►
From YouTube: 3/9/2021 - 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
E
D
C
A
A
So
if
you
could
please
mark
them
present,
I
think
that
just
leaves
assemblywoman
krasner
who's
not
on
yet
so
please
mark
her
absent
for
the
time
being,
and
then
I
will
try
to
note
when
she
arrives
in
the
meeting
good
morning
to
members
of
the
judiciary,
committee
and
good
morning
to
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
watching
today
on
the
legislature's
website
or
on
our
youtube
channel.
Welcome
to
day
36
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
A
Just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
before
we
get
started
folks
on
the
zoom
with
us.
Could
you
please
be
sure
to
mute
unless
you
are
speaking
that
will
help
with
the
feedback
for
our
presenters
today?
If
you
could,
please
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
particularly
when
you're
asked
a
question:
that'll
help
our
committee
secretaries
prepare
the
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy.
A
That's
perfectly
okay,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
and
of
the
legislative
institution
as
well
as
staff,
and
then
last
many
members
are
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting.
Laptops
desktops
ipads
phones-
so
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect.
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
other
devices
during
the
meeting,
most
likely
trying
to
look
at
exhibits
or
other
notes
to
help
us
participate
in
this
virtual
meeting.
A
So
with
those
housekeeping
matters
behind
us
we're
going
to
move
on
to
our
agenda
members,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda
today.
We
are
going
to
take
them
in
reverse
order
at
re
at
the
request
of
our
first
presenter.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
132
assembly
bill
132
revises
provisions
governing
juvenile
justice
members.
A
You
should
have
received
an
email
sometime
yesterday
with
an
amendment
that
is
being
proposed
by
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
on
assembly,
bill
132
and
members
of
the
public
you'll
find
that
on
nellis
as
well.
So
please
be
sure
to
reference
that
when
we're
going
through
the
bill,
I
think
that'll
help
further
the
discussion
and
that
I
want
to
welcome
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
I
think,
for
the
first
time
this
session,
assemblyman
flores,
who
is
no
stranger
to
this
committee
and
I
believe
he
has
another
presenter
with
him.
Miss
olivarez
as
well.
A
B
Perfect.
Thank
you
good
morning,
mr
chairman
chairman
jaeger,
vice
chair
nguyen
esteemed
colleagues
of
the
judiciary
committee,
and
I
am
assembly
monitor
floors
here
in
the
great
state
of
nevada
proudly
representing
assembly
district
28,
and
today
I
have
the
great
honor
of
presenting
assembly
bill
132
on
behalf
of
every
youth
in
this
state.
B
We
now
have
to
read
miranda
warnings
prior
to
a
custodial
interrogation
occurring
and
what
the
importance
of
that
is
afterwards.
I'd
like
to
go
into
concerns
that
I
have
with
the
miranda
warnings,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
our
youth,
that
is,
individuals
who
are
17
years
of
age
and
under
next
I'd
like
to
hand
over
the
presentation
to
dr
ana
olivares,
who
will
be
able
to
provide
insight
as
to
some
of
those
concerns
how
the
science
demonstrates
that
there
should
be
concerns
that
we
as
a
state
should
collectively
try
to
address.
B
I
will
then
ask
for
the
presentation
to
come
back
to
me
and
I
will
walk
you
through
the
conceptual
amendment
that
I
hope
everybody
now
has
a
copy
of
explain
to
you,
the
genesis
of
the
original
language,
why?
The
conceptual
amendment
is
here,
explain
how
I
believe
that
conceptual
amendment
addresses
those
concerns
and
then
lastly,
I'd
like
to
preemptively
address
some
of
the
opposition
that
we'll
be
having
this
morning.
B
I'll
walk
you
through
some
of
the
concerns
they
will
raise
and
how
I
believe
this
bill
far
exceeds
those
concerns,
and
then,
lastly,
I
would
open
it
up
for
questions
again.
I
want
to
thank
chairman
yeager
for
allowing
the
opportunity
to
be
here
today
and
if
I
could
start
with
the
landmark
case
of
miranda
versus
arizona.
B
This
is
a
1966
case.
I
am
emphasizing
1966
because
there
is
a
there
is
the
ability
for
us
as
a
society
to
forget
how
recent
a
lot
of
these
things
are,
and
we
have
a
tendency
to
believe
that.
Well,
we've
always
had
these
constitutional
protections.
They've
been
there
since
the
very
start
of
our
democracy.
Our
country
has
consistently
enforced
them.
What
more
can
we
do?
B
That
is
the
case
that
now
requires,
before
a
custodial
interrogation
to
occur,
the
very
famous
phrases
that
we
hear
when
you're
watching
a
reality
tv
show
or
when
you're
watching
a
movie,
the
very
famous
miranda
warnings
of
you
have
a
right
to
remain
silent.
Anything
you
do
and
say
can
and
will
be
used
against
you
in
a
court
of
law.
You
have
a
right
to
an
attorney.
If
you
can't
afford
one
one
will
be
afforded
to
you
now.
B
We
always
hear
these
phrases
and
we
take
them
for
granted,
but
they
are
incredibly
important
because,
prior
to
1966-
and
if
you
read
the
landmark
case
of
miranda
v
arizona,
should
you
want
to
geek
out
for
a
bit
you'll
be
given
the
opportunity
to
understand
what
was
happening
prior
to
1966
and
and
if
you
read
that
particular
case,
you'll
you'll
hear
a
case
of
an
individual
who,
on
multiple
occasions,
asked
for
an
attorney
to
be
present
during
interrogation,
and
it
was
denied
at
the
opportunity
to
do
that.
B
You'll
read
about
how
factually
while
he
requested
to
to
not
continue
for
the
interrogation
to
continue,
was
forced
to
stand
and,
and
it
went
on
for
hours
upon
hours.
B
The
supreme
court
engaged
in
a
very
scholarly
argument
where
both
stakeholders
from
both
sides
entertained.
The
argument
of
are
we
protecting
and
providing
every
individual
their
constitutional
protections
afford
it
to
them.
B
When
we
don't
have
a
set
of
instructions
or
procedures
that
we're
following
nationwide
and
the
ultimate
consensus
was
no
and
now
there
is
a
whole
body
of
scholarship
that
explains
how
important
this
is,
but
if
I
can
one
of
the
key
things
in
that
supreme
court
case,
that
often
in
my
opinion
gets
slightly
overlooked
because
we
focus
so
deeply
on
the
the
right
to
remain
silent.
The
right
to
an
attorney
is
the
the
language
that
they
use
and
specifically
I'd
like
to
quote
and
read
directly
from
that.
B
Those
three
words
are
key,
because
a
miranda
warning
means
nothing
if
you
don't
understand
that
when
you
wave
them
away,
you're
doing
it
voluntarily,
more
importantly,
knowingly
and
intelligently,
this
is
where
this
bill
comes
into
play.
Assembly
bill
132,
seeks
to
address
the
disparity
and
disproportional
realities
that
exist
between
adults
and
minors.
B
Now
there
is
a
whole
body
of
science
that
is
undisputed
in
scholarly,
journals
and
law
review
journals
that
discuss
this
particular
matter.
There
is
now
science
that
talks
about
that.
The
brain
development
does
not
end
somehow
magically
at
18
or
at
21..
In
fact,
the
the
science
goes
far
into
the
late
20s,
and
I
mention
that
because
then
it
begs
the
question
that
we
as
a
society
have
to
answer
is:
are
we
when
a
child
under
the
age
of
17
or
under?
B
B
B
B
B
In
fact
I've
provided
and
that
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
that
that
exhibit,
but
I
provided
as
an
exhibit
and
if
you
see
that
exhibit
there's
a
a
slideshow
from
kings
county
washington
that
talks
about
why
there
is
a
a
disproportionality
and
understanding
a
lack
of
ability
of
understanding
and
why
the
law
is
different
when
it
comes
to
an
adult
and
a
child.
B
And
I
implore
you
to
look
at
it
briefly
later,
just
so
that
it
could
help
put
into
perspective
some
of
us.
That
may
be
visual
learners
that,
like
to
see
things.
I
think
that
that
slideshow
does
a
good
job
of
that,
but,
namely
in
the
last
25
years
and
you'll,
see
those
cases
highlighted
in
that
slideshow.
B
B
But
before
I
do
that,
I
just
want
you
to
get
a
perspective,
because
dr
olivares
does
not
want
to
highlight
her
or
you
know,
throw
around
her
resume.
I
just
want
to
briefly
read
you
her
quick
bio.
Dr
analivares
is
a
licensed
clinical
psychologist
in
state
of
nevada.
B
She
earned
a
master's
degree
in
child
and
adolescent
psychology
and
a
doctorate
degree
in
clinical
psychology.
She
is
trained
in
the
evaluation
and
treatment
of
mental
disorders.
She
is,
she
is
a
training.
Excuse
me,
dr
olivarez's
training.
History
includes
personality
intelligence,
testing,
psychotherapy
diagnostic
evaluations.
B
She
has
trained
and
worked
in
various
settings
throughout
the
las
vega
las
vegas
throughout
las
vegas,
including
a
patient
psychiatric
facilities,
outpatient
clinics
and,
most
recently
in
her
own
private
practice.
Dr
olivares
served
as
a
southern
board
secretary
of
the
nevada,
psycholo
psychological
association
and
as
an
adjunct
faculty
for
the
graduate
medical
education
residency
program
at
the
southern
hills
hospital.
D
Good
morning,
thank
you
for
that
introduction,
so
I'm
here
to
talk
about
brain
development
and
adolescence
and
I'll
use,
adolescents
and
young
people
interchangeably,
so
the
impact,
and
also
on
the
impact
of
stress
on
judgment
and
decision
making.
D
So
I'd
like
to
talk
about
what
this
looks
like
for
young
people
in
particular,
so
we're
focusing
on
the
dynamics
of
a
high
stress
situation
and
the
underdeveloped
brain
generally
speaking
being
able
to
cope
with
stressful
situations
is
an
important
part
of
healthy
brain
development,
and
the
larger
evidence
does
support
that.
Our
brains
continue
to
develop
throughout
adolescence
and
for
most
of
us
well
into
our
mid-20s.
D
That
being
said,
a
young
person's
decision
making
and
judgment
could
be
especially
impacted
during
an
intense
situation
such
as
an
interrogation
or
an
interview
setting,
especially
without
a
parent
present
being
able
to
make
sound
decisions
during
high
stress
situations
is
in
and
of
itself
beneficial
for
us,
because
stress
is
a
part
of
life
right
so
having
that
skill
is
essential.
This
process
does
happen
very
differently
for
an
adolescent
brain
and
it
comes
down
to
more
than
just
an
adolescent,
lacking
experience
or
intelligence.
D
So
this
in
part,
is
why
we
commonly
see
adolescents
engage
in
behaviors
that
are
impulsive
or
dangerous
at
times.
The
way
they
think
the
way
they
solve
problems
and
interpret
social
cues
make
and
make
decisions
is
very
different
than
the
way
adults
do
for
most
of
us.
D
It
doesn't
mean
that
they're
not
able
to
make
sound
decisions
or
make
good
decisions
or
know
right
from
wrong
or
understand
consequences,
but
they
are
more
guided
by
the
reactive
and
emotional
part
of
the
brain,
rather
than
the
logical
frontal
part
of
the
brain
which
controls
motivation,
goal
directed
behaviors
problem
solving
and
impulse
control.
That
is
because
our
brain
matures
from
the
back
to
front
essentially
right
so
when
we're
adolescent,
it's
not
fully
developed
and
those
connections
that
adults
have
are
not
made
for
for
young
people.
D
How
we
respond
to
stress
and
what
happens
to
our
judgment
and
decision
making
abilities
depends
on
factors
such
as
our
perception
of
stress
in
the
moment,
external
conditions.
So
our
environment
has
a
lot
of
influence.
Artists
on
our
judgment
and
decision
making
and
again
access
to
critical
people
who
play
critical
roles
in
our
lives,
such
as
a
parent
or
another
support
person
again
having
access
to
a
person
who
plays
a
supporter
role,
acts
as
a
buffer.
So
it
helps
to
mitigate
those
emotional
reactions
during
intense
situations.
D
Now,
generally
speaking,
what
happens
when
we're
in
a
high
stress
situation
or
a
dangerous
or
threatening
environment?
Our
brain
perceives
an
environment
with
that
kind
of
intensity,
and
it
goes
into
like
survival
mode,
so
there's
phys,
physiological
and
cognitive
processes
that
happen
within
milliseconds.
So
the
way
I'm
talking
about
it
is
very
kind
of
in
a
process,
but
for
everyone
it
happens
very
very
quickly,
so
we
don't
even
notice
it
really.
D
D
We
experience
intense
heart
rate,
our
blood
pressure
goes
up,
we
have
rapid
breathing,
we
get
an
adrenaline
rush
and
then
that
also
signals
other
hormones
to
go
into
production
like
cortisol,
which
I
think
most
of
us
know
as
a
stress
hormone,
because
our
stress
response
is
activated:
we're
not
fully
able
to
tap
into
the
brain
function
that
thinks
clearly
and
logically,
the
brain
function.
That's
able
to
evaluate
a
situation,
evaluate
consequences,
and
so
things
like
our
insight
and
judgment
and
our
memory
can
be
compromised
during
these
high
intense
situations.
D
We
also
experience
changes
in
emotion
and
behavior,
so
this
is
when
we
get
nervous
or
our
voice
gets
shaky,
might
have
nail-biting
or
being
fidgety
again.
This
all
happens
very
very
quickly
within
moments
of
exposure
to
a
high,
intense
situation
cognitively.
So
the
our
cognition
and
our
thinking
process
is
also
impaired
or
it
can
be
impacted,
so
our
ability
to
focus
becomes
becomes
foggy.
Our
thinking
can
become
unclear
and
it
can
very
easily
be
very
hard
to
articulate
ourselves
and
articulate
our
emotions
or
understand.
D
What's
going
on
in
the
context,
in
particular,
I
think
in
the
context
of
this
bill,
I
guess
in
the
situation
an
adolescent
in
an
interview
setting
that
is
fidgety
and-
and
you
know
it's
confused
and
it
doesn't
know
what
to
say.
I
think
you
know
the
implication
of
that
is
that
it
can
be
perceived
by
someone
as
being
insincere
or
deceitful.
D
So
there
is
mixed
research
on
the
role
of
age
and
decision
making.
What
we
do
know
is
that
the
adolescent
brain
is
fundamentally
different
than
older
brains,
and
this
basic
difference
impacts
how
they
execute
their
decisions.
The
way
they
weigh
their
pros
and
cons
is
different.
For
example,
they
tend
to
overestimate
the
rewards
of
a
decision
and
don't
accurately
assess
risks
the
context
and
how
an
adolescent
understand
the
situation
is
also
important
to
consider.
D
For
example,
in
in
my
world,
like
in
psychotherapy
world,
an
adolescent
can't
provide
a
scent,
which
means
that
you
can
talk
to
them
about.
You,
know
the
treatment
and
and
get
their
ascent
to
participate
in
treatment
as
an
adolescent,
but
they
can't
fully
understand
they
can't
fully
consent
to
treatment.
D
I'm
sorry
without
a
parent
or
a
guardian,
and
the
reason
for
this
is
essentially
to
protect
the
adolescent
from
making
a
voluntary
decision
without
weighing
the
alternatives
now
moving
on
kind
of
from
the
brain
functions
and
and
what
happens
when
we're
in
a
high
intense
situation.
There's
other
factors
that
influence
the
way,
adolescents
or
young
people
make
decisions.
D
Social
factors
have
a
really
big
impact
in
their
decision,
making
so
kind
of
to
the
tune
of
what
assemblyman
flores
said:
expectations
of
obedience
to
authority
figures
right,
like
this
very
highly
influences
a
young
person's
decision-making,
saying
something
that
they
think
others.
An
authority
figure
wants
to
hear
again
when
we're
in
this
fight-or-flight
response.
We
just
want
to
get
out
of
the
situation,
and
so
that
can
influence
the
things
that
we
say
what
we
think
that
we
should
do:
okay,
the
understanding
of
language.
D
So
this
has
a
big
impact
because
of
the
differences
in
demographics
and
socioeconomic
status
and
the
groups
of
adolescents
and
young
people
that
come
in
contact
with
law
enforcement,
or
you
know
end
up
in
an
interrogation
or
interview
setting.
Another
factor
is
actual
access
to
legal
resources
and
again,
the
individual
vulnerability
to
suggestive
language
is
also
something
that
can
influence
and
impact
that
for
a
young
person
to
sum
things
up
from
a
clinical
perspective,
the
decision-making
process
is
impacted
by
biological
and
situational
factors
and
the
course
of
brain
development.
D
Again,
while
we
want
adolescents
to
have
autonomy
and
making
decisions
and
then
be
able
to
guide-
and
you
know,
their
decision
making,
the
larger
body
of
the
research
and
what
we
see
in
juvenile
studies
suggest
that,
because
their
brain
is
not
fully
developed,
adolescents
are
more
likely
to
make
decisions
based
on
impulsivity
and
emotion,
rather
than
logic
and
true
understanding
of
an
entire.
B
Thank
you,
anna
libares,
and
this
is
assemblyman
floors
for
the
record
esteemed
colleagues
at
this
time.
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
walk
you
through
the
actual
bill,
and
I
wanted
to
first
lay
the
foundation
and
really
give
context
to
what
we
were
talking
about
here,
because
I
it's
difficult
to
engage
in
this
conversation
without
first
understanding
where,
where
the
science
says
the
mind
of
a
child,
is
to
further
elaborate
on
the
importance
of
this.
B
Excuse
me,
I
apologize,
I
thought
somebody
was
asking
a
question
if
I
could
walk
you
through
a
hypothetical
to
put
into
context
that
we
could
work
off
of
and
then
use
that
to
the
actual
language,
I'm
gonna
and
I'm
gonna
be
going
directly
off
of
the
amendment.
B
The
conceptual
amendment
that
I
provided
to
you
so,
for
the
sake
of
simplifying
it
and
not
getting
too
complex
into
a
lot
of
legal
argument,
let's
say
there
is
a
minor
age,
15
and
law
enforcement
through
the
course
of
their
investigative
work.
B
B
Understandably,
you
all
know
that
law
enforcement
often
start
just
an
investigation
because
they
want
to
figure
out
what's
going
on
and
start
to,
dialogue
with
humans
continuously.
Do
that
all
the
time,
and
at
no
point
does
an
individual
have
to
engage.
They
can
walk
away
from
that
conversation.
We're
not
talking
about
that
here.
B
B
B
So
I
thought
that
that
was
kind
of
the
middle
ground
where
folk
had
landed,
and
I
wanted
to
do
grab
that
language
and
continue
off
of
that.
But
after
having
an
opportunity
to
have
spoken
to
all
the
opposition,
I
realized
that
that
in
fact
wasn't
true
and
that
it
wasn't
a
middle
ground
at
all.
So
I
I
decided
to
completely
move
myself
away
from
that
narrowly
tailored
language
and
instead
present
this.
If
you're
curious
as
to
why
I
started
in
one
place
and
moved
to
this
conceptual
amendment,
that's
the
only
reason.
B
So
what
that
reads
is
as
follows,
except
as
otherwise
otherwise
provided
in
subsection
to
a
peace
officer
or
probation
officer
who
takes
a
child
into
custody,
shall
make
an
electronic
recording
of
any
custodial
interrogation
of
a
child
they've
alleged
to
have
committed
any
act
deemed
to
be
a
felony
or
an
acting
to
be
a
gross
misdemeanor.
B
I
am
saying
that
if
there
is
a
17
year
old
or
younger
17
year
old
or
younger,
who
has
now
been
read
their
miranda
rights
and
they,
it
is
alleged
that
they
have
committed
a
felony
or
gross
misdemeanor,
that
they
have
to
follow
a
set
of
rules
after
that
and
I'll
get
into
those
rules
in
a
second.
But
I
want
to
first
delineate
what's
happening
here.
B
B
I
recognized
that
there
is
a
a
whole
host
of
opposition,
some
of
which
will
talk
about
fiscal
impacts
and
concerns,
and
so
I
wanted
to
in
the
spirit
of
reaching
an
amicable
middle
ground,
not
to
say
that
they
will
support
it
by
me
doing
this,
but
trying
to
minimize
that
impact.
B
Their
liberty,
at
to
a
great
severe
length,
can
have
detrimental
consequences
that
should
they
engage
in
waving
away
of
rights
that
they
don't
understand,
they're
doing
could
impact
them
for
the
rest
of
their
lives.
So
that's
why
I'm
focusing
specifically
on
felonies
and
gross
mysteries.
B
Before
they
waive
the
right
to
an
attorney
before
they
stop
a
custodial
interrogation
middle
of
it,
if
they
don't
feel
comfortable,
answering
any
more
questions
before
they
do
any
of
that
that
they
first
have
to
have
the
right
to
consult
with
an
attorney
and
the
way
we
see
this
playing
out-
and
we
see
we
see
it
playing
out
in
other
states-
is
there
is
a
on
duty
telephone
number
that
is
set
up
and
after
the
probable
cause
is
established,
the
miner
is
now
arrested.
The
miranda
rights
are
waived.
B
You
would
then
give
a
phone
to
that
child
right
and
and
give
them
the
option
to
speak
to
an
attorney
where
the
attorney
could
then
consult
and
explain
to
the
child
in
a
different
way
in
a
whole
host
of
different,
using
a
whole
host
of
different
words,
whether
or
not
it's
to
their
advantage
to
wave
away
these
rights,
and
it
will
then
up
be
up
to
that
child.
Whether
or
not
they
want
to
do
that.
B
B
The
supreme
court
case
laid
the
floor,
the
bare
minimum
that
we
must
do
to
ensure
that
before
somebody
waves
away
their
rights,
they
must
be
ready,
a
set
of
phrases
and
that
they
have
to
intelligently
and
voluntarily
wave
those
before
they
they
before
the
custodial
interrogation
can
occur
without
an
attorney
or
or
whatever
it
may
be.
They
laid
the
floor,
not
the
ceiling.
B
Adults,
do
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
expand
the
way
we
explain
miranda
rights
in
a
more
simpler
way,
so
that
that
minor
has
a
much
better
understanding
what's
happening
by
no
means
do
I
suggest
that
this
language
is
perfect,
that
this
modified
miranda
will
be
the
the
end-all
fix-all
for
minors
and
juvenile
justice.
But
what
I
am
saying
is
it
will
be
much
better
than
quickly
reading
to
a
minor.
You
have
the
right
to
remain
silent.
Anything
you
do
or
say
can
will
be
used
against.
You
report
a
law.
B
I
I
think
this
could
help
that
in
a
much
more
impactful
way,
so
here's
a
suggested
language
that
is
and
currently
used
in
kings,
county
washington
and
by
the
way
I
want
to
thank
two
students,
avril
and
alessandro,
who
were
instrumental
in
helping
me
with
some
of
this
research,
and
I
wanted
to
do
a
shout
out
to
our
and
their
students
from
down
south
and
up
north,
and
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
them.
So,
as
I
walk
you
through
this
I'll
explain
to
you
the
importance
of
it.
B
So
one
you
have
the
right
to
remain
silent,
which
is
what
we
do
now
right.
Law
enforcement
is
doing
this
now,
but
then
it's
followed
by
which
means
you
don't
have
to
say
anything.
It's
okay.
If
you
don't
want
to
talk
to
me
and
then
number
three,
it's
a
reminder
that
anything
that
is
said
can
and
will
be
used
against
him
in
a
court
of
law.
B
B
Number
five.
If
you
start
to
answer
my
questions,
you
can
change
your
mind
and
stop
at
any
time.
I
won't
ask
you
any
more
questions
again.
This
is
reminding
the
child
that,
even
if
you
wave
your
right
at
the
beginning
at
any
time
after
you
can
stop
and
say
you
know
what
I
no
longer
feel
comfortable
number
six.
A
very
important
question
is:
do
you
understand
and
even
if
the
child
says
yes,
I
do
understand
and
even
after
number,
seven
do
you
want
to
talk
to
me.
B
B
This
is
key
to
ensuring
that
we
as
a
society
who
recognize
key
differences
between
minors
and
adults
that
we're
following
everything
about
that
as
a
as
a
consensus
as
a
society,
but,
more
importantly,
as
what
we're
seeing
that
the
case
law
and
supreme
court
cases
are
moving
towards
now.
Very
briefly,
I
want
to
go
between
what
the
opposition
will
likely
discuss
and
one
of
the
things
you'll
hear
the
opposition
say
is
in
the
in
the
modified
miranda
warning.
B
We
should
have
the
opportunity
for
a
parent
to
wave
away
miranda
rights,
and
so
what
they
would
like
to
see
is
that
there's
a
language
in
there
that
says
you
have
a
right
to
speak
with
your
parents
or
your
parents
can
be
present
and
then
that
the
parents
can
wave
away
those
rights.
Now
I
don't
know
about
you,
but
when
I
was
a
kid,
the
worst
thing
you
could
tell
me
was:
I'm
gonna
call
your
mom.
The
worst
thing
you
can
tell
me
is:
I'm
gonna
call
your
dad.
B
B
They
don't
understand
what
protections
are
afforded
to
you.
They
may
be
in
a
very
difficult
situation
financially
where
they
have
to
get
back
to
work
and
rather
than
advocating
for
the
kid
those
serve
as
somebody
who's
there,
you
better
tell
them
now.
I
know
you
did
it.
I
don't
got
time
for
this.
They
could
end
up
hurting
the
minor
unintentionally.
B
B
Another
thing
you
may
hear
the
the
opposition
talk
about
is
that
if
we
modify
the
miranda
rights,
are
we
somehow
going
to
put
ourselves
in
a
constitutional
area
that
may
infringe
on
on
the
individual's
rights,
because
miranda,
v,
arizona,
1960,
says
1966
laid
a
parameter
of
what
we
have
to
do,
and
I
want
to
remind
you
that,
first
of
all
in
the
state
of
nevada,
we
already
have
a
modified
miranda
rights
that
are
read
to
kids
in
some
of
our
school
districts.
B
Who
may
say:
look
we
don't
even
know
what
the
fiscal
impact
is
at
this
point,
because
this
new
language-
and
that
is
true-
so
please
do
not
rely
on
those
fiscal
impacts,
and
I
want
to
remind
you
that
this
is
a
policy
committee.
Should
we
move
this
policy
out,
because
we
agree
that
we
should
ensure
that
our
kids
understand
what
rights
are
waving
away,
that
I
will
then
engage
in
that
difficult,
a
money
conversation
in
the
money
committee.
B
But
we
discuss
the
policy
here
and
with
that,
mr
chairman
and
mad
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
apologize
for
the
lengthy
intro,
but
it
was
very
important
to
lay
the
foundation
so
that
we
could
have
a
meaningful
dialogue
and
with
that
any
questions
for
dr
olivitis
and
myself
we're
here
for
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
assemblyman
flores
and
dr
olivarez.
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
so
far
who
I
have
on
the
list,
and
this
is
the
order
we'll
go
in
we'll
start
with
assemblywoman
kasama,
then
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
followed
by
assemblyman
wheeler
assemblywoman
kasama.
Please
go
ahead.
I
Thank
you,
chair
and,
and
thank
you
assemblyman
again,
flores
great
presentation.
I
have
two
quick
questions
of
my
indulge:
the
chair
one,
dr
ana
olivares.
If
we
could
have
a
copy
of
her
statement
and
presentation,
I
just
thought
it
was
very
good
outlined
a
lot
of
good
information.
I
don't
see
it's
one
of
the
exhibits
here.
I
So
would
certainly
appreciate
that,
because
I
thought
you
went
through
that
very
thoroughly
and
would
be
able
to
like
to
reference
that
and
look
at
that
and
then
also
under
amendment
number
one
where
you
have
the
change,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
subsection
two,
a
peace
officer,
probation
officer
who
takes
a
child.
You
crossed
off
under
15
years
of
age
below
in
the
green
you
reference
a
youth
of
17
years.
I
B
Through
you,
chairman,
yeager
to
assemblywoman
kasama
assembly
manager
for
us
for
the
record
assemblywoman.
Thank
you
for
that
question
and
I
appreciate
that
I
want
to
ensure
that
nobody,
by
any
means
of
the
imagination,
thinks
that
lcd
prepared
this.
They
would
have
done
a
much
better
job
than
I.
So
the
the
short
answer
is
the
way.
B
Amendment
number
two
reads
with
the
actual
usage
of
17
years
of
age
or
younger,
will
reflect
and
be
and
will
mirror
the
proper
usage
of
whatever
phrasing
lcb
comes
up
with
to
ensure
that
it
is
someone
age,
17
and
younger.
In
other
words,
section
1
will
read
rather
than
saying
child
will
read
a
youth
17
years
of
age
or
younger,
or
if
the
definition
already
in
the
nrs
of
child
is
17
years
of
age
or
under
section
3.
Excuse
me,
section,
1,
sub
3
will
then
be
changed
to
reflect
that.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assemblyman
flores,
for
being
bringing
this
bill
out.
I
have
to
be
honest.
It
brings
back
a
lot
of
memories
from
last
session
when
I
brought
the
marriage
bill
and
just
you
know
showing
that
children,
their
their
brains
just
aren't
where
we
are
as
adults.
So
I
have
a
question.
F
I
was
looking
at
the
letter
and
opposition
from
the
sheriffs
and
chiefs,
and
I
know
that
they're
working
off
of
the
original
bill
based
on
the
date,
but
the
incident
that
they
are
speaking
of
hypothetically
a
little
boy
steals
or
they
believe,
steals
a
bike
out
of
a
garage
and
they
the
person
sees
them.
F
You
know
going
north
and
so
the
police
go
after
them
and
they're,
basically
making
the
statement
that
the
officer
can't
question
johnny
is
what
they
named
the
boy
because
of
this
bill
now
my
understanding
and
is
that
miranda
rights
are
read
to
once
you're
being
arrested.
So
an
officer
could
still
have
a
conversation
and
surmise
what
the
situation
was
is.
Is
that
correct,
or
is
that
this
bill
somehow
not
allow
an
officer
to
do
that.
B
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
that
question
through
chair
yeager
to
assemblywoman
bilbrey
axelrod,
somebody
monica
for
us
for
the
record.
The
the
short
answer
is:
it
happens
every
day
there
are
millions
of
youtube
videos
and-
and
I
say
that
anecdotally
and
jokingly,
where
individuals
are
constantly
engaged
by
law
enforcement.
B
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
and
or
I
can't
articulate
reasonable
suspicion
or
whatever
it
may
be,
and
again
I
don't
want
to
get
too
heavy
into
those
standards.
That's
for
a
separate
conversation,
but
law
enforcement
doesn't
say:
I'm
not
gonna
engage
them
that
never
happens.
They
consistently
engage
individuals
all
the
time
until
they
can
get
to
a
point
either
where
they've
heard
something
they've
seen
something
that
they
then
want
to
pursue
further
or
whatever
they
have
to
do.
B
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
appreciate
it
and
some
of
them
in
flores,
I'm
sorry.
We
couldn't
get
together
last
night
because
I
did
have
a
lot
of
questions
on
this
bill,
so
I
guess
I'll
give
them
to
you
now,
but
it's
been
a
while,
but
I
think
when
I
first
joined
judiciary
back
in
13
since
I've
read
the
actual
miranda
versus
arizona
decision,
because
I
know
one
of
the
bills
came
up
during
that
period
on
that,
and
I
think
you're
correct
that
it
actually
says
in
there.
H
So
I've
seen
cases
over
and
over
and
even
with
adults
where
the
judge
goes
in
and
throws
out
a
convention,
even
though
they
were
properly
mirandized,
because
the
defendant
didn't
know
exactly
what
was
being
said,
didn't
know
what
his
rights
really
were.
He
just,
but
he
just
waved
him
anyway
and
dr
olivares
for
instance,
said
that
you
know
the
brain
doesn't
develop
until
mid-20s.
H
You
know
I.
I
think
that
was
what
she
said,
but
but
I'm
pretty
sure,
so
I
can
understand
that
now.
Doesn't
the
judge
at
this
point
have
the
right
to
say
the
confession
was
not
proper,
even
though
they
were
properly
mirandized,
because
this
child
did
not
knowingly
and
intelligently
in
your
words,
assemblyman
waived
those
rights
his
parents
should
have
been
there.
A
lawyer
should
have
been
there.
Someone
else
should
have
been
there.
H
B
Thank
you
to
somebody
for
that
question.
Chairman
yeager,
through
you
to
assemblyman
wheeler
assemblymedical
forest
for
the
record.
I
I
very
much
appreciate
that
that
point.
I'd
like
to
first
start
off
by
saying.
B
B
If
we
want
judicial
efficiency,
why
not
preemptively
ensure
that
the
miner
understands
what's
happening
on
the
front
end
rather
than
having
to
go
through
this
lengthy
process,
expensive
process
burdensome
process
very
dramatic
process
for
a
child
to
get
to
where
we
could
have
fixed
it
in
the
front
end
I'll
say
that
first
second,
I
absolutely
agree
with
you
in
fact:
jdb
jazz
and
jason
diaz
in
delta
b,
as
in
bravo
versus
north
carolina,
a
2011
supreme
court
case,
justice
sotomayor
in
that
very
case
said
it
is
beyond
dispute
that
children
will
often
feel
bound
to
submit
to
the
police.
B
Questioning
when
an
adult
in
the
same
circumstances
would
feel
free
to
leave,
seeing
no
reason
for
police
officers
or
courts
to
bind
blind
themselves
to
the
common
sense
reality.
We
hold
that
a
child's
age
properly
informs
the
miranda
custody
analysis,
and
I-
and
I
say
that
because
you're
you're
hitting
on
a
very
important
point,
which
is
how
do
you
knowingly
intelligently,
wave
away
a
right
and
the
supreme
court
has
already
discussed
it
in
that
very
particular.
B
B
We
we
will
definitely
and
absolutely
be
engaged
in
that
conversation
now.
I
know
you
brought
up
why.
Why
do
folk,
the
age
of
18
can
vote
and
that's
a
conversation
to
be
had
in
a
different
bill
presentation
a
different
bill
hearing,
but
the
question
that
is
on
the
table
here
is:
should
a
minor
be
allowed
to
waive
their
rights
when
we
are
making
the
argument
that
they
cannot
do
it
knowingly
and
intelligently?
H
Hey
thank
you.
Follow
up,
mr
chair
very
fast.
Please
go
ahead,
hey
thank
you.
You
brought
up
the
cost
and,
as
I
sit
here
and
look
at
12
fiscal
notes
and
don't
and
some
of
them
actually
don't
know
the
cost
yet
and
said
that
in
their
fiscal
notes,
but
others
have
there's
hundreds
of
thousands
already
so
what's
the
cost
of
doing
it
as
well,
so
we
got
to
look
at
both
sides
and
thank
you.
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Mr
flores,
I
think
it's
interesting.
B
Thank
you
again,
assemblyman
wheeler.
I
appreciate
that
through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
assemblyman
wheeler,
some
of
the
metaphors
for
the
record.
I
will
say
I
I
do
think
that
we
have
to
look
at
all
sides
of
cost,
and
there
is
a
fiscal
question
here
that
we
you
have
to
take
into
account,
but
I
just
want
to
follow
up
with
what
is
the
cost
to
society
that
we
have
to
correct
something
that
could
have
been
prevented.
B
I
genuinely
believe
that
this
could
have
been
cheaper
if
we
look
at
all
those
cases
that
have
gone
all
the
way
to
that
level
that
had
to
get
all
the
way
to
that
point
of
a
judge
intervening
to
correct
the
wrong
that
was
done
at
the
very
beginning.
I
genuinely
think
that
the
cost
to
us
would
have
been
cheaper
but,
more
importantly,
as
a
society,
the
cost
of
protecting
our
kids
is
much
more
important
than
that
fiscal
impact.
A
Okay,
so
we're
going
to
take
what
we're
going
to
do
is
take
a
couple
more
questions
and
then
we're
going
to
have
to
let
some
women
in
florida
get
over
to
government
affairs
where
he
has
a
bill.
He's
going
to
be
chairing
a
hearing,
he's
going
to
be
cheering
at
nine
o'clock.
So
I'm
going
to
take
two
more
questions
before
we
move
on
from
the
presentation
and
those
two
questions
will
be
from
assemblyman
or
liquor
and
assemblywoman
cohen.
So
please
go
ahead.
Assemblyman
or
liquor.
I
B
And
thank
you
for
that
question.
Assemblyman
through
you,
chair,
yeager
to
a
assemblyman
or
liquor,
something
negative
flores
for
the
record.
I
very
much
appreciate
that
sentiment.
In
fact,
if,
if
I
can
be
honest
to
the
committee,
I've
devoted
an
excessive
amount
of
time
and
sleepless
days
for
her
a
few
weeks
here
in
trying
to
come
up
with
an
understanding
of
what
the
best
approach
on
that
modified
miranda.
Language
is,
for
the
reasons
you've
stated,
but,
more
importantly,
for
the
reasons
that
there's
a
whole
host
of
other
phrases
that
we
could
use.
B
I
vetted
this
through
a
lot
of
elementary
school
teachers
who-
and
I
got
by
the
way
I
need
to
take
this
opportunity
to
say
thank
you
to
them
to
all
all
you
that
read
this
to
your
your
students
and
and
gave
me
feedback.
I'm
so
incredibly
grateful
to
you
because
you're
part
of
the
genesis
of
why
this
bill
is
happening.
So
thank
you
to
our
teachers
that
came
through.
I
am
open
to
the
idea.
Mr
o'reilly.
B
Excuse
me.
I
think
I
accidentally
muted
myself.
I
am
open
to
the
idea
of
engaging
in
that
conversation.
I
am
not
in
any
way
making
the
argument
that
these
are
the
only
words
we
could
use.
In
fact,
reasonable
humans
can
sit
in
a
circle
and
and
maybe
further
delineate
some
of
this
or
bring
out
more
from
it.
So
I
am
open
to
that
assemblyman
or
liquor.
If
you
have
any
other
ideas,
I
am.
I
am
here
for
you.
A
Okay,
before
we
before
we
go
to
our
last
question,
a
couple
things
I
want
to
know
for
the
record:
assemblywoman
krasner
is
with
us.
She
has
been
with
us
for
quite
some
time,
so
please
mark
her
as
present
and
then
assemblyman
flores.
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
correction
to
the
record.
I
think
you
referenced
the
bill
from
2019
and
perhaps
gave
the
wrong
bill
number,
so
it
is
senate
bill
353.
A
I
think
you
said
535,
so
I
think
those
were
transposed,
but
if
our
committee
secretary
could
just
make
that
correction
in
assemblyman
flores
testimony
so
that
way,
if
folks
want
to
go
back
and
read
that
bill,
they'll
have
a
way
to
do
that.
So
with
that
we're
going
to
go
to
assemblywoman
cohen.
For
our
final
question
of
mr
flores,
please
go
ahead.
F
Thank
you
sharon.
Thank
you
both
for
the
presentation.
F
I
have
a
question
about
false
confessions,
because
I
looked
up
at
jdb
and
was
reading
some
articles
about
it
and
in
the
articles
that
discussed
how
juveniles
make
up
a
disproportionate
number
of
those
who,
falsely
confess-
and
I
think
the
number
they
said
is
that
upwards
of
a
third
of
in
in
some
studies,
they've
shown
that
up
to
a
third
of
false
confessions
were
from
juveniles.
F
So
my
my
question
for
you
assemblyman
and
dr
oliveros-
is,
if
you
do
have
any
comments
about
false
confessions,
because
I
think
you
kind
of
touched
on
it,
but
didn't
actually
go
in
depth
in
that,
but
more
than
that,
what
I'm
looking
for
is
a
response,
I'm
not
sure
who's
going
to
be
in
opposition,
but
if
any
of
the
law
enforcement
agencies
are
going
to
be
in
opposition,
when
you
testify,
I
would
ask
that
you.
Let
us
know
what
your
agency
is
doing
to
prevent
false
confessions
and
juveniles.
B
Thank
you.
Some
assembly
assemblywoman
through
chairman
yeager
to
assemblywoman
cohen,
assemblymanager
floors
for
the
record.
There
is
a
whole
host
of
documentaries,
most
recently
and
notably
the
central
park,
five
that
I
believe
a
lot
of
us
saw
on
pbs,
but
there
is
a
whole
host
of
documents
online
that
you
can
do
a
quick
google
research
of
where
it
goes
deep
into
false
confessions
and
for
the
sake
of
just
clarity.
B
B
You
know,
you're
gonna
show
show
your
colors
this
and
that
there
are
kids
who
sometimes
will
take
the
blame
to
protect
their
older,
siblings
or
parents
or
family
members.
There
are
kids
who
are
put
in
a
position
if
you,
if
you
have
an
opportunity
to
just
look
at
the
central
park,
five
where
you'll
see
that
within
the
interrogation,
tactics
that
were
used,
they'll
say
well
kid.
A
is
saying
you
did
it
now
kid
he's
like
what
kid
a
said.
B
There's
all
these
different
intimidation,
tactics
and
and
tactics
that
are
used
that
often
lead
to
this
very
exact
issue
that
we're
talking
about
false
scenario,
false
confessions
and
I'm
just
using
that
as
an
example,
because
you
can
easily
look
that
up
and
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
see
some
of
that
watch
the
video
and
just
kind
of
walk
you
through
that.
B
But
this
is
exactly
at
the
heart
of
what
we're
getting
at
here
and
I
will
say
that
in
the
miranda
the
arizona
case,
if
you
read
a
lot
of
the
of
the
opposition
that
was
submitted
against
the
miranda
rights,
the
very
first
thing
that
you
heard
from
a
lot
of
law
enforcement
agencies
was
you're
tying
our
hands
you're,
no
longer
allowing
us
to
do
our
job.
By
doing
this,
you're
changing
the
procedures
we
have
in
place.
A
Thank
you.
So
I
realize
there
probably
are
additional
questions,
but
due
to
time
and
due
to
sheriff
flores
having
to
get
over
to
government
affairs,
we're
not
going
to
have
time
for
additional
questions
for
him
this
morning,
however,
as
you
all
know,
he's
in
this
building
and
more
than
willing
to
talk
about
this
bill,
so
if
you
do
have
additional
questions,
please
follow
up
with
him
at
another
time,
chair
flores.
I
know
you
have
to
go
over
to
government
affairs,
so
I'll
excuse
you
to
do
that
now.
A
If
you
are
able
to
get
back
for
concluding
remarks
great,
if
not
you
know,
we
could
either
waive
those
or
dr
olivarez
could
perhaps
make
some
concluding
remarks
on
your
behalf,
but
want
to
thank
you
for
being
here
this
morning
and
spending
about
an
hour
with
us
presenting
assembly
bill
132.
B
Chairman
yeager,
some
of
the
medical
floors
for
the
record.
If
I
may
make
a
request,
I
know
our
vice
chair
and-
and
I
really
need
to
be
at
the
other
hearing,
but
if
we
could
potentially
allow
for
all
the
opposition
to
go
first
and
then
what
I
could
do
is
briefly
close
out
my
remarks
at
that
point
and
then
afterwards
you
can
go
into
the
neutral
and
support
if
that
would
work
and
dr
olivares
will
stay
on
the
line
to
allow
for
any
additional
questions
that
are
addressed
to
her.
B
If
that
is
the
pleasure
of
the
chair,
otherwise,
mr
chairman,
I
can
I
can
jump
off
now
and
I
can
ask
ms
olivares
to
do
the
closing
remarks.
It
is
whatever
you
wish.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
flores.
I
I
would
like
to
stick
in
our
traditional
order,
so
I'll
do
support
first
and
then
opposition
in
neutral
and
if
again,
if
you're
able
to
jump
on
great,
if
not
we'll,
we'll
ask
dr
olivarez
to
to
take
your
place
there
in
the
concluding
remarks.
A
Thank
you
assemblyman.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
132..
I
don't
believe
I
believe
we
have
anybody
on
the
zoom
with
us,
but
I'm
sure
we
have
some
folks
on
the
phone
before
we
go
to
the
phone
line.
I
just
want
to.
Let
folks
know
who
are
wishing
to
testify
in
any
particular
position
on
this
bill.
To
please
keep
your
remarks
to
two
minutes.
I
I
will
be
timing.
I
want
to
give
everyone
a
chance
to
to
speak.
A
So
if
your
remarks
are
can
be
done
in
less
than
two
minutes,
that's
great
as
well.
We
do
have
another
bill
on
the
agenda
today,
as
well
as
a
floor
session.
So
that's
why
we
have
to
get
through
this
bill
in
a
timely
fashion.
So
if
you
could
do
that
for
us
it'll,
I
think
it'll
help
us
move
along
smoothly
and
it'll
give
everybody
a
chance
who
wants
to
testify
the
opportunity
to
do
so.
Bps
at
this
time.
K
L
For
example,
youth
younger
youth,
often
misconceive
construe
the
right
to
remain
silent,
believing
it
means
they
should
be
quiet
until
they
are
told
to
talk.
Nor
do
they
completely
understand
the
right
to
have
an
attorney
present
without
charge
before
they
talk.
These
misunderstandings
raise
concerns
about
children
and
young
adolescents,
confidence
to
stand
trial
in
adult
court.
The
sheriff
and
chief
association
oppose
the
bill
and.
D
L
Cite
the
restrictive
language
of
section
1.3
would
make
it
a
burden
to
the
juvenile
and
the
parents.
I
suppose
it
would
be
more
of
a
burden
to
all
for
a
youth
to
be
dragged
through
the
justice
system.
They
see
it
as
a
burden
in
this
day
and
age.
I
see
it
as
protection
for
our
most
precious
commodities.
Our
youth,
please
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
K
H
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
and
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office
and
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
We
recognize
imbalances
of
power
between
adults
and
children
and
all
other
aspects
of
the
law,
and
it
is
time
to
officially
recognize
it
here.
H
I
do
not
believe
that
the
concerns
of
the
nevada
sheriff's
in
chiefs
are
founded
based
on
the
one-off
hypothetical
presented.
Children
are
more
vulnerable
vulnerable
and
cannot
understand
things
the
same
way.
We
recently
just
stopped
chaining
up
children
in
nevada.
After
a
long
fight
and
as
frederick
douglass
said
without
struggle,
there
is
no
progress.
This
is
a
struggle
worth
having
for
much
needed
progress
on
protecting
children
when
it
comes
to
waiving
their
miranda
rights
and
giving
them
counsel
in
difficult
situations,
and
we
strongly
urge
the
support
of
this
committee
of
this
bill.
K
L
Tanya
brown,
a
b
o
w
n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent.
We
strongly
support
this
bill.
Now
there
was
some
testimony
given
during
the
during
the
presentation,
and
I
don't
know
if
I
missed
it
or
it
wasn't
brought
up
but
officers
most
officers
are
truthful,
but
juveniles
and
even
adults
don't
they
believe
that
the
officers
are
being
truthful
when
they're
talking
to
them
and
it
puts
pressure
on
them
on
the
defendant,
the
anyways,
when
an
officer
is
allowed
and
to
get
away
with
lying
to
that
individual.
L
You
are
more
likely
to
get
false
confessions,
so
I
kind
of
wanted
to
touch
on
that.
L
If
the
attorney
argued
that
it
was
a
strategic
decision
not
to
suppress
the
evidence
and
take
their
chances
at
trial
and
that's
what
they
do,
then
it's
not
a
violation
of
the
miranda
right.
So
I'm
curious
as
to
how
many
people
has
would
have
been
affected
by
no
miranda
warning,
even
as
a
juvenile
today,
and
will
this
move
forward?
L
L
Okay,
that's,
I
guess
that's
pretty
much
all
I
am
support
of
this
bill
and
I
think
it
is
a
long
overdue
bill.
Thank
you.
K
K
C
Good
morning,
cherry
jager,
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
We
want
to
thank
assemblyman
floors
for
bringing
in
this
crucial
bill
to
ensure
that
our
constitutional
rights
of
our
children
are
protected.
States
across
our
nation
are
turning
into
looking
into
ways
to
protect
our
vulnerable
youth
by
taking
steps
to
reduce,
coerced
and
wrongful
concessions.
C
We
appreciate
the
attempts
in
order
to
ensure
that
children
understand
the
miranda
rights,
something
that
my
adult
clients
don't
always
understand.
When
making
potentially
life-altering
decisions
with
someone
who's
on
their
side,
the
requirement
of
recording
is
crucial
because
not
all
officers
or
probation
officers
wear
body
cameras.
C
The
department
of
indigent
defense
services,
which
is
established
by
this
legislative
body
through
8081,
is
also
required
to
provide
this
oversight
and
identify
ways
in
order
to
ensure
best
practices
for
delivering
the
most
effective
indigent
services,
including
ensuring
access
to
attorneys.
Thank
you
so
much
for
bringing
forward
this
bill.
Assemblyman
flores
and
please
pass
ab132
to
ensure
that
we
protect
our
children.
This
can
be
done
in
nevada
and
should
be
done.
K
C
C
K
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
brad
keating
for
the
record
brad
keating
k-e-a-t-I-n-g,
representing
the
clark
county
school
district.
We
appreciate
you
all
hearing
this
bill
today.
Ab-132
is
an
important
bill
for
the
clark
county
school
district
and
we
appreciate
assemblyman
flores
working
so
closely
with
us
on
this
on
this
bill.
His
work
on
making
sure
the
bill
works
for
the
clark
county,
school
district
police
services
and
making
sure
that
this
hotline
is
created
so
that
we
could
reach
out
and
make
sure
that
students
do
understand
their
rights.
J
We
already
provide
the
miranda
plus,
but
we
think
the
hotline
is
an
incredibly
effective
way
to
make
sure
students
are
engaged
and
understand
what
is
happening
as
we
begin
a
process
of
working
with
those
students.
So
we
thank
assemblyman
floors
for
bringing
this
forward
and
urge
the
committee
passage.
Thank
you.
K
K
L
For
the
record,
my
name
is
jocelyn
cuevas
j,
o
s
e
l,
I
n
e.
U
e
v
a
s
chair
yeager
and
committee.
I
am
an
organizer
with
my
family
and
a
member
of
the
nevada
immigration
coalition.
We
are
here
in
support
of
ab132
with
the
added
amendment
to
include
children
of
all
ages.
Minors
cannot
do
many
things
without
parental
or
guidance
consent.
First
and
foremost,
we
want
to
thank
assembly
flores
and
the
presenters
for
presenting
ab132.
L
L
Immigrant
children
can
be
put
into
high
risk
for
deportation
than
they
were
in
the
first
place,
especially
without
transparency.
In
a
situation
of
fear,
children
are
incapable
of
making
their
own
decisions
or
giving
their
own
consent.
Once
an
immigrant
minor
has
been
placed
in
police
custody,
there
would
be
a
record
of
them
being
in
a
state
of
fear
would
not
allow
them
to
make
the
correct
decisions
and
potentially
admit
them
to
to
things
that
they
did
not
do
without
a
lawyer
present.
L
L
K
H
The
culinary
union
supports
assembly
bill
132
because
it
ensures
the
fulfillment
of
the
constitutionally
protected
right
to
legal
counsel
for
all
children
in
nevada,
regardless
of
background
and
ensures
that
minors
legal
rights
are
protected
throughout
the
judicial
process.
The
culinary
union
represents
60
000
working
families
in
nevada.
The
majority
of
members
are
people
of
color
and
tens
of
thousands
of
parents.
H
In
addition,
ensuring
recordings
of
juvenile
interrogation
are
mandatory,
will
protect
all
parties
by
encouraging
legal
and
ethical
behavior
and
creating
a
clear
record
of
facts.
While
we
would
like
to
see
this
bill
apply
to
any
circumstance
where
a
child
could
face
criminal
charges.
This
is
a
great
first
step.
H
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
note
for
the
record
that
on
uploaded
on
nellis
give
my
computer
a
second
to
find
it
here.
There
is
a
letter
in
support
from
the
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
I
think
mr
piro
testified
on
their
behalf
as
well,
and
there
also
is
another
letter
in
support
from
an
individual
zachary
kenney.
So
I
wanted
to
flag
those
for
the
committee
that
there
are
a
couple
other
supportive
letters
as
exhibits
with
supportive
testimony
behind
us
I'll
now
close
the
phone
lines
to
support
bps.
A
K
G
G
You
know
that
our
our
fiscal
note
in
the
system
is
not
correct
and
we
are
still
working
to
really
understand
what
the
fiscal
impact
to
the
county
would
be
based
on
kind
of
what
that
final
bill
language
looks
like,
but
for
starters
I
want
to
highlight
that
just
talking
about
you
know
an
on-call
public
defender
to
be
available
for
all
juveniles,
that's
starting
at
about
80
thousand
dollars,
based
on
some
comparisons.
G
We
were
able
to
do
with
our
district
attorney's
office
and
that's
kind
of
just
the
start
of
it
in
terms
of
fiscal
impacts.
And
while
I
know
that
this
is
the
policy
committee,
I
want
to
highlight
that
local
government
fiscal
impacts
do
not
default
to
the
money
committees.
G
Unless
there's
an
appropriation
or
state
impact
and
based
on
my
interpretation
of
the
bill,
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
something
that
would
likely
go
to
one
of
the
money
committees.
So
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
sponsor
regarding
some
of
our
other
concerns,
but
really
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
fiscal
concern
from
the
county
and
apologize
that,
while
the
amendment
would
have
changed
the
fiscal
impact
anyways
that
that
fiscal
note
in
the
system
is
not
correct.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
K
K
J
J
J
The
we
just
got
the
bill
late
last
night,
we're
not
in
support
of
taking
the
parental
rights
away
best
practice
and
juvenile
justice
is
to
allow
family
engagement.
So,
as
a
parent,
I
don't
think,
that's
appropriate.
J
As
far
as
the
department
goes,
there's
a
concern
that
the
bill
and
amendment
one
talks
about
custody
and
then
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
unclear
because
custody
for
a
peace
officer
or
law
enforcement
officer
is
once
you
put
a
youth
in
handcuffs.
It
would
be
considered
custody.
So
we
need
to
understand
what
the
the
impact
or
what
the
intent
of
that
piece
of
the
language
is.
J
J
When
it
comes
to
that-
and
we
have
concerns
about
conflicts
between
attorneys,
if
you've
got
people
staffing
the
phone
and
they
have
similar
youth
or
adults
that
are
working
on
the
same
case,
so
there
could
be
conflicts
with
their
attorneys
and
the
staffing
of
the
the
24
7
hour
call
is
going
to
be
very
important
to
keep
kids
out
of
our
institution.
J
Over
the
last
four
years,
ddgs
has
diverted
14,
000
youth
out
of
the
criminal
justice
system
to
our
county
harbors
and
in
2019
ddgs
had
11
700
referrals,
which
5700
were
5700,
were
diverted
out
of
the
system.
J
So
we
have
some
concerns
with
that
and
then
amendment
two,
it's
kind
of
unclear
because
assemblyman
flora
has
talked
about.
They
will
not
be
able
to
waive
their
rights,
but
when
you
read
the
miranda
warnings,
because
if
you
do
not
want
to
talk
to
me,
if
you
do
want
to
talk
to
me,
I
can
tell
the
judge
and
then
later
in
the
miranda
warning.
It
says
that
they
they
they
can't.
So
I
think,
there's
some
inconsistencies
in
the
language
and
that
the
fiscal
impact
is
going
to
be
huge
and
for
an
example.
J
If
a
kid
has
a
gun
or
they're
in
a
car
and
five
or
six
people
are
in
the
car
and
there's
a
gun
found
in
it.
At
that
point,
the
law
enforcement
agency
would
probably
place
everyone
in
handcuffs.
J
So
what
would
be
the
unintended
consequences
that
all
sticks
would
be
arrested
and
then,
if
someone
doesn't
answer
the
phone,
how
long
do
the
police
law
enforcement
agencies
have
to
wait
before
they
detain
the
kids
and
then
you're
going
to
have
some
scheduling
issues?
Once
a
kid
is
detained
in
our
juvenile
detention
center
law
enforcement
could
have
days
off.
The
attorney
could
have
days
off
so
the
kid's
going
to
be
sitting
there
in
detention.
J
Djs
has
tried
to
lower
our
detainment
over
the
last
years.
We
want
to
keep
kids
out
of
detention.
We
want
to
make
that
clear
that
that
is.
Our
goal
is
to
keep
the
kids
out
that
shouldn't
be
there.
J
Yes,
so
just
we
have
limited
bed
space
and
this
bill
could
impact
and
cause
overcrowding
in
our
institutions.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
K
H
Even
though
this
is
a
policy
committee,
it
is
our
only
opportunity
to
express
our
concerns
about
the
fiscal
impact
of
clark
county,
because
clark
county
opposes
assembly
bill
132
as
written
and
amended
due
to
the
fiscal
impact
on
clark
county
as
a
whole.
I
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
settlement
floors
for
taking
time
to
discuss
our
concerns
with
him.
Clark.
County's
opposition
is
based
on
the
fiscal
impact
of
the
county
and
not
the
policy
issues
being
discussed
today.
Some
of
those
policy
issues
were
mentioned
by
our
assistant
director
of
general
justice
services.
H
Prior
to
me,
we
did
submit
a
fiscal
note
a
while
back
based
on
the
original
bill,
which
is
on
nellis.
However,
that
cisco
note
is
no
longer
accurate,
based
on
the
conceptual
amendments
proposed
today
by
the
sponsor.
I
want
to
thank
some
of
minnesota
for
also
making
this
clear
on
the
record.
We
will
review
the
conceptual
amendments
in
more
detail
and
communicate
our
concerns
with
the
sponsor.
Once
again,
I
want
to
thank
the
gentleman
flores
for
meeting
with
us
and
look
forward
to
working
with
him
on
this
bill.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
K
C
C
The
previous
presenters
provided
valuable
information
about
both
adolescent
development
and
instances
of
bad
custodial
interrogations
as
a
probation
department
who
continues
to
embrace
juvenile
justice
reform,
who
continue
to
divert
the
vast
majority
of
referred
youth
away
from
formal
court
proceedings
and
who
pride
ourselves
in
developing
positive
relationships
with
them.
We
fear
this
legislation
will
result
in
extended
detention
time
for
our
youth.
Our
mission
is
to
serve
both
youth
as
well
as
our
community,
who
we
have
sworn
to
protect
to
assembly
person.
Cohen's
previous
question
through
chair
yeager.
C
Both
law
enforcement
training,
as
well
as
adolescent-specific
training,
inform
our
practices
around
proper
custodial
interrogations.
As
I
listen
to
testimony
I'm
curious
to
know
the
prevalence
of
improper
interrogations
in
the
juvenile
justice
arena.
With
that,
I
will
conclude
my
statement
and
thank
you.
K
L
L
We
are
here
in
opposition
to
sections
one
and
two
of
the
bill
before
us
this
morning,
but
we
believe
that
there
are
some
merits
to
the
language
proposed
by
assemblyman
flores
in
section
3,
and
believe
that
we
should
engage
in
some
further
discussions.
One
of
the
concerns
I
have
about
the
specific
language
is
that
it
appears
to
me
to
be
at
odds
with
the
nevada
supreme
court
case
law
require
requiring
that
the
youth
be
told
that
they
have
the
right
to
have
a
parent
present.
L
It
is,
in
large
part,
somewhat
compatible
with
the
training
that
my
office
provides
whenever
possible,
to
post
training
and
new
officers
about
explaining
miranda
and
answering
questions
and
providing
information
to
youth
in
a
youth,
friendly
manner.
With
regard
to
sections
one
and
two,
I
don't
believe
that
it's
a
bright
line
rule
regarding
custodial
interrogation
custodial
interrogations
is
fact
specific
and
often
litigated
they're
also
concerned
about
conflicts
of
interest.
If
there
is
an
attorney
available
to
field
phone
calls,
how
many
attorneys
would
be
available
and
would
there
be
conflicts
of
interest?
L
In
the
2019
session
there
were
discussions
about
waivers
of
conflict
of
interest
that
requires
that
the
youth
on
both
sides
of
the
possible
conflict
be
advised
and
both
agree
to
the
waiver
of
the
conflict.
We
believe
that
this
will
have
a
huge
impact
on
juvenile
justice
in
the
state
of
nevada,
including
law
enforcement's
ability
to
conduct
in
the
field
investigation
due
to
the
fact
that
custody
custody
excuse
me
is
a
little
bit
more
complicated
than
putting
the
handcuffs
on
and
and
putting
you
in
the
car.
So
we
thank
assemblyman
flores
for
bringing
this
bill.
A
K
H
Good
afternoon,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
aj.
Dilap
of
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
fanatically
spelled.
My
last
name
is
david,
easy,
lincoln,
adam
paul,
and
thanks
for
that,
that
was
a
little
slow
on
my
keypad
to
get
brought
into
the
opposition.
So
I
appreciate
that
chairman
yeager,
unfortunately,
las
vegas,
a
metropolitan
police
department,
is
opposed
to
ab132.
H
With
the
conceptual
amendment
presented
by
the
bill's
sponsor
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
supports
electronic
recording
of
interrogations
found
in
section
one
of
the
amended
bill.
We
also
support
notifying
parents
or
guardians
of
juveniles,
who
may
be
interrogated
related
to
gross
misdemeanor
and
felony
crime
investigations
which
they
may
be
accused
of.
However,
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
does
not
support
the
requirement
found
in
section
1,
subsection
3
of
the
amendment
that
requires
the
juvenile
to
consult
with
counsel
prior
to
waiving
the
miranda
warning.
H
H
I'd
like
to
take
a
second
if
I
can
just
to
give
a
practical
application
of
how
miranda
works
in
the
field
which
was
referenced
to
by
the
prior
opposition
testimony.
I
think
it
was
julie,
wicks
and
she
alluded
to
practical
application
in
the
field.
The
way
that
miranda
works
is
it's
based
on
custody
of
the
person.
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
do
with
a
person
being
placed
in
handcuffs
and
loaded
up
in
the
back
of
a
police
vehicle.
H
It
has
to
do
on
whether
or
not
that
person
is
free
to
leave
and
if
the
questioning
being
conducted
by
the
law
enforcement
officer
is
going
to
potentially
incriminate
the
juvenile
or
the
adult,
so
that
if
you
were
to
stop
an
individual
who
matched
the
description
of
a
person
who
had
committed
a
a
theft,
a
burglary
or
other
crime
of
gross
or
mis
or
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
felony
nature,
you
used
your
lights.
Your
sirens,
you
gave
them,
commands
your
authority
of
being
a
police
officer
in
uniform.
H
The
feeling
of
them
not
being
able
to
leave
is
going
to
be
key
to
that,
and
then,
if
you
continue
on
with
questioning
regarding
a
criminal
act,
which
you
have
reasonable
suspicion
to
believe
they
committed,
you
are
now
violating
their
miranda
and
at
that
time,
miranda
would
need
to
be
given
to
them
because
they
have
no
feeling
of
whether
or
not
they
can
leave.
H
So,
in
a
practical
application
of
that,
as
it
goes
back
to
director
spratley's
scenario,
if
you
have
probable
cause
to
make
an
arrest,
then
there
is
no
requirement
to
interview
the
person
that
you
have
probable
cause
again.
You
can
simply
arrest
them,
unfortunately,
without
them
being
able
to
provide
their
story
so
by
giving
them
miranda.
Let
them
know
what
their
rights
are.
H
So
I'm
certainly
not
a
legal
professor
or
an
educator
per
se,
but
that
that's
a
a
quick
reference
to
how
miranda
works
in
the
in
the
field.
Excuse
me,
as
far
as
assemblywoman
cohen's
question
regarding
measures
we've
taken
to
address
false
confessions,
assemblywoman
cohen,
I
will
follow
up
with
you
in
the
committee.
H
A
A
K
K
K
C
Is
liz
davenport
l-I-v-d-a-v-e-n-p-o-r-t,
the
legislative
extern
with
the
aclu
of
nevada?
We
appreciate
assemblyman
flores
for
bringing
this
bill
and
at
this
time
our
position
is
neutral.
It
is
our
position
that
this
bill
should
extend
to
any
circumstances
where
a
child
could
face
criminal
charges,
including
on
a
misdemeanor.
C
A
K
A
Thank
you
bps
appreciate
your
hard
work
and
getting
all
those
callers
connected
and
having
them
provide
their
testimony.
I'm
going
to
close
neutral
testimony
and
right
on
cue.
I
see
we
have
assemblyman
flores
back
with
us
assemblyman.
Please
go
ahead
and
make
any
concluding
remarks
that
you
might
have
on
assembly
bill
132.
B
Mr
chairman
and
madam
vice
chair
assembly
manager
for
us
for
the
record
I
wanted
to
just
first
again
thank
all
of
you
for
engaging
in
this
meaningful
dialogue,
and
I
wanted
to
thank
the
opposition
for
reaching
out
and
expressing
their
concerns.
I
I
am
100
convinced
that
they
are
not
coming
from
a.
We
don't
want
to
help
youth
perspective.
I
genuinely
believe
that
they
are
concerned
about
what
this
could
mean
procedurally
and
how
it
could
impact
their
day-to-day
investigations.
B
B
How
this
would
impact
the
investigative
process,
and
today
we
cannot
imagine
a
time
where
miranda
wright
is
not
read
when
prior
to
a
custodial
interrogation
number
one
number
two
we're
talking
and
narrowly
focusing
on
custodial
interrogations
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
the
lead
way
and
the
tremendous
amount
of
flexibility
that
we
have
prior
to
a
custodial
interrogation
occurring
that
investigative
process
is
not
being
interrupted.
B
I
did
hear,
or
better
said
I
didn't-
have
an
opportunity
to
hear
all
the
opposition,
and
that
was
not
purpose.
So
I
have
another
meeting
that
I'm
conducting,
but
I
had
an
opportunity
to
just
very
briefly
get
get
some
brief
synopsis
of
some
of
the
opposition.
I
I
heard
that
there
was
a
concern
about
the
amendment
number
three,
the
modified
miranda
potentially
being
at
odds
with
the
nevada
supreme
court,
where
there
is
a
precedent
that
a
parent
can
be
present.
B
I
would
ask
well,
if
that's
the
case,
then
does
that
mean
that
every
single
child
interrogation
that's
happening
right
now?
Are
we
always
ensuring
that
the
parent
is
available?
Is
that
the
current
rule
and
customary
approach
every
single
time
law
enforcement
reads
them
around
the
rights
to
a
minor?
Are
they
doing
that
now,
but,
but
I'm
I
just
wanted
to
see.
B
If
that's
the
case,
I
also
saw
that
they're
concerned
that
interviewing
that
there
was
a
raise
an
issue
raised
about
not
interviewing
them,
not
interviewing
and
arresting
a
minor
can
be
more
traumatic
than
interviewing
and
arresting
a
minor.
I
I
don't
necessarily
see
the
connection
there.
The
nexus
as
to
that
arresting
a
minor
will
always
be
a
traumatic
experience
for
that
a
child
and
that's
the
whole
point.
B
If
it's
going
to
occur
because
again,
they've
already
formulated
they've
already
gone
through
the
miranda
readings
they're
already
going
to
take
that
child
into
custody.
If
that's
the
case,
then
why
not
ensure
that
they
first
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
counsel
and
then
lastly,
I'll
just
make
the
point
that,
even
if
we
said
and
modified
that
miranda
reading
to
say
they
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
a
child,
it
doesn't
negate
the
the
importance
of
saying
you
first
will
consult
with
an
attorney
prior
to
speaking
to
to
the
member
of
law
enforcement.
B
I
look
forward
to
continuing
this
dialogue.
Thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
engaging
in
this
conversation,
and
hopefully
we
can
come
up
with
something
good
during
this
legislative
session.
With
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
out.
My
presentation,
thank
you
chairman
and
vice
chairman
and
vice
chair.
A
A
Thank
you
with
that
behind
us,
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
132,
I'm
going
to
ask
all
of
the
committee
members
to
take
a
deep
breath
as
we
get
ready
for
our
next
bill,
which
I
don't
think
is
going
to
take
quite
as
long,
but
we
shall
see
at
this
time.
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
32
assembly
bill
32
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
filing
of
a
certain
civil
action
regarding
a
motor
vehicle,
and
I
think
the
good
news
committee
is.
A
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
amendments
to
the
bill.
At
least
I
don't
see
any
online,
and
I
want
to
welcome
to
the
committee
judge,
melissa
saragosa,
who
also
over
the
years,
has
been
a
frequent
participant
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
and
she
is
here
today
to
present
assembly
bill
32
to
us
and
to
answer
a
question.
A
So
we'll
give
you
a
chance,
judge
to
make
your
presentation
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
and
just
before
you
get
started,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
patience
as
we
got
through
that
first
bill
that
we
had
to
get
through
this
morning.
I
know
you've
been
waiting
patiently,
so
thank
you
so
much
and
the
floor
is
yours.
E
It's
nice
to
have
this
virtual
format,
where
I
can
just
sit
and
work
at
my
desk
and
get
things
done
while
listening
to
a
very
interesting
bill
that
preceded
this
one.
Nonetheless,
I
know
you
all
have
had
a
long
morning,
so
I'm
gonna
get
right
into
it.
What
I'd
like
to
do
to
start
on
this
bill
is
just
to
give
you
a
glimpse
of
kind
of
what
currently
happens
in
court
when
these
kinds
of
cases
come
before
us.
E
My
intent
is
just
kind
of
show
you
where
we
incur
or
encounter
some
problems
in
in
processing
these
cases
and
then
I'll
go
through
the
bill
to
show
how
the
amendments,
although
it
appears
like,
there's
a
lot
of
blue
on
the
bill,
it's
not
really
that
much.
It's
kind
of
rewording
and
kind
of
just
reworking
a
lot
of
what's
already
in
existence.
E
Currently,
on
these
cases,
a
vehicle
owner
will
file
this
complaint
for
expedited
relief
and
in
most
cases
and
I'm
talking
like
90
percent
of
the
cases
they
named
the
tow
company
as
the
defendant.
Yet
the
tow
company
is
generally
just
taking
their
direction
from
the
property
owner,
while
the
tow
company
is
very
knowledgeable
they're,
the
most
knowledgeable
generally
about
the
circumstances
regarding
the
toe,
they
are
not
the
person
who
directs
the
toe
and
they're,
not
the
person
identified
in
nrs,
487,
037
and
038
preceding
this
statute.
E
E
But
when
we
get
these,
we've
got
to
set
them
for
a
four
judicial
day.
Hearing
which
is
very
fast,
oftentimes
is
not
enough
time
to
even
get
the
property
owner
or
the
total
company
or
anybody
served
with
notice
of
the
hearing
for
judicial
days
is
tough.
I'm
going
to
be
honest.
It's
hard.
We
end
up
continuing
a
lot
of
cases
just
to
be
served
again,
which
makes
it
eight
days
instead
of
what
might
be
five
judicial
days.
I
didn't
change
that.
That's
not
really
my
issue,
but
I
throw
that
out
there
for
your
consideration.
E
E
We
don't
even
have
the
right
defendant
here
to
even
adjudicate
your
case,
so
in
that
situation
generally,
we
allow
them
to
amend
if
they
know
the
property
owner
at
that
time,
or
we
give
them
time
to
figure
out
who
the
property
owner
is
name
the
right
person
and
then
we
continue
it
and
start
all
over
again,
which
just
ends
up
being,
like.
I
said,
a
waste
of
a
hearing
and
a
waste
of
everybody's
time
coming
to
the
courthouse.
We
don't
want
people
to
come
down
when
they
can't
realistically
get
their
matter
resolved.
E
E
But
for
some
reason-
and
maybe
it's
just
they're-
not
knowledgeable
in
the
process-
they
don't
look
into
it,
but
we
get
these
kind
of
complaints
that
are
months
after
the
toe,
and
it's
not
just
infrequent
it's
fairly
regularly
that
we
will
get
a
complaint
that's
months
after
the
vehicle
was
towed,
and
in
this
situation
the
problem
is
the
storage
company,
which
generally
is
the
tow
company
on
their
storage.
Lot
has
already
gone
through
a
whole
separate
other
legal
process
to
dispose
of
the
vehicle
through
other
legal
means.
Sometimes
that's
an
auction
of
the
vehicle.
E
It's
a
collateral
process-
that's
not
addressed
by
this
bill,
but
realistically
that's
what
happens
so
now.
The
court
is
rushing
to
set
a
four
day,
four
judicial
day,
hearing
bringing
the
people
in
and
yet
were
left
without
any
real,
realistic
remedy.
The
vehicle's
already
gone
it's
already
disposed
of.
E
E
It
says
the
jurisdictional
I
guess
trigger
for
this
kind
of
expedited
relief
is
a
toe
pursuant
to
nrs487037
or
038.
Neither
of
those
covers
a
toe
by
law
enforcement.
So
again
we
set
it
for
hearing.
We
bring
everybody
down
only
to
tell
them.
I'm
sorry
you've
named
the
wrong
person
and
dismissed
the
case.
E
Finally,
we
see
vehicle
owners
file,
this
type
of
complaint
for
expedited
relief
when
they've
already
recovered
their
vehicle,
they
already
have
their
vehicle
back.
So
the
expedited
relief
that
they're
seeking
again
is
moot
they've.
Already
recovered
their
vehicle
now,
that's
not
to
say
that
they
may
not
have
suffered
the
cost
of
storing
and
towing
the
vehicle
and
they
paid
that
to
get
their
vehicle
back
and
maybe
they're
looking
to
recover.
That
cost.
But
that's
not
what
this
statute
is
designed
for.
It's
never
been
designed
for
that.
E
So
with
that
kind
of
background
of
some
of
the
issues
that
we
see,
my
goal
in
bringing
this
bill
forward
was
to
really
provide
more
just
more
guidance,
more
clarity
and
allow
the
court
to
dismiss
those
cases
on
the
front
end
before
wasting
people's
time
coming
down
to
court
and
rushing
for
these
hearings.
So
I'll
start
with
really
it's
all
just
one
section,
because
it's
one
statute,
but
I'll
start
with
paragraph
one.
E
E
It
allows
the
expedited
relief
to
make
that
quick
determination
under
what
circumstances
the
vehicle
owner
may
recover
possession
of
the
vehicle
depending
upon
whether
the
court
finds
it
lawfully
or
unlawfully
towed
or
immobilized,
and
it
outlines
four
jurisdictional
prerequisites,
three
of
which
are
already
an
existing
law.
And
then
those
are
that
it
was
towed
pursuant
to
one
of
the
statutes
that
the
owner
believes
that
it
was
unlawfully
towed,
that
the
cost
of
towing
and
storing
does
not
exceed
the
limited
jurisdictions,
fifteen
thousand
dollar
limit.
E
And
then
the
fourth
is
one
that
I
have
added
and
amended,
and
that
is
that
the
vehicle
is
being
stored
or
is
currently
being
immobilized
as
a
result
of
the
towing
or
immobilization,
so
that
that's
quick
remedy
that
they're
seeking
is
part
of
it's
not
moved.
In
other
words,
paragraph
two
sets
the
deadline
at
21
days.
This
21
days,
which
is
intended
to
be
calendar
days,
is
set
because
it
offers
the
vehicle
owner
one
that
quick
remedy
that
they're
seeking
that
quick
determination.
E
But
it
allows
for
us
to
have
a
hearing
on
the
issue
before
the
dates
for
which
the
storage
company
or
immobilizing
company
or
tow
company,
whoever
storing
the
vehicle,
can
exercise
their
right
to
dispose
of
the
vehicle
through
other
lawful
means.
So
we
want
to
make
this
a
relevant
hearing
that
we
can
give
an
actual
remedy
to.
If
they
wait
too
long,
then
their
remedy
is
lost,
so
the
21
days
was
kind
of
identified
as
a
point
where
we
could
have
that
hearing
before
those
other
methods
of
disposition
come
into
play.
E
We
outline
in
this
section
as
well
part
b
who
the
who
the
proper
defendant
is,
and
that
comes
from
language
that
is
taken
from
487.037
and
038
as
who's
the
person
directing
the
toe.
So
it
clarifies
who
they
should
be
filing
this
complaint
against,
rather
than
the
tow
company,
who
is
just
the
agent
and
the
the
person
doing
the
bidding
of
the
property
owner
who
orders
the
car
to
be
removed
or
immobilized.
E
Paragraph
three
allows
the
court
to
dismiss
those
cases
that
are
on
the
face
of
the
complaint
are
not
properly
brought
so
that
the
person
can
make
those
corrective
measures
amend
or
or
refile
in
the
proper
name,
without
the
need
to
come
to
court
and
have
that
rush
for
the
four
day
hearing.
This
will
save
us
a
lot
of
time
and
not
having
needless
hearings
that
just
need
to
end
up
dismissing
a
case
and
section
or
paragraph
four
excuse
me
provides
a
couple
minor
changes.
One.
E
Is
it
converts
the
four
working
days
to
seven
calendar
days
again?
If
you
wanted
to
give
an
eighth
day
or
a
ninth
day,
you
know
we
want
to
make
it
as
short
as
possible,
but
as
reasonable
as
possible
to
get
people
time
to
come
to
to
get
notified
to
come
to
court.
E
It
was
it
added
a
lot
of
confusion
for
a
lot
of
courts
because
it
was
judicial
days
if
it's
less
than
10
and
calendar
days,
if
it's
11
or
more
they've,
scrapped
that
and
completely
moved
to
all
calendar
days.
So
my
attempt
was
just
to
keep
it
consistent
with
what
was
already
there
for
working
days
by
seven
calendar
days.
E
It
also
maintains
some
consistency
throughout
the
state
because
we
all
have
different
judicial
days,
in
fact,
with
covid
this
year,
while
the
las
vegas
justice
court
had
five
judicial
working
days
in
a
week,
we
converted
to
the
four
and
we
may
be
moving
back
to
five.
That
remains
to
be
seen,
but
that
was
a
cost
saving
measure,
so
we
want
to
keep
it
consistent,
regardless
of
what
happens
with
judicial
days.
E
Also,
it
makes
it
easier
for
our
case
management
systems
to
auto
calculate
those
days
and
avoid
any
human
error
in
those
calculations.
E
Moving
on
to
paragraph
five,
this
paragraph
makes
really
what
are
minor
amendments
to
the
existing
statute
to
bring
it
in
line
with
the
nature
of
this
type
of
case.
In
reality,
it's
what
we
would
call
a
declaratory
relief.
It's
asking
the
court
to
make
a
declaration
as
to
whether
or
not
the
vehicle
was
lawful
or
lawfully
or
unlawfully
towed
or
immobilized,
and
then
it
gives
in
reality
what
happens
when
that
based
upon
the
court's
determination.
E
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
noticed
in
the
bill,
that
was
really
I
mean
in
the
original
statute
it
used
to.
It
reads
currently
that
if
the
court
finds
the
vehicle
was
lawfully
towed,
then
the
court
shall
order
the
vehicle
owner
to
pay
the
cost
of
towing
and
storage.
Well,
that's
a
little
misleading,
because
we
don't
really
order
the
vehicle
owner
to
pay
that
money.
It's
not
a
money
judgment
where
we're
giving
the
tow
company
a
judgment.
E
The
tow
company,
one
is
not
even
a
party
to
this
case,
so
we
can't
issue
a
judgment
in
favor
of
a
non-party
but
two.
It
really
is
not
an
order
for
the
vehicle
owner
to
pay.
It's
a
determination
that,
in
order
for
the
tow
company
to
release
the
vehicle,
they
have
to
be
paid
first,
but
the
vehicle
owner
gets
that
choice.
They
don't
have
to
pay.
They
might
determine
on
their
own
forego,
that
payment
and
allow
the
storage
company
to
recover
their
cost
through
other
lawful
means
they
may
decide.
E
The
vehicle's
value
is
not
as
much
as
the
storage
and
towing
costs,
so
they
have
to
make
a
determination
on
their
own.
So
what
kind
of
changed
the
language
to
bring
it
in
line
with
that
declaratory
relief,
and
now
it
simply
would
state
that
the
court
would
enter
an
order
declaring
the
owner
liable
for
those
costs,
but
not
necessarily
a
money
judgment
in
order
to
pay.
E
Finally,
paragraph
six,
it
is
excuse
me,
one
area,
that's
been
commonly
reported
to
me,
and
this
is
from
the
tow
companies
that
regularly
appear
before
me.
Is
that
if
they're
not
in
court-
and
they
don't
know
what
happens
in
the
courtroom
and
the
vehicle
owner
just
comes
to
them
with
an
order,
they
don't
know,
they
don't
have
any
way
of
really
looking
at
our
docket
to
see
whether
it's
a
valid
order,
a
real
order
or
not.
E
They
had
expressed
to
me,
through
our
conversations
in
discussing
this
bill,
that
they
would
request
that
the
court
provide
a
certified
copy
to
the
vehicle
owner
and
that
way
the
vehicle
owner
brings
a
certified
copy
to
the
tow
company.
So
the
toke
company
has
some
assurance
that
they're
following
the
court's
directive
and
that
it
is
a
valid
court
order.
With
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
judge,
sergosa,
appreciate
that
we'll
have
some
questions
from
members.
I'm
sure
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
few
that
I
think
will
be
easy
questions,
but
just
kind
of
lay
the
groundwork
a
little
bit
for
the
issue
we're
dealing
with.
So,
as
you
indicated,
there
are
a
number
of
different
actions.
You
know
one
might
be
able
to
bring
to
recover
money
damages
for
an
unlawful
towing,
but
this
is
an
expedited
action,
an
action
for
expedited
relief.
A
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
give
us
obviously
you're
speaking
for
primarily
las
vegas
justice
court,
but
do
you
see
a
lot
of
these
expedited
cases
being
filed
down
in
las
vegas
justice
court
and,
if
you're
able
to
give
any
kind
of
sense
of
maybe
what
sort
of
numbers
we're
looking
at
on?
I
know
probably
it's
different
because
of
covid,
but
in
normal
years,
if
you
have
any
sense
of
what
kind
of
numbers
we're
looking
at
on
an
annual
basis,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
E
E
I'm
not
sure
whether
we
code
it
differently.
I
may
be
speaking
out
of
turn.
If
I
can
provide
you
an
actual
number,
I
will
I'll
ask
my
staff
to
see
if
they
can
extract
that
data
from
our
case
management
system,
but
I
can
tell
you
they're
fairly
regular.
I
mean
they're,
not
the
bulk
of
our
caseload,
for
sure
I
would
see
when
I
had
an
all
civil
case
load
and
we
have
two
judges
hearing
all
of
our
civil
cases
in
las
vegas
justice
court.
E
When
I
held
that
calendar,
I
would
say
I
would
see
on
average,
maybe
one
a
week
so
two
a
week
with
the
other
department.
If
that
holds
true,
you
know
you're
talking,
maybe
a
hundred
ish
a
year.
A
Great
so
then,
my
next
question
sort
of
based
on
that
answer
is,
you
know,
you're
we're
making
some
pretty
substantial
changes
in
terms
of
the
21
day
requirement
of
who
has
to
be
served
of
the
seven
calendar
days
versus
four
working
days.
A
Is
there
a
is
the
court
involved
in
any
way
in
letting
potential
plaintiffs
know
about
these
changes?
Is
that
something
that
the
self-help
center
would
be
able
to
inform
them?
I'm
just
wondering
about
that
aspect
of
how.
How
will
folks
know
that
we
are
potentially
changing
the
law
if
they're
perhaps
used
to
how
it
used
to
read.
E
Yes,
chair
yeager,
the
self-help
center
is
always
involved
in
in
all
of
our
case
type,
so
we
do
have
forms
that
are
provided
they
do
their
best.
Honestly,
on
the
form
we
provide
instructions.
E
You
know
we
try
to
give
them
guidance
through
all
of
those
means
whether
it's
the
self-help
center
has
even
during
covet
operated
through
email
through
telephone
calls,
through
virtual
sessions
with
individuals
with
questions,
so
they're
usually
heavily
involved,
and
I
will
say
that,
because
these
are
done
on
a
court
form
that
form
wouldn't
I
I
don't
know
that
it
would
require
any
changes
to
the
current
nature
of
the
form,
but
the
if
it
did,
the
self-help
center
would
work
with
us
to
make
those
changes
and
make
all
of
that
readily
available
through
their
website,
and
the
courts
website
has
links
to
our
civil
law
self-help
center.
E
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
never
have
conflicting
information.
What
we
do
is
the
court
and
work
with
the
self-help
center.
We
verify
the
information
that
they
have
on
their
website
is
is
accurate
and
then
we
provide
a
link
to
that
so
that
they
could
come
to
either
place
and
get
that
same
information.
A
I
My
question
to
you
is
I
I
had
a
sense
that
the
seven
calendar
days
might
still
be
a
little
bit
tight
and
perhaps
since
we're
changing
the
statutes
anyway,
maybe
10
calendar
days
just
a
consideration
to
make
it
as
reasonable
as
possible
for
the
court.
E
It's
not
uncommon
with
the
four
judicial
days
now
that
we
get
to
that
hearing
and
the
the
plaintiff
vehicle
owner
has
not
had
the
opportunity
to
get
the
other
side
served.
That's
a
very
common
scenario.
It
is
a
tight
window.
I
I
think
those
are
policy
issues
that
I
I
think
this
committee
can
discuss
and
address
the
number
of
days.
I
mean
anything,
tighter
anything
closer
than
four,
I
think
would
be
impossible
to
get
notice.
We
certainly
that's
just
it's
just
really
quick.
E
The
only
time
the
seven
calendar
days
might
get
to
be
tight
would
be
on
a
holiday
weekend
or
something
like
that
where
you
know
the
process
surveyors
and
the
constables
offices
are
closed,
so
it
makes
that
window
a
little
tighter,
but
I
think
those
are
all
considerations
for
this
committee
and
I
just
offer
my
information
and
let
you
all
make
the
policy
I
might.
I
Suggest
that
we
we
do
ten
days,
may
I
indulge
the
chair
with
one
more
question?
Yes,
please
so
under
section
one
that
would
be
c.
I
believe
where
it
says
the
cost
of
towing
and
storing
the
vehicle
does
not
exceed
fifteen
thousand
dollars.
I'm
just
curious
where
that
number
comes
from,
and
you
know
if
we
set
an
amount
in
in
statute.
Does
that
need
to
be
changed?
You
know
ten
years
down
the
road
or
how
is
that
number
arrived
at.
E
Yes,
that
number
assemblyman
kasama
is
derived
from
nrs
4.370,
which
is
the
limited
jurisdictions
jurisdictional
limit,
so
that
15
dollar
amount
is
our
is
our
jurisdictional
limit,
and
so
I
guess
in
this
case
that
that
amount
was
originated.
It
always
tracked
that
amount
rather
than
the
value
of
the
vehicle.
It
tracked
the
amount
of
the
stove,
that's
towing
and
storage
costs
to
keep
in
line
with
that,
and
I-
and
I
would
know
I
just
noticed
this
as
I
was
looking
at
this.
E
As
you
pointed
it
out
paragraphs
one
c,
I
think
there
actually
should
be
those
before
a
vehicle
that
was
towed
should
be
stricken
and
it
should
just
read
the
cost
of
towing
and
storing
does
not
exceed
fifteen
thousand.
I
think
it
probably
just
oversight,
but
that's
how
it's
derived
now.
Okay,
great!
Thank
you.
So
much.
I
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
Thank
you,
judge,
saragosa
for
the
presentation.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
for
you,
one
with
just
so
that
I'm
clear
what
we
are
looking
to
do
with
this
bill
is
to
remove
the
tow
operators
from
the
filing
or
the.
I
guess,
initial
complaint
that
is
filed
and
put
that
totally
on
the
owners
is
that
correct
of
the
property.
E
Assemblyman
miller,
currently
the
way
the
statute
reads:
the
tow
company
is
not
the
proper
defendant,
they
never
have
been
the
proper
defendant
and
this
my
my
attempt
in
this
bill
is
to
just
make
that
even
clearer.
The
current
language
is
always
the
owner
of
the
property
from
which
the
vehicle
was
towed
or
immobilized.
E
It's
just
not
followed
it's
confusing,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
clarify
that,
so
the
tow
company's
never
been
the
proper
defendant
and
in
regular
course,
when
the
tow
company
is
named,
we
always
have
to
continue
the
case.
Amend,
reserve
the
right
person
now,
four
or
five
more
days
have
gone
by
now.
The
vehicle
owner
suffers
additional
storage
costs.
So
I'm
trying
to
make
it
as
clear
as
possible
to
give
the
expedited
relief
to
the
vehicle
owner
when
it's
appropriate
as
quickly
as
possible.
I
Okay,
I
understand
thank
you
chair.
May
I
continue
yes,
please,
okay,
so
with
that
in
mind,
I
I
can
imagine
that
when
vehicles
are
told
that
they
that
when
a
person
goes
to
acquire
their
vehicle,
that
they're
not
necessarily
being
told
told
of
the
quick
remedy
process
in
the
event
that
they
believe
their
vehicle
was
unlawfully
towed.
E
Assemblyman
miller,
two
parts
to
that
question
in
terms
of
are
they
being
told
of
the
information
currently
existing
in
the
statute
and
unamended
by
this
bill
is
paragraph
seven,
and
that
is
the
oh,
the
facilities,
the
storage
facilities,
the
tow
facilities
are
required
to
conspicuously
display
all
of
the
information
that's
in
this
statute.
So
whether
or
not
that's
being
done,
I
I
couldn't
say
I
I've
not
had
the
opportunity
to
go
and
inspect
and
see
that
that's
there.
E
I
I
trust
that
it
should
be,
but
that
is
a
mandate
that's
already
in
the
statute
and
unaffected
by
this
other
than
they
would
have
to
amend
their
signage
to
comply
with
any
amendment.
If
should
this
bill
pass,
the
second
part
of
that
question
was
in
terms
of
who's
responsible,
and
that
is
part
of
what
is
not
covered
in
this
bill.
So,
for
example,
if
the
if
the
vehicle
was
unlawfully
towed
and
the
court
finds
that
it
was
unlawfully
towed,
then
the
order
from
the
court
would
be
to
that
tow
company.
E
You
have
to
immediately
release
that
vehicle
to
the
vehicle
owner,
regardless
of
who's
responsible
for
the
storage
and
toe
costs.
It
it
makes
the
property
owner
who
directed
that
toe
liable
and
in
the
other
statutes
487,
037
and
038
the
tow
company.
It
can
be
contracted
with,
let's
say,
an
apartment,
complex,
that's
a
common
scenario.
E
So
if
the
tow
company
has
a
contract
with
the
apartment
complex,
they
might
be
enforcing
the
apartment,
complexes,
rules
and
regulations
regarding
towing.
So
there
is
a
relationship
there,
but
the
court's
not
getting
involved
in
that
contractual
relationship
at
all
in
this
particular
kind
of
a
case.
We're
not
making
a
determination
as
to
who's.
E
In
terms
responsible
for
any
money
damages,
in
that
case,
we're
simply
directing
the
tow
company.
If
it
was
unlawfully
towed,
then
you
have
to
release
the
vehicle
immediately.
That's
the
determination
that
we're
making
and
then
the
liability
for
the
cost
falls
on
the
property
owner
who
contracted
with
an
agent
the
tow
company
to
tow
the
vehicle.
So
there's
a
principal
agent
relationship
there.
I
Okay,
thank
you
and
just
one
last
question
chair
the,
and
this
is
with
the
on
the
time
frame.
So
I
understand
that
the
time
frame
that
we're
looking
to
expand
that
time
frame,
but
I
I
guess
my
question
would
be
if
and
this
kind
of
follows
in
line
with
what
I
was
just
asking.
If
the
the
person
whose
car
was
towed
essentially
comes
to
the
court
and
they
named
the
tow
company-
and
you
say
no,
it's
actually
the
owner.
I
If
we
were,
if
we
were
able
to
allow
the
tow
company
to
be
in
incorporated
in
that,
since
they
already
have
a
contractual
relationship
wherein
they
are
acting
on
behalf
of
the
the
owner
when
they
tow
the
car,
could
the
the
the
could
the
tow
company
be
served
on
behalf
of
the
owner
in
the
sense
that
it
would
actually
result
in
an
expedited
recovery
of
the
vehicle
rather
than
a
longer
process.
I
I
guess
my
my
point
there
is
that
if
it's
supposed
to
be
expedited
and
when
people
whose
vehicle,
especially
their
main
vehicle,
has
been
told
unlawfully,
they
may
not
have
three
days,
seven
days
or
even
ten
days
to
acquire
it
back.
If
it's
been
told
unlawfully,
it
could
totally
disrupt
their
lives.
So
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
if
there
is
maybe
another
path
where
we
can
actually
speed
up
the
process,
rather
than
it
results
in
more
stays
or
an
extended
time
and
people
recovering
their
vehicles.
E
E
The
tow
company
would
not
be
in
a
position
unless
there
was
some
authorization
to
represent
in
the
hearing
a
totally
different
entity.
They're,
not
they
can't
practice
law.
The
bottom
line
is
they're,
not
lawyers.
They
can't
practice
law,
so
they're,
really
pro
pro
litigants
on
their
own.
They
come
into
court,
they
represent
their
own
business,
but
that's
the
extent
of
what
they're
generally
authorized
to
do,
and
it's
interesting.
This
particular
bill
doesn't
even
really
address
that
in
a
similar
fashion.
E
This
particular
section
doesn't
have
that
yet
in
practice,
I
will
tell
you
that
we
always
we
never
have
lawyers
really
on
either
side.
That's
very
uncommon,
I
shouldn't
say
never,
but
it's
rare.
Instead,
you
have
someone
from
a
property
management
company
who's
in
a
similar
position,
they're,
not
the
the
property
owner,
but
they
might
be
named
as
the
defendant
and
they're
just
the
management
company,
but
they
are
an
agent
for
the
owner
of
the
property.
E
The
tow
company
is
in
that
similar
position
and
if
the,
if
there
was
some
authorization
for
the
tow
company,
who
is
the
person
most
knowledgeable
to
come
in
to
be
served
and
to
come
in
on
behalf
of
the
property
owner,
I
think
that
would
be
a
decision
that
this
committee
could
make
from
my
perspective
from
the
court.
I
don't
have
any
real
issue
with
that.
What
I
want
are
the
facts.
I
want
to
know
what
happened.
E
E
Yet
the
way
the
statutes
are
written
currently
in
487.037
and
038,
the
tow
company
is
not
the
person
authorized
to
make
that
determination.
It's
the
property
owner
who
has
to
direct
and
authorize
the
toe,
so
I'd,
be
I'd,
be
totally
willing
to
communicate
further
with
this
committee
on
any
things
that
you'd
like
to
see
and
kind
of
massage
some
language
that
you
think
would
accomplish
something
being
done
quicker
and
easier.
E
That
was
kind
of
my
goal
is
to
make
it
really
clear
in
the
statute
and
then
maybe
that
signage,
the
conspicuous
signage,
would
make
that
clear
because
it
is
deceiving,
I
shouldn't
say
deceiving
it's
just
confusing
for
the
vehicle
owner
they're
like
my
car
was
towed.
I
want
to
sue
the
tow
company,
that's
what
they
think,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
clarify
that.
I
Thank
you
very
much.
I
would
love
to
work
with
you
on
that
and
see
if
there
are
some,
maybe
amendments
that
we
can
present
to
the
committee
committee
for
suggestion.
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
thank
you
judge.
Sarah
gosse.
F
You
sharon.
Thank
you
judge.
F
My
question
is
about
the
new
paragraph
six,
and
I
appreciate
that
that
the
tow
company
bit
of
a
vine
because
they're
someone's
coming
in
and
saying
I
have
an
order
but
they're
not
presenting
the
site
order,
but
you
know
that
that
paragraph
kind
of
struck
my
interest,
the
first
time
I
was
reading
through
it,
because
I
think
back
over
the
last
several
months
and
as
an
attorney
and
also
in
communication
with
other
attorneys,
we
were
having
trouble
getting
certified
copies,
not
from
the
justice
court
from
the
district
court,
but
I
mean
we've
got
pro
pers,
who
may
or
may
not
have
other
transportation
and
now
we're
asking
them
to
get
a
certified
copy
which
can
be
difficult
at
times.
F
So
it
is
there
anything
we
can
do
to
make
that
process
easier
for
them.
Are
they
able
to
leave
the
courtroom
with
a
with
the
order
that
they
can
then
walk
to
the
clerk's
office
to
get
certified?
And
if
so,
are
they
made
aware
of
that?
Can
you
can
you
just
give
me
a
little
more
information
about
that?
The
the
way
that
pro
pers
and
injustice
court
get
certified
copies.
E
Assemblyman,
thank
you.
That's
a
a
good,
a
good
question
and
you're
you're
100
right
covet
times
are
different
than
regular
times,
and
I
guess
that
has
been
a
little
more
challenging
in
the
district
court.
Obviously,
the
justice
court
is
kind
of
more
of
the
people's
court.
We
have
so
many
litigants
who
are
pro
per
representing
themselves.
They
don't
have
the
technological
means
to
do
a
virtual
hearing.
E
So
almost
all
of
these
kinds
of
cases,
even
though
we
offer
virtual
sessions
they're
coming
in
person
and
yes,
they
leave
the
las
vegas
justice
court
or
they
could
leave
the
las
vegas
justice
court
since
the
requirement's.
Not
there
now
we
hand
them,
we
just
hand
them
a
regular
copy,
but
they
walk
out
with
an
order.
We.
C
E
Order
already
a
kind
of
a
form
order
that
I
would
you
know
kind
of
check
the
box
fill
out.
The
information
determine
the
cost
of
towing
and
storage
those
kinds
of
things,
and
I
just
handwrite
it
in
on
the
bench.
It's
very
easy.
They
walk
out
within
five
minutes
of
the
hearing
or
less
with
a
copy,
and
they
could
easily
walk
out
with
a
certified
copy
from
my
court.
E
Given
the
volume
of
our
cases
in
las
vegas
justice
court,
I
think
we
see
the
the
majority
of
them,
so
I
can't
speak
for
others,
but
we
would
hand
it
right
to
them
in
court
now,
if
they're,
making
a
virtual
appearance
that
might
be
a
little
more
difficult,
we
might
have
to
come
up
with
a
different
resolution
where
we
can
electronically
certify
it.
I
believe
we
have
that
capability
here
and
then
electronically
give
it
send
it
to
them
so
that
they
have
it.
A
I
don't
see
any
judge.
I
had
a
very
quick
question
to
get
your
legislative
intent
on
the
record.
If
we
look
at,
I
guess
it's
page
two
of
the
bill,
but
it's
section
one.
If
you
go
down
to
line
26
which
references
that
the
filing
must
be
within
21
days.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
if
you
wanted
that
to
be
judicial
or
calendar
days,
because
I
think
the
absence
of
the
word
calendar
means
that
it
would
be
judicial.
E
E
I
said
that
21
number
was
selected
kind
of
to
ensure
that
the
remedies
that
were
the
expedited
remedies
that
were
available
would
still
be
available
by
the
time
we
set
a
hearing
on
it,
whether
that
would
be
you
know,
28
days
or
30
days,
or
you
know,
18
days
whatever
this
committee
thought,
if
you
thought
something
alternative,
the
number
of
days
is
less
significant.
E
I
think
for
the
court
than
there
has
to
be
some
limit,
because
if
we
have
these
cases
get
filed
and
rushed
to
set
a
hearing,
and
yet
the
vehicle
was
towed
four
months
ago,
which
I
see
it's
months,
people
wait
months
to
file
these
cases.
That
vehicle
is
long
gone
and
I
can't
provide
them
the
relief
that
they're
seeking
in
this
expedited
fashion.
They
always
have
the
right
to
go
with
that
civil
remedy,
but
it
would
be
my
intent
to
be
a
calendar
day.
I
just
think
across
the
board.
E
A
Thank
you
I'll
make
a
note
of
that.
If
we
do
end
up
amending
this
bill
in
some
fashion,
I
think
we
can
just
put
calendar
in
there
to
clarify
any
potential
confusion.
That
would
be
great
last
call
for
questions
for
judge,
saragosa.
A
A
M
M
M
The
time
the
money,
the
repeat,
visits
it's
unfair
to
the
holding
party
as
far
as
the
tokar
operator,
as
well
as
the
complainant
or
the
plaintiffs,
because
nothing's
going
to
be
resolved
or
satisfied
until
all
parties
are
present
and
that
the
judge
has
the
ability
to
to
hear
all
evidence
and
to
make
a
a
fair
and
equitable
ruling
for
both
parties
that
are
involved,
whether
it
be
the
owner
agent
of
the
property
or
the
plaintiff.
Jud
sergosa
spoke
very
directly
and
correctly
in
terms
of
the
process.
M
We
are
dismissed
from
all
cases
as
defendants
generally
within
the
first
five
to
seven
minutes
of
all
cases,
question
was
asked
by
chair
yeager.
As
far
as
numbers,
specific
numbers,
99
of
the
cases
are
pro
per
capacity.
Very
rarely
you'll
see
an
attorney
involved
for
either
party.
I
personally
represented
67
cases
in
2019
in
2020,
I
represented
39
cases,
and
that
was
shortened
obviously
due
to
covid
and
then
thus
far
in
2021,
seven
cases
and
one
tomorrow
at
one
o'clock
in
department
five.
M
So
that
will
put
me
at
eight
that's
just
kind
of
an
idea
of
what
we're
looking
at
and
again,
we
account
for
I
account
by
companies
for
forty
percent
of
the
impounds
in
in
the
southern
nevada
region,
so
all
in
all
assembly
miller
also
had
brought
up
a
question
as
far
as
requirements
on
the
bottom
of
all
of
our
invoices,
as
required
by
the
transportation
authority,
which
is
the
actual
body
governmentally
speaking
that
regulates
our
efforts.
It.
M
Also,
as
judge
saragosa
alluded
to
conspicuously
posted
and
also
available
with
our
tariff
rates
as
a
requirement
to
do
business
as
a
tow
car
operator
are
also
remedies
and
other
avenues
in
terms
of
taking
it
to
core
or
providing
some
sort
of
a
civil
matter.
In
regards
to
the
situation,
unfortunately,
we
try
to
educate
the
public
one.
You
know
customer
at
a
time
as
to
what
the
best
case
scenario
is.
M
We
recommend
they
get
the
vehicle
out
immediately
to
lower
the
cost
and
effect
on
them
financially
and
if
they're
not
satisfied
with
with
what
we
are
explaining
to
them,
they
can
take
us
to
court.
They
have
remedies
with
the
transportation
authority,
so
we
try
to
provide
them
the
avenues,
because
it's
inevitable
that
it's
going
to
take
place.
I
can't
speak
for
all
tow
car
operators.
I
can
only
speak
for
for
my
companies
and
I've
been
in
the
business
for
34
years.
M
So
it's
something
that
I've
dictated
and-
and
you
know
have
spoken
with
other
tokar
operators
and
all
the
things
that
have
been
mentioned
and
proposed
with
av32
are
definitely
items
that
the
tow
companies
would
be
in
support
of
because
it
really
just
saves
time.
It
saves
effort
and
it
allows
things
to
be
heard
quickly.
M
You
know,
and
with
all
the
different
restrictions
and
and
caveats
you
know
involved
with
now,
with
coven,
19
and
and
just
access
and
obtaining
resolutions
within
the
court
status,
I
mean
in
structure,
it's
just
a
lot
easier
to
to
knock
it
all
out
at
one
fell
swoop.
M
I
can
speak
for
us
specifically,
we
would
not
be
adverse
to
being
named
not
necessarily
liable
because
we're
acting
as
the
agent
for
the
owner
agent
of
the
property,
but
we
would
have
no
problem
being
required
to
attend
the
court
cases
because,
as
judge
sergosa
and
I
believe,
assemblyman
kasama
pointed
out-
I
mean
we
have
the
majority
of
the
times
all
the
evidence
or
all
of
the
necessary
paperwork
or
documentation.
That
would
be
required
for
a
fair
judgment
to
be
made,
and
that's
all
I
have
to
contribute
to
this
point.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony,
mr
segura.
We
appreciate
it
at
this
time
seeing
no
additional
comments
from
folks
on
the
zoom
bps
I'd
like
to
go
to
the
phone
line
to
see
if
we
have
individuals
there
who'd
like
to
testify
and
support.
I
see
a
few
people
have
signed
up
in
support,
so
let's
go
to
the
phone
and
see
if
they're
there
and
ready
to
provide
testimony.
K
C
C
Ab32
solves
several
problems
that
we
see
on
a
regular
basis
and
as
such,
we
are
in
support
of
this
of
this
statute.
Proposed
statute.
Excuse
me,
as
far
as
we're
concerned,
the
seven
days
to
set
the
time
as
a
time
frame
for
the
hearing
is
strikes
a
good
balance.
C
You
have
to
remember
that
these
people
are
up
against
the
clock,
they're
trying
to
prevent
their
vehicles
from
having
a
toe
lean,
put
on
them
and
be
sold,
so
the
faster
that
we
can
get
a
hearing
that
we
don't
have
to
continue
because
there
was
not
enough
time
to
get.
Somebody
served
is
better
for
the
actual
you
know
the
owners
of
the
vehicle,
and
so
we
think
that
the
seven
days
does
strike
a
good
balance
with
that.
C
So
I
think
that
that
thinking
was
absolutely
correct,
that
that
is
enough
time
to
get
somebody
served
and
also
quickly
enough
for
a
turnaround
time
for
hearing
in
order
to
help
people
get
their
vehicles
back
more
quickly.
We
also
agree
that
the
entity
who
is
the
proper
defendant
has
been
laid
out
in
the
statute
correctly.
C
You
know
it
is
the
owner
of
the
property
who
authorized
the
toe,
who
would
be
the
proper
defendant
in
these
according
to
current
statute,
and
you
know
they
have
the
information
on
what
was
the
cause
of
the
tow.
Why
did
they
call
the
tow
company
out
to
you
to
come
until
that
vehicle?
As
far
as
everything
else
again,
we
are
fully
in
support,
and
we
just
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
today
and
to
thank
judge
targosia
for
bringing
the
bill.
A
K
H
Good
morning,
chair
yeager,
I'm
paul
enos
e-n-o-s.
I
am
the
ceo
of
the
nevada,
trucking
association.
We
have
a
little
over
three
dozen
tow
members,
tow
car
members
and
we're
here
today
to
speak
in
support
of
av-32
right
now.
The
current
process
to
file
a
complaint
against
a
towing
company
goes
to
the
nevada
transportation
authority.
H
They
only
regulate
the
tow
operator,
they
don't
regulate
the
owner
of
the
real
property
who
requested
that
tow.
I
will
say
in
looking
at
the
bill
it
does.
It
does
mandate
that
you
file
against
both
the
owner
of
the
real
property
and
the
tow
operator,
the
tow
company
which
showed
the
vehicle.
So
it's
not
like
the
the
tow
companies
are,
are
not
going
to
be
a
party
to
this
suit.
They
still
will
be.
H
A
K
C
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
maggio
flaherty
m
a
g
g.
I
e
o
apostrophe
s
is
in
frank
l-a-h-e-r-t-y
here
this
morning
on
behalf
of
the
tow
operators
of
northern
nevada
tan.
For
short,
thank
you
to
the
committee
and
judge
theragosa
for
bringing
ab32
forward
ton.
C
L
A
K
A
K
A
E
E
So
currently,
even
though
it's
not
in
the
statute,
the
litigants,
oftentimes
only
name
the
tow
company
and
what
we
end
up
doing
is,
as
mr
segura
stated,
is
dismissing
them
from
the
case,
because
they're,
not
the
proper
party
and
but
requiring
that
property
owner
to
be
brought
in
and
what
I
was
trying
to
do
in
paragraph
two
of
this
bill
was
identify
the
proper
defendants,
but
the
it
was
made
clear
and
and
I'll
make
it
even
clearer.
Now
that
what
we
want
is
all
the
proper
parties
brought,
not
just
the
property
owner.
E
We
want
them
to
continue
to
name
the
tow
company
as
the
relevant
party
with
the
as
the
most
knowledgeable
person
to
be
in
court
and
be
served,
and
if
you
read
in
paragraph
2
b,
one
and
two
it
must
be
filed
against
the
owner
of
the
real
property
and
the
tow
company
which
towed
the
vehicle.
And
so
the
tow
company
would
naturally
be
a
part
of
that
process.
And
then,
when
you
look
at
paragraph
four,
they
would
be
a
person
identified
and
those
sub-paragraphs
would
have
to
be
served.
E
E
We
wouldn't
have
the
facts
that
we
need
in
the
court
to
make
a
determination
one
two,
because
this
is
an
in
the
nature
of
a
declaratory
relief
kind
of
issue,
and
we
are
going
to
be
entering
an
order
potentially
for
a
tow
company
to
immediately
release
the
vehicle
to
a
litigant
to
a
vehicle
owner
in
either
circumstances
that
they
pay
or
immediately
because
it
was
unlawfully
towed.
We're
now
issuing
a
court
order
in
the
way
of
an
injunction
almost
against
a
tow
company
if
they're
not
named
in
the
complaint.
E
From
that
beginning
point,
it
makes
it
a
very
awkward
situation.
The
court
would
be
put
in
a
position
to
enter
an
order
against
a
non-party
without
giving
them
an
opportunity
to
be
heard,
and
that
would
be
a
due
process
violation.
So
I
I
hope
I
didn't
confuse
things
too
much
in
my
initial
testimony
and
I
can
see
assemblyman
miller
is
reacting
in
a
manner
that
I
probably
did
confuse
things
and
I'm
so
sorry-
and
I
hope
that
clarified
it-
that
it
was
the
effort
to
bring
everybody
together.
A
Now,
that's
totally
fine.
It's
it's
been
a
long
morning,
so
I
think
some
of
us
missed
that
in
the
text
as
well
judge
herregos
any
other
remarks
before
we
close
the
hearing.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
this
morning
and
thank
you
again
for
your
patience
as
we
got
through
the
other
bill
on
the
agenda.
We
appreciate
you
being
here
and
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
Thank
you.
You
too,
so
I'll
close.
The
hearing
on
assembly
bill
32
that'll,
take
us
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Callers
will
have
up
to
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
A
Public
comment
is
a
time
for
matters
of
a
general
nature
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
It
is
not
a
time
to
rehash
hearings
of
bills
that
we
have
already
heard
or
may
hear
in
the
future.
So
with
that
behind
us
bps,
could
we
go
to
the
public
comment
line
and
see
if
there's
anyone
there
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment
this
morning.
K
L
T-O-N-J-A
e-r-o-w-n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
judiciary.
I
just
want
to
state
for
the
record
okay,
because
you
know
we're
all
doing
this
from
home.
Now
I
have
a
lot
of
distractions,
particularly
named
sadie,
who
is
about
a
hundred
pound
rock
sadie
and
oliver,
who
is
about
a
nine
and
a
half
pound,
shih
tzu,
and
it's
like
having
they're
like
having
children
and
you
have
to
keep
one
eye
on
them
at
all
times.
L
If
you
saw
what
went
on
and
what
goes
on
in
this
house
in
the
early
mornings,
you
would
find
it
quite
entertaining.
I
under,
on
the
other
hand,
find
it
a
distraction,
especially
when
I'm
speaking
to
you
or
other
committee
members,
so
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
put
it
on
the
record
that
sometimes
I
get
distracted
when
I'm
speaking,
because
I
don't
know
when
a
feral
cat
is
going
to
walk
into
the
yard
or
when
construction
workers
are
going
to
come
and
start
working
on
the
house
next
door.
L
So
you
don't
know
whether
the
dogs
are
going
to
bark
cry
run
through
the
house
when
they
do
their
zoomies,
so
I
just
want
to
put
that
on
the
record
that
they
can
be
quite
a
distraction
for
me.
So
if
I
come
off
like
confused,
you'll
know
why.
But
I'm
thinking
that
pretty
much
everyone
has
little
issues
like
this.
It's
like,
like
I
said,
having
little
children
in
the
house,
and
you
have
to
keep
one
eye
on
these
little
on
these
guys
at
all
times.
A
K
L
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T,
my
brother,
thomas
pardee,
was
killed
by
reno
police
and
washoe
county
sheriff's
office
october
8
2015
during
mental
health
crisis.
Today,
I'd
like
to
read
you
a
letter
from
the
mother
of
25
year
old,
jorge
antonio
gomez,
who
was
killed
by
las
vegas
metro
june
1st,
while
he
was
out
protesting
for
families
like
myself,
for
families
like
george
floyd,
who
had
lost
a
loved
one
to
police
and
sadly,
he
became
a
victim.
L
My
son
was
killed
by
las
vegas
police
department
on
june
1st
2020.
He
was
on
his
way
to
his
car
to
pick
up
his
dad
from
work,
which
was
around
the
corner
from
the
federal
building
he
was
walking
on.
A
public
sidewalk
and
police
officers
began
to
speak
with
him,
and
so
he
slowed
down.
One
officer
then
came
down
at
him
and
shot
at
him
with
low
lethal
rounds.
He
ran
and
four
other
officers
seeing
him
running,
shot
him
19
times.
These
are
the
facts.
L
Jorge
antonio
was
such
a
kind
young
man
that
felt
the
injustice
as
we
all
do
and
wanted
to
be
there
in
support
of
the
blm
movement
and
exercise
our
first
and
second
amendment
rights.
He
was
never
aggressive
and
is
seen
on
various
videos
peacefully
protesting,
not
that
it
matters,
but
he
had
no
criminal
history.
L
We,
he
are
not
anti-police,
we,
he
are
anti-corrupt,
cops
and
those
who
aid
them.
We
are
a
military,
canine
officer,
homeland
security,
family.
What
we
will
not
accept
is
this
ridiculous
portrayal
of
a
great
human
being
that
the
world
lost
on
june.
1St
2020.,
jorge
antonio,
was
a
kind
soul.
He
loved
the
animals,
he
helped
the
homeless,
he
loved
the
music
and
our
earth.
He
came
for
everything
and
just
wanted
to
make
it
better
in
a
safer
place
to
live.
We
will
not
rest
until
we
find
the
whole
truth.
No
justice,
no
peace.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
While
we
were
in
this
meeting,
so
we
have
two
bills
scheduled
for
thursday
and
again
that
will
be
an
8
o'clock
start
friday,
we're
potentially
looking
at
doing
a
work
session
trying
to
get
that
solidified
and
I'm
not
yet
sure
about
bills.
We're
going
to
see
what
we
potentially
get
on
the
floor
today,
so
we
are
going
to
have
a
meeting
friday.
Just
don't
know,
what's
going
to
be
on
the
agenda
and
what
time
it's
going
to
be,
and
then
I
don't
have
any
information
for
you
yet
about
next
week.