facility
in
nevada,
revised
statute
175.539,
and
this
does
in
a
in
an
indirect
way
kind
of
connect
to
the
to
the
last
bill,
because
in
the
we
have
to
have
a
definition
for
a
forensic
facility
in
the
comprehensive
risk
assessments
that
we
do
and
we
are
finding
that
it
is.
We
have
more
statutes
that
refer,
for
example,
about
where
people
go,
and
we
need
to
be
clear
about
what
facilities
constitute
a
forensic
facility.
G
There
have
been
some
changes
used
to
be,
as
you
noted,
that
lakes
crossing
was
the
only
forensic
facility
in
the
state
that
is
no
longer
true.
G
The
statute
does
refer
without
limitation
to
lake's
crossing
and
we
would
like
to
add
stein
forensic
facility,
which
is
part
of
the
sams
facility
in
the
south,
to
that
definition,
and
the
additional
language
in
the
bill
that
we
are
asking
to
add
indicates
that
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health
going
forward
can
designate
which
units
or
facilities
they
oversee
would
qualify
as
a
forensic
facility
in
the
process
of
making
those
changes.
We
also
would
that's
not.
G
I
don't
know
how
relevant
that
is
here,
but
we
have
discussed
that
we
would
also
do
policy
that
would
detail
more
clearly
the
exact
attributes
and
requirements
of
a
forensic
facility.
G
So
those
are
the
the
changes
that
we
are
asking
for
in
ab25
and,
as
I
said,
I
think
it's
pretty
straightforward.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
that.
A
Thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
and
just
so
the
record
is
clear.
You
mentioned
snams,
which
I
believe
is
southern
nevada,
adult
mental
health
services.
Did
I
get
the
acronym
right.
G
A
And
for
good
reason
I
mean
it's
a
very
long
name,
but
that'll
that'll
help
our
committee
secretary
prepare
the
minutes.
So
I
understand
your
presentation.
I
guess
just
one
sort
of
summary
question
I
mean
really.
The
change
here
is
just
intended
to
give
the
division
flexibility
as
additional
facilities
come
online
might
get.
We
could
get
more
in
the
future.
This
definition
just
gives
you
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
of
where
you
can
place
people
when
they
need
to
be
placed
in
a
forensic
facility.
G
Yes,
that's
correct,
and
over
the
last
decade
we
have
we've
doubled
the
number
of
beds
in
the
state,
and
so
we
anticipate
that
going
forward
that
expansion
is
probably
not
going
to
change
and
we've
retrofitted
a
couple
of
units
that
were
civil
facilities.
And
so
it's
helpful
to
be
clear
that
that
those
are
what
is
defined
in
the
statute.
A
A
If
you
have
a
question,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand,
so
I
can
see
it
in
front
of
the
screen
and
yeah.
I
will
note
for
the
record.
I
think
dr
neighbors
a
couple
times
a
couple
times.
You
said
assembly
bill
25.
Of
course
you
mentioned
the
bill.
It's
okay!
I
think
that's
on
tomorrow's
agenda,
so
of
course
you
meant
assembly
bill
24.
So
I'll,
just
ask
our
committee
secretary
to
make
that
correction
to
your
testimony
to
make
sure
the
the
notes
are
clear.
The
minutes
are
clear
that
we're
talking
about
assembly,
bill
20.
A
A
H
H
H
A
H
A
H
F
H
A
G
A
A
So
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
24
and
that
committee
was
our
simple
bill.
Unlike
the
bill
I
described
last
week
where
we
had
all
kinds
of
technical
difficulties,
so
sometimes
it
works
out
the
way
you
think
it's
going
to
work
out
we're
going
to
now
move
on
to
public
comment
as
a
reminder,
we'll
take
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment.
Callers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
their
public
comment.
Bps.
A
H
H
F
H
H
D
D
D
Meanwhile,
he
was
comped
a
hundred
dollar
a
night
suite
washout
county
shows
up
next
thing.
You
know
my
brother's
dead.
There
is
no
accountability
in
the
whole
state
of
nevada.
There
is
several
police
officers
within
warsaw.
County
have
killed
two
people,
each
unarmed
and
out
of
those
four
deaths,
all
four
were
justified.
D
A
H
H
And
chair
that
collar
has
hung
up
as
well.
The
open
line
is
open
and
working.
However,
there
are
no
further
callers
at
this
time.
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
public
comment.
Anything
else
from
members
of
the
committee
this
morning
before
we
adjourn
get
you
all
on
one
screen.
Okay,
all
I
see
is
attentive
faces,
but
I
don't
see
any
hands
up
or
any
desire
to
speak
at
the
moment.
So
let's
talk
about
the
rest
of
the
week
tomorrow,
we're
going
to
be
doing
two
more
competency,
related
bills,
so
we'll
hear
from
dr
neighbors
again
and
again,
tomorrow's
a
9
a.m
start.
A
So
I
heard
rumors
that
there
were
a
couple
of
folks
who
tried
to
log
in
around
7
55
today
appreciate
your
diligence,
but
you
don't
have
to
do
that
tomorrow.
Just
jump
on
about
five
to
ten
minutes
before
nine
o'clock
and
you
should
be
fine
friday.
We
have
a
meeting
as
well.
That's
gonna
start
at
eight
o'clock
I'll
be
presenting
a
couple
of
bills,
and
I
I
have
a
a
suspicion.
Those
bills
may
take
a
little
bit
longer
than
the
ones
we're
hearing
today
and
tomorrow
and
then
committee.
A
We
are
still
working
on
what
next
week
is
going
to
look
like,
so
I
will
probably
have
some
more
information
for
you
about
that
at
tomorrow's
meeting.
So
stand
by
again,
thank
you
committee
for
your
questions
and
for
your
attention
this
morning.
I
hope
everyone
has
a
wonderful
day
and
until
tomorrow
morning,
at
nine
o'clock,
this
meeting
is
adjourned.