►
From YouTube: 4/28/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
hanson
present
and
assemblywoman
kasama
absent
excused
for
the
moment
I
think
she'll
be
joining
us
at
some
point.
So
if
you
could,
please
mark
her
present
when
she
arrives,
that
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
this
morning,
good
morning
to
members
of
the
committee
good
morning
to
those
with
us
here
in
carson
city
and
to
those
joining
us
on
the
zoom
and
also
to
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
A
Could
you
please
silence
your
devices
if
you're
intending
to
testify
today
when
you
come
to
the
table,
please
remember
to
turn
the
microphone
on
to
state
your
name
before
you
speak
and
then
turn
the
microphone
off
if
you're
on
the
zoom
with
us
today,
please
keep
yourself
on
mute
until
it
is
time
to
speak,
and
if
you
could,
everyone
could
remember
to
state
their
name
each
time
before
they
speak,
particularly
when
answering
questions
that'll
help
our
committee
secretaries
prepare
accurate
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
be
respectful
of
one
another
of
this
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly,
our
very
hard
working
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
up
here
have
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
various
points
during
the
meeting
with
those
matters
behind
us,
we'll
move
on
to
the
agenda
and
for
now
we
will
take
the
bill.
A
The
first
bill
that's
listed
on
the
agenda
and
that
is
senate
bill
166
and
its
first
reprint.
So
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
that
bill.
It
revises
provisions
relating
to
crimes
motivated
by
certain
characteristics
of
the
victim
and
again
we
have
chair
scheible
here,
senator
from
district
nine.
My
senator
welcome
back
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
and
when
you're
ready
to
proceed.
Please
go
ahead
and
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you
when
you're
finished.
C
All
right,
thank
you.
So
much
chair,
yeager,
my
assembly
representative.
It
is
always
a
delight
to
be
in
front
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
I
we
are
looking
at
sb
166
from
the
first
reprint
and
I
want
to
apologize
for
failing
to
get
the
sample
verdict
form
from
the
senate
hearing
uploaded
to
this
meeting.
I
realized
it
this
morning,
but
I
thought
the
easiest
thing
to
do
would
be
simply
to
direct
your
attention
to
it.
C
When
this
bill
was
heard
on
monday
march
15th
in
the
senate
judiciary
there
was
an
exhibit
titled,
sb
166
sample
of
verdict
form
senator
melanie
schaible.
I
will
reference
that
in
my
presentation
and
I
can
email
it
to
anybody
who
needs
it,
but
I
hope
you
all
know
how
to
use
nellis
at
this
point.
C
But
if
you
don't
that's
okay,
too,
because
I
know
you're
learning
a
lot
of
things
in
this
legislative
session,
and
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
explain
what
sb
166
does
the
senate
bill
once
in
case
I
didn't
say
it,
my
name
is
melanie
scheibel
for
the
record.
I
am
the
senator
from
district
nine
and,
as
I
present
senate,
bill
166,
which
provides
technical
changes
to
the
statutes
regarding
crimes
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias,
which
are
commonly
referred
to
as
hate
crimes.
C
C
What
senate
bill
166
does
is
take
two
existing
statutes
related
to
hate
crimes,
nrs
207.185,
which
relates
to
misdemeanors
and
nrs
193.1675,
which
relates
to
gross
misdemeanors
and
felonies,
and
aligns
the
language
between
the
two
to
illustrate
why
this
is
important.
I'm
going
to
provide
a
realistic
example
for
which
I've
also
provided
a
sample
verdict
form
the
example.
Crime
is
that
of
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
resulting
in
substantial
bodily
harm.
I
appreciate
that
many
members
of
this
committee
are
returning
members
of
the
judiciary.
C
So
I
hope
that
you
will
forgive
me
if
I'm
repeating
something
that
you
already
know
and
ask
me
questions
if
I
am
saying
something
that
you
don't
understand,
because
the
way
that
the
law
works
in
nevada
and
in
most
other
states
is
that
the
crime
of
battery
is
a
misdemeanor,
a
battery
is
defined
simply
as
an
unlawful
touching
of
another
person
or
the
use
of
force
against
them.
So
a
battery
can
be
as
simple
as
punching
somebody
that
would
be
a
misdemeanor
battery
can
also
have
other
elements
to
it
like
using
a
deadly
weapon.
C
So
if
I
didn't
punch
somebody,
but
I
hit
them
with
a
baseball
bat
that
would
be
battery
with
use
of
a
deadly
weapon
that
makes
it
a
felony
crime
instead
of
a
misdemeanor
crime,
there
can
also
be
other
attendant
circumstances
like
substantial
bodily
harm.
So
you
can
take
what
starts
out
as
a
misdemeanor
crime,
a
simple
battery
which
would
be
simply
punching
somebody
with
your
own
fists.
C
These
don't
have
to
be
done
together,
so
it
is
also
possible,
and
it
does
happen
that
we
try
cases
for
like
for
a
charge
like
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
resulting
in
substantial
bodily
harm,
and
the
jury
has
to
decide
on
all
three
elements.
If
they
determine
that
a
battery
has
occurred,
they
also
have
to
determine
whether
or
not
substantial
bodily
harm
occurred
and
whether
or
not
the
use
of
a
deadly
weapon
occurred.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
the
sample
verdict
form,
there
are
actually
a
lot
of
options
for
a
jury.
C
They
might
find
the
defendant.
Assuming
that
the
defendant
is
guilty,
they
might
find
the
defendant
guilty
only
of
battery.
They
might
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
battery
with
substantial
bodily
harm.
They
might
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
or
they
might
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
resulting
in
substantial
bodily
harm.
Those
are
four
different
guilty
verdicts
that
the
jury
could
return.
C
It's
important
that
when
we
create
a
verdict
form
in
the
state
of
nevada,
we
do
not
indicate
on
the
form
which
crimes
are
more
serious
than
others
or
which
ones
result
in
higher
penalties.
It
is
against
the
law
for
a
prosecutor
to
argue
to
the
jury
that
any
particular
verdict
will
result
in
harsher
or
less
harsh
penalties.
C
It
is
up
to
the
judge
to
sentence
anybody
who
is
convicted
by
a
jury.
It
is
only
up
to
the
jury
to
apply
the
facts
of
the
case
to
the
law
and
determine
what
crime
was
committed.
So
when
a
jury
has
that
verdict
form
that
includes
a
misdemeanor
battery
and
three
different
kinds
of
felony
batteries,
the
jury
is
not
instructed
on
the
difference
between
the
misdemeanors
and
the
felonies
in
terms
of
the
punishment
or
the
class
of
the
crime.
C
So
it's
important
to
recognize
that
if
we
are
also
going
to
prosecute
crimes
that
are
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias,
that
that
gives
us
another
possible
verdict
which
is
guilty
of
any
of
the
things
that
we
previously
discussed.
Battery
battery,
resulting
substantial
bodily
harm
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
resulting
in
substantial
bodily
harm,
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
C
That
is
the
impetus
for
changing
the
bill.
To
begin
with
was
to
take
the
two
statutes,
the
one
that
describes
how
a
misdemeanor
can
be
enhanced
to
become
a
gross
misdemeanor
based
on
the
motivations
of
the
defendant
and
how
a
felony
can
be
enhanced,
based
on
the
motivations
of
the
defendant
and
bring
the
two
statutes
into
alignment
so
that
a
verdict
form
can
read
like
my
sample
verdict,
form
with
a
lot
of
options,
but
they
all
stem
from
the
same
nucleus
of
oper
same
operative
nucleus
of
facts.
C
And
the
reason
to
change
the
the
language
to
align
the
felony
statute
with
the
misdemeanor
statute,
as
opposed
to
align
the
misdemeanor
statute
with
the
felony
statute,
is
that
in
some
cases,
for
example,
we
have
seen
crimes
committed
against
someone
of
the
same
racial
group,
who
is
a
member
of
a
different
religious
group
because
of
their
intersectional
identity.
The
crime
is
clearly
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
C
It's
also
committed,
because
a
characteristic
that
is
different
from
the
defendant,
because
the
victim
has
a
characteristic
that
is
different
from
the
defendant,
but
also
one
that
is
the
same
for
the
victims
of
these
crimes.
It
can
be
a
deeply
personal
offense
with
nuance
that
is
not
easily
captured
in
the
law.
C
I
hope
that
we
can
all
agree
at
this
point
that
there
are
not
simply
black
people
and
not
black
people
and
latinx
people,
and
not
latinx
people.
Gay
people,
not
gay
people
and
mormon
people,
and
not
mormon
people,
to
require
that
the
state
prove
the
defendant
and
victim
have
actual
or
perceived.
Differences
in
protected
characteristics
can
be
deeply
upsetting
to
victims
who
see
themselves
as
part
of
the
same
group
as
the
defendant.
C
This
puts
the
prosecutor,
the
defense
attorney
and
the
judge
in
the
position,
for
example.
This
is
something
that
I
actually
had
to
litigate.
It
did
not
go
to
trial
because
it
was
too
upsetting
for
the
victim
to
litigate
whether
or
not
somebody
who
is
black
and
somebody
who
is
half
black
are
members
of
the
same
racial
group
or
members
of
different
racial
groups,
because
our
statute
required
proving
that
they
are
members
of
different
racial
groups
to
prove
that
the
crime
was
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias
towards
a
person
of
a
certain
racial
group.
C
When
the
underlying
facts
of
the
crime
were
very
clearly
about
the
victim's
race,
that's
section
one
of
the
bill.
That
is
the
thrust
of
the
bill.
Section
two
is
another
minor
cleanup.
It
adds
two
more
crimes
to
the
list
of
crimes
that
are
enumerated
in
the
hate
crime
statute.
As
I
said
at
the
beginning,
this
does
not
substantially
expand
the
class
of
crimes
or
the
class
of
people
who
are
protected
by
the
hate
crime
statute.
C
These
are
simply
crimes
that,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
going
through,
the
legislative
history
were
overlooked.
One
of
them
is
nrs
202.448,
which
is
false
threats
of
terrorism.
Currently,
threats
of
terrorism
can
be
charged
as
a
as
a
hate
crime
or
motivated
by
bias,
but
not
false
threats
and
392.
Sorry
nrs
392.915,
which
is
threatening
to
cause
bodily
harm
or
death
to
a
pupil
or
school
employee
by
means
of
oral
written
or
electronic
communication.
A
D
Not
curious,
I
am
curious
and
how
you
all
would
you
you
spoke
about.
There
not
be
having
to
be
a
difference
in
race
or
groups,
and
you
use
an
example
of
a
a
crime
between
two
black
people,
and
you
said
that
it
was
motivated
by
the
difference
the
intersectionality.
There
was
a
difference,
I'm
concerned,
though,
that
that
would
be
considered
a
hate
crime.
D
I
really
am
because
there
is,
there
are
hundreds
of
years
of
of
history
behind
what
goes
on
within
the
black
community
and
one
of
those
is
over
prosecution
and
this
prison
pipeline
that
we
see
and-
and
I
am
concerned
that
this
adds
another
element
that
would
be
very
hard
to
define
and-
and
I
would
really
be
very
concerned
that
we
don't
have
you
know
I
have
a
you
know,
just
your
exam,
your
same
example
right
and
then
we
are
now
enhancing.
D
What
could
be
simple
battery
right,
an
argument.
There
are
so
many
nuances
to
the
black
experience.
D
C
I
want
to
be
clear
that
this
approach
is
victim-centered,
and
that
is
where
the.
C
That
is
where
the
proposed
change
in
the
law
comes
from,
because
the
particular
victim
in
this
case
was
half
black
and
he
was
targeted
by
other
black
students
because
he
was
half
black
and
they
made
racially
motivated
comments
towards
him
and
they
harassed
him
and
they
threatened
violence
against
him,
because
he
wasn't
quote
black
enough.
As
a
white
prosecutor,
I
chose
to
follow
the
victim's
lead
and
to
ask
the
victim
whether
or
not
they
thought
this
was
a
racially
motivated
crime,
and
the
victim
was
insistent
that
it
was.
C
This
victim
felt
that
they
had
been
targeted
because
of
their
race,
and
I
was
in
a
very
uncomfortable
position,
which
is
fine,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
white
prosecutors
being
uncomfortable,
but
I
was
in
the
position
of
having
a
victim
who
felt
that
they
were
targeted
because
of
their
race
and
the
only
way
that
I
could
prove
it
under
the
law
that
they
were.
The
victim
of
a
hate
crime
was
to
prove
that
the
victim
was
of
a
different
race
from
the
defendant,
and
that
also
didn't
seem
right.
C
C
That
includes
that
they
have
to
be
different
characteristics
between
the
victim
and
the
perpetrator,
and
I
have
not
seen
a
case
where,
having
that
distinction
is
valuable
in
actually
proving
the
the
motivation
of
the
perpetrator.
D
I
guess
this
is
where,
and
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying-
and
I
know
that
there
are
other
presidents
in
other
states
and
all
of
that,
but
as
a
black
woman
who
has
been
teased
because
I
speak
in
a
certain
manner
and
and
was
accused
of
that,
wasn't
black
enough
that
I
have
hobbies
coming
coming
up
as
a
child.
That
may
not
have
been
black
enough
for
some
people.
D
It
is
very
concerning-
and
I
am
not
certain
just
personally,
that
this
is
the
way
and-
and
I
think
that
it
it
leaves
so
much
objectivity.
D
D
We
are
not
a
monolithic
people
and
I'm
just
concerned
that
this
could
go
way
south,
especially
when
we're
talking
about
kids,
especially
young
people,
who
are
all
trying
to
find
their
identity
and
figure
out
who
they
are,
that
have
all
kinds
of
outside
pressures,
and
I'm
not
saying
that
kids
should
be
fighting
and
teasing
one
another
in
this
manner,
but
to
enhance
to
enhance
what
could
be
a
school
yard
argument,
because
people
have
a
disagreement,
you
have
no
there's.
We
could
talk
all
day
senator
about
this
whole
thing.
It
is
so
deep.
D
This
is
very
concerning
to
me
so,
and
I
think
that
it
needs
some
more
nuance
to
what
you've
written
here
in
the
law,
and
I
think
it
needs
to
be
extremely
cautiously
applied
when
we're
talking
about
minors,
because
this
is
where
most
of
this
foolishness
happens
and
that
is
in
school.
And
we
and
to
me
we
cannot
take
a
15
year
old
kid
who
teased
another
and
make
this
a
felony
or
a
gross
misdemeanor,
and
then
here
they
are
in
the
carsonal
system,
because
they're
beefing
on
the
school
yard.
It's
it's
very
disturbing.
Thank
you.
C
Melanie
schreibel
for
the
record-
and
I
appreciate
your
comment,
and
I
want
to
point
out
that
the
purpose
of
this
statute
is
to
address
hatred
motivated
crimes.
It's
not
about
the
objective
or
the
naked
facts
of
a
case,
proving
a
hate
enhancement
is
difficult
and
it
requires
a
clear
showing
that
the
defendant
was
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias,
not
just
that
they
displayed
hatred
or
bias,
but
that
the
victim
who
they
attacked
or
the
victim
who
they
targeted
was
targeted
because
they
are
a
member
of
a
protected
class.
C
I
believe
it
is
important
that
we
remove
the
necessity
for
a
distinction
between
the
victim
and
the
perpetrator,
because
it
puts
the
law
that
puts
the
court
in
the
position
of
being
the
arbiter
of
whether
or
not
people
belong
to
the
same
racial
group.
Whether
or
not
they
belong
to
the
same
religious
group,
whether
or
not
they
belong
to
the
same
part
of
the
lgbtq
community,
and
I
don't
think
that
it's
the
place
of
a
court
the
place
of
a
judge,
the
place
of
a
prosecutor.
C
To
tell
people
whether
or
not
they
have
the
same
characteristics,
our
law,
our
legislature,
has
already
decided
to
pass
a
hate
crime
statute.
That
horse
has
left
the
stable.
So
if
we're
going
to
be
prosecuting
people
and
enhancing
the
penalties,
because
the
crimes
are
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias,
I
believe
that
we
should
be
focusing
on
the
behavior.
We
should
be
focusing
on
the
motivation.
E
Thank
you
sharon.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
senator
and
I'm
sorry.
I
had
to
run
upstairs
and
grab
my
notes,
so
I
I
missed
about
two
minutes
of
it
or
less,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
this.
So
are
you
saying
if
two
kids
or
young
adults
or
even
adults
are,
are
fighting
and
someone
uses
a
racial
slur
during
the
fight
that
wouldn't
meet
the
standard,
but
that,
but
that
you'd,
through
the
investigation,
may
maybe
find
text
messages
that
were
clearly
racially
motivated
or
something
like
that
like?
C
Yes,
thank
you
melanie
schaible,
for
the
record.
Let
me
start
by
saying
that
I
think
I
am
the
only
prosecutor
in
the
state
who's
taken
a
hate
crime
to
trial.
If
there
are
others,
I
would
encourage
them
to
reach
out
to
me
because
it
was
very
difficult
and
I
lost.
C
It
is
not
easy
to
prove
an
enhancement
for
motivation
by
of
bias
or
hatred.
So
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
look
at
like
to
your
example.
It
would
not
be
a
statement
made.
You
know
one
statement,
one
slur,
one
epithet
in
the
course
of
criminal
conduct.
C
C
Like
I
said
it
is
a
it's
a
difficult
bar
to
clear
and
it
is
up
to
a
jury.
I
mean,
unless
we're
talking
about
a
some
kind
of
negotiation,
but
that
that
question
of
hatred
or
bias
is
up
to
the
jury.
So
a
jury
of
12
has
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
evidence
is
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
motivation
for
the
crime
was
that
person's
gender
identity,
religious
affiliation,
race,
sex,
ethnicity
and.
C
Their
and
it
also
has
to
clear
a
bar
of
probable
cause
before
it
even
gets
to
the
jury
trial.
So
I've
also
had
numerous
enhancements
dismissed
before
a
jury
trial,
because
a
judge
determines
that
there's,
not
even
probable
cause
for
one.
E
E
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
also
don't
practice
criminal
law,
so
I
just
wanted
to
go
more
into
what
you
were
saying
like.
So
it's
very
difficult
to
prove
an
enhancement
for
a
hate
crime
is
what
you're
saying,
and
so
how
would
this
bill
hurt
or
how
or
advance
being
able
to
prosecute
a
hate
crime?
When
I
think
you
just
went
into
it
a
little
bit
how
difficult
it
is
so
can
you
just
walk
us
through
that?
C
Absolutely
thank
you
melanie
scheibel,
for
the
record
and
again
this
bill
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
we
have
a
hate
crime
statute
and
that
we're
prosecuting
hate
crimes,
but
it
eliminates.
C
I
don't
to
me,
and
I
know
that
people
disagree
to
me.
This
doesn't
make
it
easier
or
harder
to
prove
a
hate
crime
enhancement.
What
this
does
is
it
eliminates
this
one
particular
question
that
has
to
be
answered
and
that
question
that
no
longer
has
to
be
answered
is:
do
the
victim
and
the
defendant
share
the
characteristic
or
are
they
different?
C
Another
thing
that
it
does?
Is
it
prevents
so?
Oh
it
it?
How
do
I
put
this
I'll?
Give
you
another
example
how
about
that?
I
had
another
case
and
another
case
of
a
crime
committed
against
somebody
because
of
their
sexual
orientation,
and
the
defense
attorney
said
to
me.
Well
what
if
my
client
just
says
that
he's
also
gay
and
we
both
kind
of
looked
at
each
other
and
said
well
technically,
then.
C
The
law
wouldn't
apply
because,
based
on
the
law,
I
would
have
to
prove
that
his
client
wasn't
gay
and
committed
a
crime
against
the
victim
because
the
victim
was
gay
and
that
just
didn't
make
sense
to
me,
and
so
what
we're
doing
is
eliminating
that
question.
Because
and
again
I
don't
think
that
makes
it
easier
or
harder.
If
I
had
gone
to
trial
on
that
case
and
we
had
litigated
whether
both
parties
were
gay
or
one
party
was
gay.
C
E
Thank
you
so
much,
cecilia
gonzalez
district
16
for
the
record.
Do
you
see
a
lot
of
these
cases
in
your
professional
career?
Like
is
this
something
that
happens
often.
C
Thank
you,
melanie's
tribal
for
the
record.
No,
I
do
not
see
them
often.
I
think
I
have
seen
more
of
them
than
most
prosecutors
because
I
take
them
on,
but
we
do
not.
A
Do
we
have
further
questions
from
committee
members?
Okay,
looking
to
the
right,
I
don't
see
anyone
with
a
question
looking
to
the
left,
I
don't
see
any
with
the
question
there
cherish.
I
will
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
we'll
ask
you
to
hold
tight
for
a
moment,
we'll
take
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
166
and
its
first
reprint.
Is
there
anyone
with
us
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
in
support?
A
A
F
F
G
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
john
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
in
support
of
sb
166,
and
we
want
to
thank
chair
scheible
for
bringing
the
bill.
Essentially,
this
bill
just
aligns
the
definition
of
hate
crimes
that
are
contained
in
both
193
1675
and
207
185,
and
I
think
the
the
reasons
for
lying.
The
definitions
that
were
talked
about
during
the
testimony
and
support
are
clear.
G
There
were
some
discussions
about
juveniles
and
schoolyard
fights
that
were
brought
out
during
the
questioning,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
that
in
juvenile
courts
there
are
not
flat
sentences
that
would
be
enhanced
by
a
hate
crime.
However,
juvenile
courts
do
have
case
plans
with
youth
and
families
that
are
designed
to
address
the
issues
that
brought
the
child
to
the
juvenile
court.
The
case
plans
are
tied
to
the
charges
that
brought
the
child
into
court
and
by
acknowledging
that
the
delinquent
act
was
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
G
F
G
A
A
H
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
john
pure
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
It
is
nice
to
be
here
in
person,
I'd
like
to
first
start
by
acknowledging
the
problems
with
hate
crimes
and
the
recent
uptick
in
hate
crimes.
It
is
a
problem,
and
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
schaible
for
trying
to
address
the
problem.
There's
a
couple
of
issues
that
we
have
here.
Nevada
statute
is
perhaps
out
of
line,
but
it
probably
needs
to
be
rebuilt
from
the
ground
up
rather
than
the
way
it's
being
rebuilt.
H
Now
part
of
this,
our
statute
ignores
some
of
the
federal
guard
rails
in
place.
Also,
some
of
the
penalties
in
the
federal
system
are
less
than
the
penalties
that
we
have
here
in
nevada.
So
perhaps
we
need
to
reevaluate
our
statute
from
the
ground
up
and
take
it
from
there
so
that
we
have
a
more
comprehensive
statute.
H
H
As
an
opportunity
to
enhance
penalties
and
that
enhancement
comes
at
the
charging
phase
and
charging
a
more
steep
penalty
should
not
be
used
as
a
negotiation
tool,
but
sometimes
it
often
is
more
so
prosecutors
should
not
be
able
to
get
out
of
having
to
prove
certain
aspects
of
an
enhancement
when
you
charge
a
crime
that
has
the
enhancement
of
a
victim
over
60,
you
have
to
prove
that
the
victim
is
indeed
over
60..
So
if
we're
going
to
charge
a
hate
crime,
you
have
to
prove
that
the
conduct
was
motivated
by
the
hate.
H
This
attack
on
this
person
would
not
have
happened,
but
for
that
differing
characteristic
and
I'm
looking
over
at
assemblyman
orrin
lichter,
because
he
is
at
the
law
school
that
I
go
to,
which
is
one
of
the
top
writing
programs,
and
a
word
that
we
use.
When
writing
our
exams
is
the
word
because
the
attack
happened
because
but
for
it
would
not
have
happened
if
the
person
was
of
a
differing
characteristic.
H
So
those
are
things
that
are
important,
so
I
think
it
is
time
for
a
possible
change,
but
I
think
maybe
we
should
start
from
the
ground
up
run
it
through.
The
sentencing.
H
A
B
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Miss
brown
anybody
else
here
in
carson
city.
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
to
the
table.
Let
me
check
the
zoom
if
there's
anyone
there
if
you'd,
please
turn
your
camera
on
again.
I
just
see
a
smaller
version
of
myself,
which
is
weird
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
please
and
see
if
there's
anybody
else,
anybody
there
in
opposition.
F
Thank
you,
chair
for
callers
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
of
senate
bill
166,
please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
we
will
begin
with
the
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
zero
eight
zero
caller,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
G
G
In
addition,
while
we
appreciate
senator
scheible's
intent
to
keep
the
definition
of
hate
crime
the
same,
we
do
not
believe
the
bill
is
drafted,
accomplishes
that
section
1
of
the
bill
changes
the
causal
standard
for
what
constitutes
a
hate
crime
under
existing
law.
Hate
crime
is
a
crime
that
happens
because
of
protected
characteristics
such
as
race,
but
the
bill
changes
this
language
to
by
reason
of
a
protected
characteristic,
because
of
is
a
legal
term
of
art
which
has
been
well
defined
through
case
law
because
of
is
also
used
in
the
federal
statute.
18
usc
249..
G
G
But
the
implication
to
my
understanding
is
that
it's
a
much
lower
and
more
attenuated
standard
of
causation,
because
people
can
have
lots
of
reasons
that
play
a
small
part
in
what
they
do
and
any
of
those
would
be
grounds
for
prosecution
under
the
bill
to
illustrate
the
difference.
Think
about
a
thief
whose
ammo
is
to
grab
people's
purses
off
their
shoulders.
G
This
person
targets
mainly
women,
because
it's
mainly
women
who
carry
purses
it's
not
because
they're,
a
misogynist
who
hates
women
it's
just
about
purses
being
easier
to
grab.
This
is
not
something
that
we
would
consider
a
hate
crime
and
under
nevada's
current
statute,
which
is
also
the
federal
statute.
G
It
could
not
be
charged
as
a
hate
crime,
but
under
the
new
definition
of
the
bill,
it
could
be
charged
as
a
hate
crime,
because
gender
is
a
reason
behind
which
people
carry
purchase
behind
which
people
carry
purses,
sorry,
and
so
it
qualifies
under
the
new
standard
in
the
bill.
So
the
bill
is
currently
drafted
would
make
it
so
that
every
purse
snatcher
could
be
charged
with
a
hate
crime,
and
that's
just
one
example.
G
G
A
A
A
F
A
C
Thank
you
so
much
cherry
yeager
and
thank
you
to
the
committee
for
your
your
time
and
attention
and
for
engaging
in
this
conversation
with
me.
I
want
to
make
a
couple
of
you
know
closing
comments.
The
first
is
that
I
would
be
happy
to
rebuild
the
statute
from
the
ground
up.
If
that
is
something
that
nevadans
want
and
that
nevadans
feel
they
need,
I
would
be
happy
to
sit
at
the
table
and
redraft
the
entire
statute
about
crimes
motivated
by
hatred.
I
did
not
do
that
coming
into
today's
hearing.
C
C
I
have
researched
the
history
of
both
of
these
statutes
quite
thoroughly
to
try
to
determine
why
they
were
ever
different
to
begin
with
why
they
why
the
language
was
different,
and
I
cannot
find
any
reason,
which
is
a
long
way
of
saying
that
I
would
be
happy
to
amend
the
bill
to
utilize
the
term
because
of
instead
of
by
reason
of
it's
not
a
term
that
I've
ever
litigated.
C
But
if
that
is
important
to
people
who
practice
in
this
area,
and
if
that
is
important
to
people
who
are
affected
by
this
bill,
then
I'm
happy
to
make
that
adjustment
to
the
bill.
The
purpose
I
want
to
again
be
very
clear
is
to
bring
the
statutes
into
alignment
so
that,
whether
you
are
being
charged
with
a
misdemeanor,
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
the
elements
that
have
to
be
met
to
prove
an
enhancement
for
motivation
by
hatred
or
bias,
are
exactly
that
enhancement
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
It's
not
about
proving
anybody's
identity.
C
It's
about
proving
that
the
crime
was
committed
because
of
somebody
else's
identity
and,
as
always,
I'm
happy
to
continue
to
further
discuss
this
with
any
members
of
the
committee
or
anybody
who
called
in
and
make
those
amendments
to
the
bill.
And
I
hope
that
we
can
get
to
a
consensus.
A
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
scheible
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
166
in
its
first
reprint
and
chair
scheible.
If
you
could
stay
at
the
table
because
we'll
take
your
next
bill
next
on
the
agenda,
so
committee
members
we're
going
to
go
to
the
third
bill.
That's
listed
on
the
agenda,
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
332
in
its
first
reprint.
That
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
structured
settlements.
A
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair
yeager
for
the
record.
My
name
is
still
melanie
scheibel
and
I
represent
senate
district.
Nine
and
sb
332
is
a
bill
about
structured
settlements,
which
I
learned
about
in
order
to
bring
this
bill
forward,
and
so
mr
alonso
will
walk
you
through
the
bill
and
he
can
provide
some
more
detail
and
clarity
on
the
policy,
but
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
very
broad
overview.
C
What
a
structured
settlement
is
occurs
in
a
civil
case
when
one
person
has
sued
another
and
they
have
won
a
judgment
against
them,
and
so,
for
example,
if
I'm
the
person
who
has
won
a
structured
settlement,
I
might
be
awarded
thousand
dollars
by
being,
but
the
structure
of
the
settlement
is
to
award
me
ten
thousand
dollars
each
year
for
five
years.
There
are
some
companies
there
are
about.
C
Three,
I
believe
was
the
number
last
heard
in
nevada
that
will
purchase
these
structured
settlements
in
order
to
provide
the
recipient
of
the
settlement
with
more
money
sooner.
So
if
I'm
looking
at
ten
thousand
dollars
a
year
for
five
years,
a
company
may
offer
me
twenty
thousand
dollars
this
year
in
order
to
buy
the
settlement
from
me.
C
So
then
they
would
profit
the
additional
thirty
thousand
dollars,
but
I
would
get
the
twenty
thousand
today
instead
of
having
to
wait
another
year,
as
you
can
probably
imagine,
certainly
my
mind
went
to
unscrupulous
actors
who
would
want
to
exploit
people
who
are
in
need
of
additional
funds
sooner,
and
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
avoid
that.
We
don't
know
that
that
is
happening
in
nevada,
but
we
also
do
not
require
any
kind
of
registration
for
these
companies
that
buy
structured
settlements.
So
what
sp
332
does
is.
A
I
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
alfredo
alonso
with
the
law
firm
of
louis
rocha
today,
on
behalf
of
the
national
association
of
settlement
purchasers
and
on
on
zoom,
I
have
jack
kelly
who's
counsel
for
the
association
and
brian
dear
who
is
the
executive
director
and
they
will
actually
walk
you
through
the
bill.
I
Unfortunately,
for
me,
I
I,
if
I
studied
up
for
the
next
10
years,
I
don't
think
I'd,
understand,
settlement
structure
settlements
as
well
as
mr
kelly
does
so
I
I'll
turn
it
over
to
them.
I
I
just
want
to
start
with.
I
This
is
an
area,
that's
that's
quite
complicated,
and
I
think
mr
kelly
can
answer
many
of
your
questions,
but
the
language
is
a
model
language
that
encoil
put
together
and
that's
the
national
council
of
insurance
legislators,
which
they
do
that
on
a
fairly
regular
basis
to
update
such
language
throughout
the
country
and
and
so
what
you
have
before.
You
was
essentially
their
model
act
and
again
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
kelly.
J
Thank
you,
mr
alonzo.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
and
thank
you
senator
schneible
for
your
sponsorship
of
this
legislation.
My
name
is
jack.
Kelly,
I'm
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
national
association
of
settlement
purchasers.
J
J
While
I
was
a
staff
member
of
the
house
ways
and
means
committee
in
congress,
we
established
a
law
which
allowed
for
the
creation
of
a
structured
settlement
on
a
tax-free
basis
for
the
purposes
of
addressing
long-term
care
for
individuals
that
were
involved
in
the
need
for
long-term
care
it.
It
came
out
of
the
need
for
long-term
care,
specifically
related
to
issues
such
as
the
maldehide
babies,
as
the
years
went
on
in
the
1980s
and
90s
the
structured
settlement
system,
which
congress
had
intended
at
that
point.
J
For
these
long-term
care
situations
became
to
be
used
for
different
purposes,
and
it
then
became
used
to
settle
issues
as
simple
as
a
slip
and
fall
or
could
be,
could
be
arranged
a
structured
settlement
for
a
child
who
lost
a
parent
in
a
car
accident
to
care
for
them
during
their
minority
years
and
then
provide
them
monies
which
is
a
valid
use
and
the
purpose
of
what
the
law
was
written
for,
but
because
it
had
changed
and
been
used
for
other
purposes.
J
If
you
had
a
child
who
is
now
30
years
old,
who
is
receiving
50
30
000
a
year
for
for
his
care,
he
may
want
to
go
get
a
graduate
degree.
He
might
want
to
go
to
vocational
school.
He
might
want
to
buy
a
business
that
he
wants
to
get
into,
so
he
doesn't
need
the
money
or
she
doesn't
need
the
money
for
their
care
anymore.
So
they
may
want
to
sell
a
portion
of
that
to
one
of
these
companies
as
a
result
of
it.
J
J
So
in
2002,
when
congress
created
the
911
victims
bill,
the
victims
bill
was
a
very
large
structured
settlement
for
the
people
who
were
horrifically
families
or
horrific
laws
that
at
9
11,
and
they
created
a
structured
settlement
for
those
individuals
and
included
in
that
legislation
was
language
to
address
the
other
types
of
structured
settlements.
J
At
the
point
adopted
what
they
viewed
to
be
the
transfer
system
that
you
have
today
in
2004,
the
national
conference
of
insurance
legislators
met
and
adopted
a
uniform
act
and
a
model
act.
That's
used
across
the
united
states.
Since
that
time,
nevada's
law
has
not
been
adjusted
to
address
the
end.
Coil
changes
before
you
today
is
legislation
that
would
bring
it
up
to
the
end
coil
model
and
includes
in
it
two
additional
updates
that
were
adopted
by
the
louisiana's,
who
had
the
president
of
encoil
and
then
georgia.
J
Recently,
those
changes
provide
for
a
robust
consumer
disclosures,
a
disclosure
of
the
effective
annual
rate.
It
precludes
foreign
shopping,
which
is
very
important
for
consumer
protection.
An
individual
in
henderson
could
not
go
to
reno
and
seek
a
transfer
order
up
in
reno.
They
would
have
to
go
in
their
home
county
and
where
they
lived
to
seek
it
so
that
a
local
judge
reviews
it
and
is
aware
of
the
individual
being
before
their
court.
J
It
also
requires
that
a
registration
of
the
company-
this
is
very
important
right
now,
nevada
does
not
know
who
does
business
in
their
state
doing
these
transactions?
The
only
people
who
are
aware
of
it
are
the
courts.
So
if
someone
had
a
complaint,
if
there
was
a
bad
apple,
there
really
is
no.
Where
to
look
for
a
registration.
J
This
registration
requires
that
bonding
be
filed.
It
requires
to
see
the
financial
suitability
of
the
enterprise.
These
are
critical
to
protect
the
citizens
of
nevada
and
what
it
also
does
is.
It
impedes
bad
behavior
by
cut
by
untowards
actors
and
bad
apples
who
come
in
and
sometimes
will
do
what's
called
poaching,
they
will
go
into
a
courthouse
and
they
will
look
at
the
records
of
the
cases
that
are
filed.
They'll
get
the
name
of
individual
who
is
seeking
a
transfer
or
purchase
restructured
settlement.
J
They
will
call
them
up
and
they
will
fraudulently
say
they
may
be
the
actual
company
that
they're
dealing
with
and
say,
don't
show
up
at
the
courthouse.
We're
moving
your
case
to
another
month,
we're
going
to
send
you
250
and
we'll
refile
the
case
and
it'll
be
structured
better
for
you
and
it'll
abuse
that
person
under
the
provisions
here
that
behavior
will
be
eliminated.
Nevada
will
be
one
of
the
the
front
four
or
five
states.
J
That's
initiated
this
it's
important,
but
what
it
also
does
is
it
has
bright
line
disclosures
that
say
that
a
consumer
needs
to
seek
advice
in
doing
this
transaction
so
that
they
know
just
what
they're
getting
into.
This
is
a
good
law.
This
is
a
law
that
is,
as
the
law
says,
it's
a
protection
act
and
people
in
nevada
have
to
have
the
right
to
have
these
done
as
the
federal
law
allows,
but
at
the
same
time
they
need
to
be
protected.
J
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
members
of
the
committee's
question,
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
brian
dear,
who
is
the
executive
director
of
the
national
association
of
settlement
purchasers,
but
who
is
also
an
attorney
in
in
texas
who
performs
and
represents
individuals
in
such
transfers
of
these
so
he's
intimately
familiar.
This
is
a
civil
procedure
law
that
protects
citizens.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
E
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
all
for
the
presentation
and
and
if
senator
scheibel
watches
this
later.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
legislation
because
I
I
do
think
it's
important
and-
and
I
really
appreciate
the
the
disclosure
section
there's
a
couple
of
questions.
I
have
the
first
one.
E
I
guess
we'll
just
make
it
the
easy
one.
Of
course
now
I
can't
find
it
so,
just
I,
I
guess
more
a
point
in
in
section
30
sub
4
about
the
child
support
and
making
sure
that
the
public
agency
enforcing
the
order
is
notified.
E
J
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
that
actually,
the
the
court
and.
A
J
I
apologize
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
jack
kelly
for
the
national
association
settlement
purchases
assembly,
women,
an
excellent
point
the
court
actually
has
to,
and
the
order
that's
submitted,
which
is
submitted
under
oath,
has
to
be
submitted
by
council,
stating
that
it
is
that
there
are
no
obligations
or
orders
respected
with
that
and
under
the
federal
law.
J
It
requires
that
the
court
review
the
health
and
welfare
of
the
dependents,
not
just
if
there's
child
support
owed,
but
if
there's
child
support
that
that
is
even
more
necessary
that
that
it
could
impede
it.
If
the
order
does
not
include
those
two
findings,
it
would
be
violative
of
the
federal
statute
and
then
an
imposition
of
a
40
excise
tax
on
the
company
that
purchases
it.
J
So
the
company
would
not
place
themselves
at
such
risk,
so
their
due
diligence
on
that
is
extremely
significant
in
making
sure
that
child
support
is
as
adhered
to.
E
And
so-
and
you
mentioned
the
the
company's
due
diligence,
but
if
they
so
are
you
saying
that
goes
beyond
just
asking
the
client
hey?
You
owe
any
child
support.
J
Yes,
it's
it's
required.
I
will
tell
you
that
there
is
an
extensive
search
done
by
the
by
the
company
purchasing
this
to
ensure
there
are
no
outstanding
orders,
the
risk
very
frankly,
some
even
that's
why
congress
did
it
this
way.
You
know
that
in
corporate
america
the
risk
that
the
that
is
the
greatest
risk
is
the
penalty
of
tax.
That's
why
we
call
them
excise
tax.
J
When
we
one
of
the
things
I
learned
at
ways
and
means
was,
if
you
want
to
curb
an
industry's
bad
behavior,
put
an
excise
tax
on
them.
If
you
would
lose
40
in
this
transaction
by
having
to
pay
such
a
tax,
the
transaction
would
be
financially
upside
down
and
they'd
actually
lose
money,
so
there's
no,
no
company
would
ever
dream
of
taking
that
risk.
It's
just
too
great.
E
Thank
you
and
then
so.
My
other
question
is
in
section
38
sub
1.,
and
this
is
something
that
mr
alonzo
and
I
discussed
yesterday
and
I
believe
he
he
contacted
you
as
well,
mr
kelly,
but
it's
it's
the
line
about
the
court,
making
a
finding
that
the
transfer
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
payee.
E
You
know
that
just
sounds
so
paternalistic
to
me.
You
know
we
have
a
right
to
make
bad
contracts
and
even
though
these
you
know
as
long
as
they're
not
unconscionable,
we
have
the
right
to
do
that,
and-
and-
and
I
understand
that
you
had
said
this
was
based
on
on
federal
law,
but
it
is.
Why
is
this
different
than
any
other
bad
contract?
I
have
the
right
to
go
out
and
make.
J
J
It
is
interesting
that
you
raised
that
when
I
worked
on
this
legislation,
I
had
once
in
my
lifetime
worked
in
the
family
court,
so
I
had
was
very
cognizant
of
the
different
standards
that
courts
would
look
at,
particularly
in
preponderance
or
clear
and
concise,
but
congress
used
the
best
interest
standard.
J
J
All
we
want
to
do
is
make
sure
that
if
this
were
structured
in
such
a
way
that
that's
why
they
put
the
health
and
welfare
standards
in
for
the
dependents
that,
while
it's
your
asset,
you
just
can't
willy-nilly,
throw
it
away
if
it
would
damage
your
dependence
and
you
and
your
children,
and
that's
why
it
was
set
up
as
a
best
interest,
not
as
a
preponderance,
not
as
a
clear
and
concise.
That
was
why
that
standard
was
put
in
by
congress
and
implemented
in
the
law.
That's
an
excellent
question
and
very
and
very
forthright.
E
Thank
you,
mr
kelly,
and
I
guess
I'm
I'm
I'm
still
somewhat
confused,
because
I
again
I
I
could
make
a
contract.
I
could
have
a
business,
that's
doing
gangbusters
and
I
decide
I
I'm
not
worried
about
feeding
my
children,
I'm
not
worried
about
feeding
my
spouse,
I'm
just
going
to
sell
my
business
for
fifty
dollars
and
and
will
live
off
the
land
and
there's
nothing.
A
court
can
do
about
that,
and
also
I
mean
it.
The
language
itself
says
the
best
interest
of
the
payee.
E
J
J
Structured
settlements
are
not
a
traditional
contract
in
the
sense
that
it's
just
between
two
parties
that
entered
into
it.
It
is
a
doctrine
that
is
established
under
tax
law,
because
the
creation
of
this
structure,
this
this
transaction
is
a
structured
settlement
under
tax
law,
which
allows
for
the
tax-free
inside
buildup
of
the
assets
and
the
annuity
associated
with
it.
J
Unlike
just
a
traditional
transfer
between
two
people,
you
ask:
why
does
congress
get
involved
in
this?
This
is
a
tax
underlying
tax
transaction,
the
structure
of
settlement
creation
itself,
and
the
reason
that
congress
created
that
transaction.
J
The
public
policy
that
created
it
was
to
provide
for
the
long-term
care
of
people,
and
we
began
to
be
used
for
other
purposes.
That
was
when
congress
allowed
for
this
transaction.
What
they
were
saying.
The
best
interest
was
just
to
make
sure
that
this
isn't
a
formaldehyde
baby
case.
This
isn't
a
individual
who
has
to
have
long-term
care
for
medical
treatment.
J
That's
why
they
established
the
ability
to
be
able
to
make
the
transfer
they
recognize
just
what
you
were
saying:
that's
why
they
made
the
standards
so
different
than
other
standards
and
made
it
best
interest.
J
I
really
have
seen-
and
mr
dear
can
speak
to
this,
having
having
has
done
numerous
transactions
representing
people
courts
of
general
jurisdiction.
Very
rarely
will
choose
to
look
at
an
individual
and
say
I
don't
think
you
should
spend
your
money
this
way.
J
They
will
only
usually
look
at
it
if
the
person
says
I
need
to
have
a
an
iron
lung
and
I
can't
afford
it
if
I
get
rid
of
this
money.
That's
the
purpose
of
the
best
interest
standard.
J
E
Thank
you.
I
I
don't.
I
guess
I'm
still
finding
it
somewhat
vague
and
just
concerned
that
you
could
have
an
overzealous
judge
who
just
says
I
don't
like
this
product,
I'm
not
going
to
sign
off
on
this,
and
and
so
I
would
hope
that
maybe
we
could
come
up
with
something
that's
a
little
more
closer
to
what
you're
you're
saying
and
and
where
yeah.
J
Thank
you.
That's
I
mean
the
problem
is
section
5891
of
the
internal
revenue
code
requires
that
exact
statutory
language.
That
language
out
of
the
entire
bill
is
the
only
one
that's
statutorily
must
be
adhered
to.
It
cannot
be
deviated
from
without
deviating,
without
changing
the
federal
law
that
50
states
in
the
united
states.
Have
this
exact
same
language
and
have
had
it
since
2003,
including
nevada.
E
D
J
Jack
kelly
for
the
national
association
of
settlement
purchases.
Thank
you
assemblywoman.
I
appreciate
the
question
in
the
case
of
a
million-dollar
bond
and
all
that
would
be
a
case
where
the
bond
would
be
used
to
cover
losses
that
an
individual
may
have
that's
traditionally
how
bonds
are
used
by
a
state
agency.
J
In
this
case,
the
reasoning
for
it
is
to
preclude
bad
apples
because
they
can't
get
bonds
there's
no,
once
a
person's
money
is
transferred
and
then
the
the
annuity
is
purchased
and
they
receive
their
money
from
the
structure
settlement
purchaser
at
the
court
right
after
the
courthouse
transaction,
the
cons,
the
recipient
is
whole
they've
got
all
their
money.
There's
there's
no
harm,
no
foul.
J
They
don't
have
to
at
a
future
date,
turn
to
a
to
a
state
agency
and
say:
would
you
we
got?
We
were
misled,
we
didn't,
we
didn't
get
the
money
we
were
promised.
We
need
you
to
pay
the
money
out
of
the
bond.
J
J
They
won't
be
able
to
get
the
financial
accruity
that
they
would
have
to
demonstrate,
and
it
has
been
proven
to
be
enough
of
a
barrier
from
these
two
people
in
a
cell
phone
in
the
back
of
a
car
trying
to
set
up
a
business
that
they
won't
even
try
it.
They
just
say
I
don't
want
to
be
with.
I
don't
want
the
courts.
I
don't
want
the
state
to
know
who
I
am
so
that's
how
it
that's
how
it's
been
successful.
Madam
assemblyman.
D
Chair
follow-up,
please
thank
you,
mr
kelly.
Does
this
open
the
door
for
insurance
companies
to
participate
in
this
business,
or
is
this
going
to
be
separate
because
we've
seen
insurance
companies
get
into
all
different
other
lines
of
business
which
has
been
concerning
over
the
years?
So
does
this
law
preclude
them,
or
would
this
open
the
door
for
them
to
also
not
only
offer
insurance
but
also
off
offer
these
services
as
well.
J
J
A
A
J
Appearing
for
the
national
association
of
settlement
purchases,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
No,
this
only
applies
to
structures
created
under
5891
of
the
internal
revenue
code
or
section
130
that
originally
created
the
structured
settlements
for
tort
actions.
It
doesn't
apply
to
gaming,
winnings
or
lotteries,
or
anything
like
that.
A
A
A
F
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
and
support.
I
will
now
open
it
for
testimony
in
opposition.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition,
looks
like
everyone
is
busy
on
other
matters
here
in
carson
city.
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
opposition
bps.
Could
we
please
check
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
opposition.
F
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
opposition
testimony,
I'm
not
open,
neutral
testimony.
Anybody
in
carson
city
in
the
neutral
position
don't
see
anybody
coming
forward
again.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anybody
on
the
zoom
in
the
neutral
position
bps.
Could
we
check
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
any
neutral
testimony
please.
F
A
A
Chairman
again,.
I
Alfredo
alonso
with
the
law
firm
of
lewis
and
roca,
I
simply
want
to
thank
the
senator
for
putting
forth
the
bill
and
the
chair
and
the
committee's
indulgence.
J
I'd
just
like
this
is
jack
kelly
for
the
national
association
of
settlement
purchasers
on
behalf
of
the
association,
our
members,
I'd
like
to
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
us
today
and
to
senator
schneider
for
advancing
this
legislation.
J
It's
a
good
bill
that
really
will
protect
the
people
of
nevada
and
and
it's
wanted
and
needed.
I
thank
you
very
much.
A
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
332
and
that
takes
us
to
the
second
bill.
As
listed
on
the
agenda,
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
203
in
its
first
reprint
senate
bill
203
and
his
first
reprint
revises
provisions
relating
to
civil
actions
involving
certain
sexual
offenses.
We
have
senator
donderol
loop
joining
us
here
today
in
the
room
we
have
miss
brazier
joining
us
on
the
zoom,
welcome
and
good
morning
to
both
of
you
before
I
hand
it
over.
A
K
K
I'm
pleased
to
present
senate
bill
203
for
your
consideration
today.
A
little
background
information
on
this
bill
before
I
took
it
to
turn
it
over.
The
actual
number
of
child
victims
of
sexual
abuse
is
unknown
because
so
many
do
not
report
their
abuse.
In
addition,
many
adult
survivors
of
child
sex
sexual
abuse
never
disclose
their
abuse
to
anyone.
K
We
all
remember
the
news
stories
of
the
usa
gymnastics
team
doctor
who
abused
the
children
in
his
care
for
many
years
as
his
tri
at
his
trial,
former
gymnasts
many
in
their
30s
reported
about
the
abuse
20
years
or
more
after
it
occurred.
Child
sexual
abuse
and
exploitation
is
a
crime
that
is
preserved
in
silence
and
secrecy.
K
Child
victims
often
do
not
discover
the
relationship
of
their
psychological
injuries
to
the
abuse
until
well
into
adulthood,
usually
during
psychological,
counseling
or
therapy.
They
may
not
even
discover
the
fact
of
such
abuse
until
they
undergo
such
therapy.
This
delay
often
protects
the
abusers
and
those
that
aid
them
from
facing
full
accountability
for
their
actions.
K
According
to
the
national
center
for
victims
of
crime,
nearly
every
state
has
a
basic
suspension
of
the
statute
of
limitation
for
civil
actions,
while
a
person
is
a
minor,
many
states
also
have
adopted
additional
extensions
specifically
for
cases
involving
sexual
abuse
of
children.
Extensions
for
filing
civil
actions
for
child
sexual
abuse
are
most
often
based
upon
the
discovery
rule
by
the
time
the
victim
discovers
the
sexual
abuse
or
the
relationship
of
the
conduct
of
the
injuries.
The
ordinary
time
limitation
may
have
expired,
as
I
noted
before.
K
This
delayed
discovery
may
be
due
to
emotional
and
psychological
trauma
and
is
often
accompanied
by
repression
of
the
memory
of
abuse.
Many
states
have
extended
their
statutes
of
limitations
for
civil
actions
involving
these
cases,
and
some
states
have
removed
this
limitation
entirely.
Now.
I
would
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
ms
brazier
and
she
will
walk
you
through
the
bill.
L
Good
morning,
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name-
is
alison
brazier,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
nevada
justice
association
and
I'm
honored
to
present
this
bill
with
senator
donderolu
loot.
Just
before
I
get
into
the
bill,
I
want
to
talk
about
the
intent
of
the
bill.
I
mean
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
really
to
stop
human
trafficking
and
abuse
and
exploitation
of
children
in
nevada.
L
According
to
the
national
human
trafficking
hotline,
between
2007
and
2016,
there
were
1500
calls
of
suspected
human
trafficking
in
nevada
alone.
That's
on
average,
a
little
more
than
three
calls
per
week
for
nine
years,
just
in
nevada
and
of
the
cases
that
were
actually
open.
Based
on
those
calls.
There
were
almost
500
cases
opened
in
las
vegas,
which
puts
us
number
six
in
the
nation,
and
there
were
51
cases
opened
in
reno,
which
puts
them
number
64
in
the
nation.
L
So
clearly,
having
about
one
case
opened
per
week
over
the
course
of
nine
years,
shows,
we've
got
a
big
problem
in
nevada
and
we
hope
that
this
bill
will
address
that
problem
and
hopefully
reduce
those
numbers.
L
We
know
the
origin
of
the
problems
involving
child
sex
trafficking
and
abuse
are
the
pimps
and
the
abusers
and
the
traffickers,
but
we
also
know
that
those
people
don't
work
alone.
They
rely
on
businesses
who
turn
a
blind
eye
and
let
this
type
of
abuse
occur
on
their
property,
so
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
financially
punish
those
bad
actors,
businesses
and
other
co-conspirators,
who
turn
a
blind
eye
and
allow
crimes
against
children
to
occur
on
their
property
or
with
their
knowledge.
L
So
with
that,
I
want
to
walk
you
through
the
bill.
Just
some
of
the
highlights
section.
Two
of
the
bill
creates
financial
liability
for
persons
or
businesses
who
knowingly
benefit
from
activities
which
they
knew
or
should
have
known,
were
aiding
and
facilitating
in
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
of
children.
L
Just
to
be
clear
and
for
the
record,
the
language
that
we
have
in
section
two
subsection
two
that
I
was
just
referencing
mirrors
exactly
language
from
the
federal
traffic
victims
protection
act.
So
this
is
nothing
new,
we're
just
taking
what's
already
existing
in
federal
law
and
codifying
it
here
in
nevada,
subsection,
four
of
section
two,
which
is
is
addressed
in
the
amendment.
L
Attempts
attempts
to
create
some
parameters
and
definitions
around
what
is
meant
by
that
term
financial
benefits,
and
for
that
purpose
it
defines
that
any
hotel
or
motel
or
other
establishment
with
more
than
175
rooms.
Merely
renting
a
room
is
not
enough
to
meet
this
financial
benefit
requirement.
L
There
wasn't
any
magic
formula
or
equation
that
we
used
to
get
to
that
175
room
benchmark,
but
with
working
and
having
conversations
with
gaming
in
the
chamber
about
how
do
we?
How
do
we
create
something?
That's
practical
and
equitable?
That
would
apply.
L
You
know
because
this
bill
applies
to
small
motels
that
have,
you
know,
might
have
10
or
20
rooms,
but
it
also
is
going
to
apply
to
big
strip
properties
that
might
have
thousands
of
rooms
and
employees,
and
so
when
working
with
them,
we
came
up
with
the
175
room
benchmark,
which
we
felt
was
appropriate
at
this
point
you
know
just
because
the
level
of
knowledge
and
participation
is
going
to
vary
depending
on
the
size
of
the
establishment.
L
L
Section
two
of
the
bill
outlines
very
specific
circumstances
and
requirements
that
must
be
met
and
that
the
victim
would
have
to
show
that
the
the
business
was
turning
a
blind
eye
and
letting
the
abuse
occur
before
then,
and
financial
liability
would
be
imposed
and
then
the
other
part
I
wanted
to
just
go
through
quickly
is
section
one
of
the
bill.
That's
also
addressed
in
the
amendment
subsection
two.
L
Well,
actually,
all
of
section
one-
and
the
amendment
was
just
to
kind
of
clean
up
some
language
around
the
timing
of
these
suits.
The
subjection
two
would
allow
victims
to
bring
suit
anytime
after
the
abuse
occurred,
so
they
wouldn't
have
to
wait
until
they're
18.
They
could
bring
it
at
any
point
in
time
after
the
abuse
occurs
and
then
subsection
3
of
section
1
establishes
a
clear
20-year.
Statute
of
limitations
after
the
victim
turns
18..
L
So
that's
that's
essentially
the
highlights
of
the
bill.
So
I
just
want
to
conclude
in
saying
that
in
some
this,
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
protect
children
in
nevada.
L
It
targets
pimps
abusers
and
other
bad
actors
who
turn
a
blind
eye
and
who
facilitate
and
aid
in
a
bed
in
sexual
abuse
and
exploitation
of
children
in
nevada
and
this
bill
by
creating
a
financial
liability
to
those
people
and
those
businesses
will
help
us
put
the
back
bad
actors
out
of
business
and
hopefully
have
an
impact
on
the
human
trafficking
and
sex
abuse
of
children
across
nevada.
A
I
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
david,
arnett
liquor
from
assembly
district
20.,
I'm
just
so
curious
about
this
connection
between
knowing
about
the
abuse.
That's
going
on
in
the
size
of
your
establishment,
because
section
three
requires
that
the
proprietor
know
or
should
know
what's
going
on
and
that
doesn't
seem
related
to
whether
there
are
150
rooms
or
200
rooms.
L
Allison
brazier
for
the
record,
there
isn't
an
exemption.
I
think
what
the
what
subsection
four
does
is
just
say
that
merely
renting
a
room
isn't
enough
to
show
that
there
was
knowledge
or
that
you
were
gaining
some
type
of
benefit
and
again
the
reason
there
was
no,
you
know,
there's
probably
is
no
right.
L
Magic
number
for
the
num,
the
establishing
the
number
of
rooms
as
a
benchmark,
but
some
of
the
concerns
expressed
by
gaming
and
some
of
the
other
stakeholders
was
that
you
know
if
you
had
a
property
that
has
thousands
of
employees.
You
know
at
what
point?
Does
the
knowledge
get
impeded
to
the
business
owner?
And
so
you
know
we.
L
We
believe
that
you
know
truck
stops
or
small
motels
or
maybe
you
know
other
establishments
that
are
much
smaller,
where
they
may
only
have
a
handful
of
employees
or
you
know
10
or
20
rooms,
and
it
would
be
almost
impossible
not
to
know
what
was
happening,
that
that
there
was
a
difference
between
those
type
of
establishments
and
bigger
strip
properties
where
you
might
have
thousands
of
employees.
So
I
guess
you
know
just
to
get
back
to
your
original
question.
There
is
no
exemption
created
for
these
larger
establishments.
L
It's
just
that.
We've
created,
I
guess
a
higher
standard
to
to
prove
cases
against
them.
I
L
Alison
brazier
for
the
record,
you
know
I
don't
I
guess
there
would
be
maybe
different
permeations
of
it,
but
if
there
was
you
know,
maybe
some
kickbacks
that
were
being
paid
or
for
cash
that
was
being
paid
on
top
of
just
merely
the
room
rental
that
you
would
be
able
to
show
something
above
just
merely
renting
the
room.
So
again
you
know
the
scenarios
I'm
thinking
of
or
are
you
know
someone
giving
up?
You
know
an
employee,
maybe
cash
per
you
know
room,
that's
being
rented
or
you
know.
L
John,
that
might
be
let
up
into
a
room.
You
know
throughout
the
day,
something
where
it's
it's
above
and
beyond.
Just
merely
renting
the
room
and
again
you
know,
there's
probably
different
permeations
of
it,
but
what
I'm
thinking
of
is
just
those
kickbacks
or
tips
or
you
know
a
bribe
if
you
want
to
call
it.
That's
that's
given,
above
and
beyond,
just
the
room,
rental.
K
K
A
little
bit
of
background,
my
very
first
session
in
2017
I
brought
ab145
with
irene
bustamante
adams
and
that
created
the
current
law
for
child
victims
of
sexual
abuse,
giving
them
20
years
from
the
times
they
turn
they
turn
18
and-
and
I
know
this
is
such
an
important
issue,
and
so
many
child
victims.
Don't
ever
tell
anyone,
and
especially
the
example
you
gave
about
the
usa,
girls,
gymnastics
team,
the
coaches
were
abusing
those
girls
as
well
as
the
doctor.
K
A
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
being
here
and
for
presenting
the
bill.
I
should
probably
have
not
asked
to
say
something.
I
share
the
same
concerns
I
I
appreciate
the
bill
and-
and
I
I
think,
I'm
having
the
same
issues
that
my
colleague
assuming
ornlicker
is
having
I'm
not
understanding
other
than
I
understand
for
you
to
get
this
bill
to
go
forward.
B
You
probably
need
to
go
to
a
a
room
limit
with
the
resorts
not
kind
of
having
a
carve
out
in
my
mind
and
for
me
you
know
when
we
talk
about
sex
trafficking,
I
don't
think
it's
just
occurring
and
I'm
sure
you
have
the
research
to
show
that
it
it
it.
It
occurs
in
all
kinds
of
venues,
high
end
low
end
and
the
higher
end
have
video
cameras.
They
have
the
surveillance
that
the
smaller
motels,
the
lower
room
numbers
we're
talking
about.
So
I
I
certainly
appreciate
this
bill.
B
I'm
just
not
comfortable
that
we're
carving
out
the
bigger
players
that
I
think
maybe
are
maybe
not
knowingly
involved,
but
it
is
going
on,
and
I
I
would
hope
that
yes,
I
understand,
there's
a
lot
of
employees.
There's
a
lot
of
things
that
go
on
that
management
might
know
about,
but
I'm
concerned
about
the
carve
out,
but
thank
you
so
much
for
the
work
you
do.
L
Thank
you,
allison
brazier,
for
the
record.
The
original
draft
of
the
bill
you
know,
didn't
have
any
type
of
threshold
for
room,
room
numbers
and
so
you're
correct.
It's
a
it's
a
compromise
amendment
to
just
alleviate
or
address
some
concerns
that
were
expressed
in
the
original
drafting.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
a
senator
thank
you
for
presenting
ms
brazier.
Thank
you
for
presenting
as
well
we'll
have
you
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
concluding
remarks.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
203.
A
F
F
F
F
N
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
thank
you,
chairman,
yeager
and
committee
members
for
allowing
me
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
203.
My
name
is
catherine
robb
k-a-t-h-r-y-n-r-o-b-b
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
child
us
advocacy,
and
I
am
also
a
survivor
of
child
sexual
abuse
at
child
us
advocacy.
We
work
on
child
protection
legislation
all
over
the
country.
N
There
is
clearly
a
national
trend
by
lawmakers
in
responding
to
this
epidemic
of
child
sexual
abuse,
which
the
data
sadly
shows
that
one
in
five
girls
and
one
in
13
boys
will
be
sexually
assaulted
before
their
18th
birthday,
that's
13.5
percent
of
all
children
and
thanks
to
the
signs
of
traumatology,
we
also
know
that
the
average
age
a
victim
discloses.
This
abuse
is
age
52.
N
I
was
in
my
mid
40s
since
2002
38
states,
the
federal
government
and
the
district
district
of
columbia
have
extended
their
stature
limitations
for
child
sexual
abuse
and
22
jurisdictions
have
revived
their
civil
statute
of
limitations.
13
jurisdictions
have
completely
eliminated
the
statute
of
limitations
for
child
sexual
abuse.
N
This
year,
30
states
have
already
introduced
sol
reform
bills.
17
are
revivals.
This
monday
arkansas
passed
a
two-year
window
and
an
extension
to
age
55..
So
the
national
trend
is
clear:
the
sky
hasn't
fallen,
some
will
cry
while
the
courts
will
be
flooded.
The
courts
have
not
been
flooded.
Some
will
also
cry.
Well,
we
don't
do
this
for
other
torts.
N
These
are
not
car
crashes
or
slip
and
fall
cases
we're
talking
about
the
rape
and
sexual
assault
of
children.
These
are
very
different
civil
wrongs
that
silence
their
victims.
Some
will
also
cry.
Institutions
will
go
bankrupt.
Well,
bankruptcies
are
chapter
11,
they're
voluntary.
They
serve
the
wrongdoer
it's
a
new
day
for
them,
but
not
for
the
victim.
N
Finally,
some
will
cry:
it's
not
fair
how
about
a
bit,
how
about
due
process
as
an
attorney
and
as
an
american,
I
believe
in
due
process,
but
constitutional
rights
are
not
absolute.
The
safety
and
the
common
good
often
outweigh
due
process.
Moreover,
there
are
safeguards
rules
of
civil
procedure.
Rules
of
evidence
remain
in
place
and
plaintiffs
must
still
prove
their
cases
again.
These
are
not
car
crashes,
not
slip
and
fall
cases
we're
talking
about
the
rape
of
children.
N
A
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
and
support.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
carson
city
in
opposition?
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
opposition
bps.
Could
we
check
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
anybody
in
opposition,
please.
F
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
in
opposition.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
and
we'll
start
here
in
carson
city.
Please
come
forward
and
senator
will
have
to
ask
you
to
vacate
the
table
for
just
a
moment
as
we
have
a
testifier
here,
and
we
only
have
one
chair
at
the
table.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
committee
members,
misty
grimmer
with
the
nevada
resort
association.
We
are
in
neutral
on
the
bill.
B
This
bill
is
one
of
those
that
has
taken
a
lot
of
compromise
and
a
lot
of
conversations
to
come
to
a
good
piece
of
policy
that
on
such
an
important
issue,
I
did
want
to
also
put
on
the
record
that
the
resort
association
does
have
a
monthly
working
group
for
the
properties
to
come
together
and
address
the
the
the
issue
of
human
trafficking
and
what
we
can
do
to
prevent
it
and
the
types
of
training
that
our
employees
can
get
so
that
they
do
recognize
it
when
it,
if,
if
it,
if
it
does
ever
happen
to
to
land
in
our
properties.
B
However,
in
our
conversations
with
the
sponsors,
they
have
told
us
that
they
don't
think
this
is
actually
happening
in
our
properties.
It's
happening
in
more
less
desirable
places,
I'll
just
put
it
that
way.
So,
but
we
are
in
neutral
and
really
appreciate
the
work
that
the
sponsor
and
the
advocates
have
done
on
this
bill.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
cheer,
yeager,
seander
summers,
armstrong
assembly
district,
six
for
the
record.
Ms
grimmer,
can
you
describe
what
or
can
you
confirm
whether
or
not
the
training
that
the
staff
you
said
that
there's
training
for
staff
is
this
across
all
of
them
the
major
hotel
chains?
Is
it
a
consistent?
Is
it
a.
D
B
Misty
grimmer
for
the
record,
representing
the
nevada
resort
association.
I
can
definitely
get
back
to
the
committee
with
a
lot
more
details
like
I
said
it
is
a.
It
is
a
a
statewide
and
multiple
properties,
working
group
that
come
together
and
and
come
up
with
the
best
practices.
So
I
write
this
moment.
I
don't
have
the
specific
details,
but
I
will
certainly
get
those
back
to
the
committee.
A
Thank
you,
ms
grimmer
appreciate
your
testimony.
Is
there
anybody
else
here
in
carson
city
in
the
neutral
position?
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
Let
me
take
a
look
at
the
zoom
again.
I
don't
see
anybody
there
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
any
neutral
testimony
on
the
phone?
A
F
G
Good
morning,
terry
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
paul
moratkin,
m-o-r-a-d
k-h-a-n,
I
am
the
senior
vice
president
of
government
affairs
for
the
vegas
chamber.
The
chamber
originally
had
concerns
with
sb
203
as
introduced,
because
the
overall
broadness
of
the
language,
the
bill
and
the
potential
impact
it
would
happen-
employers
and
landlords.
We
had
made
a
commitment
and
to
work
with
the
proponents
of
the
bill
to
find
an
equitable
solution.
G
I'd
like
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsor
and
the
proponents
of
the
bill
for
working
with
members
of
the
business
community
in
order
to
address
our
concerns,
while
maintaining
the
attention
bill
through
the
amendment
process.
I
believe
we
have
achieved
that
goal
and
the
chamber
is
now
neutral
on
scp-203.
A
A
K
L
Nothing
other
than
what
senator
dunder
loop
has
said
and
just
wanted
to.
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you.
A
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
203
that
takes
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
a
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
judiciary
committee.
Let's
start
here
in
carson
city,
mr
piro,
any
public
comment
this
morning,
mr
apparel,
is
with
us
he's
the
only
one
with
us
at
this
point.
A
F
N
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
in
the
esteemed
committee
of
assembly
judiciary,
my
name
is
dora
martinez.
I
represent
the
nevada,
disability
creation
coalition
chairman.
I
wanted
to
call
in
support
of
the
bill
203,
but
I
was
in
a
noisy
place.
I
just
want
to
ditto
the
people
that
were
calling
in
in
support
for
the
record.
N
Thank
you,
and
also
today
is
national
international
guide
dog
day
and
I
was,
in
a
donut
place,
getting
a
my
sarge
service
dog,
a
donut.
So
thank
you
so
much
and
have
a
great
day.
A
F
M
Ann
marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e-g-r-a
sister
thomas
party
murdered
by
reno
police
and
marshall
county
sheriff's
office.
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
two
people
who
died
on
this
date.
They
were
killed
by
police
in
nevada,
jose
louis
dominguez
was
47
year
old
when
he
was
shot
and
killed
by
sparks
police
officers,
ryan
patterson,
corey,
foster
and
scott
bader.
Two
years
ago
today
in
d.a
chris
hicks,
typical
m.o,
he
did
not
release
his
usual
justification
of
the
shooting
until
8
21
2020..
M
Those
who
knew
jose
loved
him
and
were
blessed
with
his
generous
spirit.
He
loved,
deeply
and
family
was
of
the
utmost
importance
to
him.
He
enjoyed
cooking
working
around
his
home
playing
horseshoes
and
watching
his
49ers
and
giants
play
russia
county
sheriff's
office
took
the
lead
on
the
independent
investigation.
M
They
are
the
same
agency
along
with
reno
pd,
who
affixated
my
mentally
ill
brother
in
crisis.
Police
investigating
police
is
not
transparency
and
accountability.
Fifteen
years
ago
today,
thirty
six-year-old
aaron
jones
was
killed
by
lvmpd
after
being
confronted
by
officers
near
sahara,
avenue
and
durango
drive.
He
allegedly
tried
to
rim
a
police
car
and
started
driving
towards
officers
officer
shot.
Aaron
at
the
coroner's
inquest
questions
were
raised
about
whether
officers
were
truly
in
danger
when
they
fired
the
weapons.
M
Armored
vehicles,
hollow
point,
bullets,
rubber
bullets,
cs
gas
helicopters,
stab
vests,
tactical
robots,
de-escalation,
training,
cit
training,
we
have
given
it
all
to
police
and
they
are
still
killing
community
members.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
If
law
enforcement
oppose
a
bill,
I
ask
that
you
support
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
now
close
public
comment,
anything
else
from
hard-working
committee
members
this
morning
before
we
talk
about
the
rest
of
the
week,
I
don't
see
anything
so
again
reminder
we
have
a
meeting
tomorrow
at
nine
o'clock,
not
eight
o'clock.
You
can
get
here
at
eight,
but
you
don't
have
to
be
here
that
early,
so
we'll
do
two
bills.
A
Tomorrow,
at
nine
o'clock
we
don't
have
a
judiciary
committee
meeting
scheduled
for
friday
and
I'll
give
you
an
update
tomorrow
on
what
next
week
is
going
to
look
like
it's
just
have
some
more
information
for
you,
then
so
hope
everyone
has
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
We
will
see
you
back
in
this
committee
room
tomorrow
morning
at
9am.
This
meeting
is.