►
From YouTube: 4/7/2021 - 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
D
E
F
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
krasner
absent
for
the
moment.
I'm
sure
she'll
be
joining
us
and
I'll.
Try
to
remember
to
note
that
she
is
here
when
she
arrives.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum.
This
morning,
I'm
going
to
want
to
say
good
morning
to
members
of
the
committee
members
and
guests
who
are
joining
us
on
the
zoom
and
those
who
might
be
watching
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
or
on
the
internet.
Welcome
to
day
66
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
this
morning,
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters.
A
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
and
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly
of
our
very
hard-working
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
are
using
multiple
devices
and
screens
to
access
this
virtual
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
A
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
times
during
this
morning's
meeting
with
that
behind
us
committee
members,
you
can
see
we
have
three
bills
on
the
agenda
as
well
as
a
work
session,
and
I
think
we
probably
ought
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
work
session
first.
While
we
have
everyone
here,
because
I
know
members
are
bouncing
around
to
a
lot
of
other
committees.
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
go
to
our
work
session
and
committee
members,
members
of
the
public.
You
can
find
the
work
session
document
uploaded
on
nellis
as
a
complete
document,
and
then
each
bill
has
its
own
page
as
well.
So
at
this
time
I'll
hand
it
over
to
ms
thornton
to
begin
the
work
session
and
we'll
start
with
assembly
bill
160.
G
This
bill
authorizes
a
court
to
allow
credit
for
time
spent
in
residential
confinement
in
a
person's
place
of
residence
under
terms
and
conditions
imposed
by
the
court
for
conviction
to
produce
a
sentence
of
imprisonment.
There
is
one
amendment
to
this
bill
sponsored
by
assemblywoman
torres
and
it
does
the
following.
G
Secondly,
it
provides
that
for
defendants
convicted
of
a
misdemeanor,
the
court
shall
order
100
credit
for
the
time
which
defendant
has
actually
spent
in
confinement
before
conviction
and
allows
the
court
discretion
to
order
credit
for
25
credit
for
the
amount
of
time
which
the
defendant
spent
in
residential
confinement.
And
lastly,
it
provides
that
for
defendants
convicted
of
a
misdemeanor,
a
maximum
of
60
days,
credit
may
be
awarded
for
the
time
spent
in
residential
confinement.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
and
for
committee
members,
you
might
remember
during
the
presentation
of
this
bill,
the
opposition
was
mainly
centered
on
misdemeanors
and
not
wanting
to
give
defendants
credit
that
might
expire
their
entire
misdemeanor
sentence.
So
I
believe
assemblywoman
torres
has
worked
on
this
and,
as
you
can
see
on
the
work
session
document,
the
way
that
that
came
out
it
would
be
25
credit
and
again
that's
discretionary.
A
judge
doesn't
have
to
order
that
and
it
would
only
be
for
a
maximum
of
60
days.
A
A
D
D
Their
amendment,
as
included
initially
back
in
march,
was
not
accepted,
but
I
did
speak
with
mark
shipalakwa
from
the
city
of
henderson
and
they
are
in
support
of
the
work
session
amendment
that
caps
it
at
60
days
for
misdemeanors,
as
well
as
that
ratio
of
essentially
one
to
four
and
we'd
like
to
also
thank
assemblyman
o'neill.
For
that
suggestion,.
A
Thank
you
vice
chairwin
appreciate
that
additional
information,
any
questions
from
committee
members-
okay,
I
don't
see
questions
I'd,
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
questions
that
well.
That
was
a
close
one,
so
I
think
I'll
give
the
motion
to
assemblywoman
marzola
the
second
to
vice
chair,
win
any
discussion
on
the
motion
from
committee
members.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
discussion
and
again
we're
gonna
try
to
do
a
voice
vote
on
this
rather
than
a
roll
call
vote.
So
I
will
ask
you
if
you
could
please
turn
your
audio
on
members
and
then
I'll
have
a
second
to
make
sure
we
get
the
count
accurate.
So
at
this
time,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
F
A
Okay,
I
believe
I
have
assemblyman
wheeler
as
an
a
were
there
any
other
nays
out
there
on
the
committee.
Okay,
so
assemblyman
wheeler
was
the
solenei
on
assembly
bill
160.
That
means
the
motion
does
carry
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
torres
and
we'll
have
a
vice
chair
win
as
a
backup.
If
needed,
miss
thornton.
Could
we
go
to
assembly
bill
161
next.
G
Assembly
bill
161
and
sponsored
by
assemblywoman
torres
and
summers,
armstrong
and
herding
committee
on
april
6th.
This
bill
eliminates
actions
for
summary
evictions.
In
certain
circumstances,
a
landlord
who
wishes
to
evict
a
tenant
of
any
dwelling
apartment,
mobile
home
or
recreational
vehicle,
with
periodic
rent
due
by
the
month
or
shorter
period
who
defaults
in
the
payment
of
the
rent,
is
required
to
proceed
through
a
formal
action
for
an
unlawful
detainer.
A
D
A
D
A
H
Thank
you
chair.
I
had
grave
concerns
about
this
bill
in
its
original
form,
but
now
that
it's
going
to
be
a
study
I
I
can
support
it
out
of
committee,
so
I
thank
you
for
that.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Even
as
a
study,
I
don't
think
I
can
support
this
bill
because
the
study
usually
leads
to
something
else,
and
I
don't
think
the
study
will
be
give
us
action
quick
enough,
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
go
with
no
on
it.
For
now,
at.
A
F
A
I
don't
see
any
other
nose
so
again.
Assemblyman
wheeler
was
the
only
no
on
the
motion.
The
motion
does
carry
and
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
again
to
assemblywoman
torres
because
it
was
her
bill
and
I'll
be
back
up
just
in
case.
We
need
it
moving
right
along
miss
thornton.
Could
we
go
to
assembly
bill
326.
G
There's
one
amendment
proposed
by
assemblyman
roberts
and
this
amendment
proposes
to
delete
section
one
of
the
bill
and
add
a
provision
authorizing
local
jurisdictions
to
pursue
people
engaged
in
unlicensed
activities
through
the
civil
justice
system,
as
opposed
to
the
criminal
justice
system.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
and
I'll
remind
committee
members.
I
know
this
hearing
was
a
little
while
ago,
but
the
concern
expressed
at
the
hearing,
particularly
from
the
cannabis
compliance
board,
was
they
didn't,
really
have
the
ability
to
to
pursue
folks
or
do
enforcement
on,
I
believe
the
criminal
side.
So
in
talking
to
assemblyman
roberts,
I
think
the
idea
was
to
allow
local
governments
to
use
the
civil
justice
system
now.
Obviously,
committee
members,
we
don't
have
a
language
to
look
at
it's
just
in
conceptual
form.
A
So
I
understand,
if
folks
are
going
to
want
to
wait
to
see
what
that
amendment
actually
looks
like
if
we're
to
pass
this
bill
and
it's
to
get
to
the
floor,
but
in
the
interest
of
keeping
it
moving.
This
is
what
we
have
on
work
session
document
this
morning.
So
would
ask
committee
members
if
they
have
any
questions
on
assembly
bill
326
is
detailed
in
the
work
session
document.
A
A
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say:
nay:
okay,
not
hearing
any
nays.
The
motion
does
carry
unanimously.
I
will,
of
course,
assign
assemblyman
roberts
the
floor
statement
and
I'll
list
assemblyman
wheeler
as
a
backup.
Just
in
case
we
need
it
on
the
floor,
miss
thornton,
let's
go
to
assembly
bill
394,
please.
G
Thank
you,
chair
assembly,
bill
394
was
heard
in
committee
on
april
4
first
and
sponsored
by
this
committee.
This
bill
provides
that
any
person
acting
as
a
member
of
a
mobile
crisis
response
team,
whether
for
compensation
or
gratuitously,
is
immune
from
any
civil
liability
in
the
performance
of
a
mobile
crisis.
Intervention
services
under
certain
circumstances.
G
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
and
I'll.
Take
just
a
second
to
explain
the
amendment
members.
I
can't
remember
when
we
heard
this
bill.
I
think
it
was
last
week,
but
you
might
remember
there
were
concerns
about
the
broadness
of
the
bill,
particularly
from
the
nevada
justice
association.
So
what
we
did
here
was
just
really
tightened
up
the
bill
to
have
it
only
apply
to
these
mobile
crisis
response
teams
that
we
envisioned
during
the
hearing.
A
I
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
cohen.
We
in
fact
do
have
a
definition
of
that
and
it
did
not
make
it
into
the
mock-up,
but
it
will
make
it
into
the
formal
amendment
when
legal
prepares
that
there's
an
existing
definition
that
I
believe
we
put
in
with
with
assembly
bill
236
of
last
session
when
we
kind
of
envision
these
these
units.
So
yes
and
it
is
coming,
thank
you.
A
A
A
G
In
addition,
it
allowed
that
it
was
not
a
misdemeanor
and
was
punishable
by
a
civil
penalty,
and
it
removes
references
to
the
statute
that
prohibits
such
acts
by
pedestrians.
There's
one
amendment
proposed
by
assemblywoman
brown
may:
first,
it
changes
the
fee
structure
by
allowing
a
civil
penalty
of
up
to
100.
G
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
and
I'll
take
a
moment
just
to
explain
the
amendments.
I
think
they're
pretty
clear,
but
just
for
clarification.
So
some
concern
was
raised
at
the
hearing
that
maybe
we
shouldn't
set
the
fine
at
exactly
a
hundred
and
should
be
up
to
a
hundred
dollars,
depending
on
the
discretion
of
the
adjudicating
officer.
So
that
is
amendment
one
and
then
the
the
second
and
third
amendment
the
idea
there
is
sort
of
the
following.
A
If
we're
to
now
say
that
jaywalking
is
no
longer
a
criminal
offense,
it
probably
makes
sense
to
apply
that
to
folks
who
have
not
been
convicted
or
had
their
day
in
court
as
well
as
invalidating
warrants
for
people
who
have
not
yet
gone
to
court
on
their
jaywalking
offense,
so
just
to
make
clear
if
you've
already
been
convicted
of
jaywalking
or
you're
in
the
court
process,
and
there
is
a
warrant-
that's
not
going
to
be
invalidated
because
that
frankly
gets
a
lot
trickier
and
requires
a
lot
more
work
for
the
courts
to
try
to
go
back
and
undo
adjudication.
A
A
Let
me
scroll
through
here
and
see.
If
we
have
any
questions,
I
don't
see
questions
so
I
would
at
this
time,
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
I'd
still
move
to,
amend
and
do
pass.
I
can't
okay,
so
I
have
a
motion
from
vice
chairwin,
a
second
from
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
We
have
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Let
me
scroll
through
to
make
sure
we
have
a
lot
of
folks
on
the
zoom
this
morning.
Okay,
I
don't
see
discussion
so
members,
if
you
could
again
unmute
yourselves.
The
motion
is
to
amend
and
do
pass
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
Okay,
if
anyone
is
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
I
don't
hear
any
nays,
so
the
motion
does
carry
unanimously.
A
I
will
assign
assembly
woman
brown
may
the
floor
statement
for
that
particular
bill
and
if
we
need
to
I'll
assign
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
as
backup
on
the
floor
and
oh
assemblywoman
brown
may
is
here
with
us.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
assemblywoman
and
congratulations
on
getting
your
bill
through
the
first
step
in
this
process.
A
Okay
committee.
Thank
you
for
helping
us
get
through
that
work
session
document.
That
makes
me
feel
good
that
we
are
able
to
get
through
that.
While
we
had
all
of
our
members
here
this
morning.
At
this
time
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
agenda.
We
are
going
to
take
the
bills
slightly
out
of
order,
and
that's
mostly
because
we
have
a
number
of
folks
on
the
zoom
for
one
bill
in
particular,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
we
can
allow
them
to
get
on
with
their
day.
A
Before
I
hand
it
over
for
the
presentation
I'll,
let
committee
members
know
I'm
just
checking
here,
we
do
have
a
couple
of
amendments.
One
of
them
is
listed
as
submitted
by
myself,
and
then
we
have
one
from
judge
pearson,
a
justice
of
the
peace
in
reno,
and
then
there
I
think,
are
a
couple
other
ones
as
well,
but
we'll
get
through
this
hearing
and
we'll
we'll
take
them
as
they
come.
A
So
we
have
a
number
of
folks
on
who
are
going
to
present
this
bill,
and
let
me
just
take
a
quick
look
at
my
list.
Make
sure
I
have
it
accuracy.
Mr
bennett
has
turned
his
camera
on
and
he
is
unmuted
as
well
as
mr
sever.
I
think
there
may
be
others,
but
at
this
time
I'll
hand
it
over
to
mr
bennett,
I
suppose,
to
lead
us
through
this
discussion
of
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
questions.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
and
please
proceed.
J
It
is
my
privilege
to
be
here
today
to
help
lead
the
presentation
of
ab427,
which
suggests,
inter
some
improvements
and
brings
us
up
to
some
federal
regulations
regarding
nevada's
interlock
program,
a
brief
history
before
I
turn
it
over
to
some
of
our
subject
matter.
Experts
as
we
do
have
a
rather
large
coalition
today
to
help
present
this
bill.
J
We
believe
that
the
nevada
interlock
program
is
a
life-saving
tool
in
combating
impaired
driving
here
in
our
great
state,
and
so
as
we
go
through
this
presentation,
you
will
hear
from
representatives
of
the
nevada
department
of
transportation,
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles
and
some
subject
matter.
Experts
from
the
nevada
department
of
public
safety,
as
well
as
well
as
judge
pearson,
as
well
as
you've
heard
so
to
leave
us
off
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
sean
sever
of
the
nevada,
dmv.
K
Thank
you
andrew
good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
committee
members,
sean
sever
from
the
dmv.
Thank
you
for
letting
us
present
ab427
to
you
today.
Sections
of
this
bill
will
simplify
the
dmv
administrative
hearing
processes,
as
well
as
clarify
existing
language
to
help
the
program
be
easy
to
understand
and
be
built
upon
in
the
future.
K
A
quick
summary
of
the
dmv
suggestions
in
the
bill
include
number
one
in
section
four,
which
clearly
separates
a
restricted
license
from
an
ignition
interlock
driving
privilege.
The
edit
definition
introduces
the
concept
of
referring
to
the
specific
privilege
as
an
ignition
interlock
driving
privilege.
K
This
allows
for
future
clarity
when
administered
administering
the
driving
privileges
related
to
driving
under
their
influence.
Offenses
section
5
organizes
the
current
revocation
language
to
allow
for
an
easier
determination
of
rebook,
revocation
length.
Changes
related
to
this
section
are
solely
based
on
organizing
and
structuring,
revocation
links
for
future
use.
K
K
Separation
of
this
privilege
will
allow
for
greater
clarity
of
future
license
and
privileged
privilege
changes.
All
the
requirements
related
to
the
use
of
ignition
interlock
privilege
are
relocated
to
clearly
identify
what
pertains
to
the
specific
driving
privilege.
Section.
13
removes
the
driver's
license,
revocation
for
failing
to
submit
to
a
preliminary
breath
test.
The
dmv
proposes
that
that
change,
because,
as
as
is
currently
written,
the
law
allows
the
revocation
of
a
person's
driver's
license
for
failing
to
submit
to
a
preliminary
non-evidentiary
breath
test.
K
There's
a
big
difference
between
these
two.
The
results
of
preliminary
breath
tests
are
not
admissible
in
court.
They're
only
used
to
see
if
there
is
probable
probable
for
making
an
arrest
for
a
dui
evidentiary
test
results
are
admissible
in
court
and
are
the
results
that
the
court
uses
to
determine
if
a
person
is
.08
or
more
the
way
the
law
is
written
out.
The
preliminary
breath
test
revocation
does
not
require
a
warning
that
your
driver's
license
will
be
revoked.
Evidentiary
tests
require
this
warning.
K
K
K
E
A
E
Thank
you
for
having
me
for
the
record.
My
name
is
danielle
hafeman.
I
am
the
ignition
interlock
coordinator
for
the
office
of
public
safety
and
just
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
background
of
why
we're
suggesting
the
changes
that
we
are
in
our
bill.
E
So
the
ignition
interlock
device
is
an
excellent
tool
to
protect
individuals
and
others
from
driving
while
intoxicated,
but
as
with
any
tool.
It's
only
effective
if
used
properly,
data
shows
that
states
enforced
that
enforce
the
ignition
devices
have
decreased
in
non-alcohol-related
driving
offenses.
E
E
The
only
way
the
driver
can
be
held
accountable
is
if
an
officer
actually
witnesses
a
violation
of
a
person
blowing
into
the
device
for
the
driver
or
the
officer
sees
it
being
tampered
with,
and
they
would
have
to
go
to
court
and
the
judge
not
to
find
him
guilty.
No
other
violations
can
be
addressed
at
this
point.
Nevada
currently
has
12
manufacturers
and
vendors
certified
to
provide
interlock
services
to
the
drivers
and
has
approximately
5
700
devices
in
use
and
without
the
implementations
of
regulations.
E
The
limited
data
that
we
have
indicates
the
devices
themselves
are
working
correct
correctly,
but
the
behavior
by
the
driver
is
not
being
corrected.
For
instance,
as
a
march
28th,
one
driver
in
particular
has
had
an
excess
of
570
failed
tests
and
of
those
two-thirds
or
were
0.08
or
higher.
So
that
shows
us.
E
The
device
does
work,
but
this
gentleman
is
not
stopping
his
behavior
and
another
driver
has
skipped
a
rolling
retest
481
times,
meaning
he
could
be
actively
drinking
and
driving,
and
because
there
are
no
current
no
entity
has
current
jurisdiction
to
enforce
sanctions
or
consequences.
The
drivers
will
become
will
continue
their
reckless
behavior
and
the
department
of
public
safety
has
studied
with
other
state
models,
state
laws
and
regulations
and
obtained
a
baseline
starting
point
to
how
we
would
like
to
build
the
program.
E
E
The
committee
for
intoxication
they
would
still
maintain
the
authority
for
the
preliminary
back
test
and
evidentiary
breath
testing
devices,
because
those
are
done
completely
separate
from
the
interlock
device.
In
the
past.
A
nevada
lab
would
have
to
provide
testing
on
interli
interlock
devices
to
show
that
they
are
suitable
for
certification.
E
E
In
addition
to
this,
it
would
allow
the
department
to
develop
an
actual
ignition
interlock
program
to
collect
revenue
not
only
to
fund
the
program
but
to
provide
funding
for
a
case
management
system
they'll
be
created
to
accurately
monitor
drivers
and
allow
for
on-site
audits
to
manufacture
in
better
locations.
They
will
also
fund
activities
related
to
impaired
driving,
such
as
outreach
programs,
training
and
education
of
the
devices
and
assistive
treatment
options
for
behavior
corrections.
E
A
Thank
you
so
much
and
judge
pearson.
I
welcome
you
to
the
committee,
I'm
sure
you
have
a
busy
day
ahead
of
you.
So
if
you
are
ready.
L
L
For
being
overdressed,
I
have
I'm
doing
an
8,
30
doc
and
a
nine
o'clock
doctor
at
the
same
time,
but
I
really
appreciate
this
opportunity,
chair,
yeager
and
assembly
committee
members,
I'm
addressing
sections
23-26,
which
are
changes
to
our
24
7
sobriety
program
and
by
way
of
introduction.
L
This
is
my
11th
year
on
the
bench
here
at
the
renault
justice
court
for
12
years.
Before
that
I
was
a
deputy
district
attorney,
I
saw
firsthand
the
devastating
effects
of
dui
cases
in
our
community.
I
responded
to
the
scene
of
many
many
far
too
many
dui
fatalities.
I
had
handled
tragic
cases
of
brother
killing
brother
on
the
way
to
his
wedding,
husband,
killing
wife
here
on
vacation
and
this
bill.
L
The
changes
to
the
24
7
program
in
this
bill
are
necessary
to
give
judges
in
this
state
the
the
tools
to
provide
a
pathway
to
success
for
defendants,
because,
quite
frankly,
we
we
all
have
the
same
goal
for
the
most
part,
and
that
is
to
help
defendants
obtain
and
maintain
sobriety
in
simplest
terms.
The
you
know,
the
goal
of
our
criminal
justice
system
is
to
make
sure
the
individuals
don't
come
back.
L
The
best
we
can
and
we
have
learned
in
the
judiciary
to
follow
the
best
practices
in
other
areas
of
behavior
modification,
and
so
what
we
know.
That's
why
we
have
you
know:
problem
solving
courts,
drug
courts
and
dui
courts
and
so
forth.
Is
we
know
that
just
simply
a
punishment
in
and
of
itself
is
not
likely
to
change
the
behavior
of
individuals,
and
so
we
also
know
that
the
the
carrot
works
better
than
the
stick
or
an
incentive
works
better
than
the
sanctions.
L
So
in
this
24
7
program
that
was
developed
in
south
dakota
in
2005,
what
it
does
is
is
when
an
individual
majority
of
individuals
arrested
for
a
dui.
If
it's
a
breath
case,
which
is
the
majority,
then
their
driver's
license
is
revoked
and
they
then
have
difficulty
obviously
getting
to
their
job,
maintaining
their
job,
keeping
their
affordable
housing
that
they
have
maintaining
their
relationships
and
getting
their
kids
to
soccer
practice
or
whatever
it
may
be,
and
so
in
south
dakota.
What
they
said
is
that
look.
L
We
recognize
you
made
a
mistake,
but
we
don't
want
to
ruin
your
life.
So
as
long
as
you
prove
to
us
twice
a
day
that
you're
clean
and
sober,
we'll
give
your
license
back
immediately,
you
can
keep
that
job.
You
can
keep
your
house
and
you
can
keep
taking
your
kids
to
those
important
obligations,
and
so
the
defendants
actually
volunteer
for
it
and
again,
that
is
far
more
successful
when
you
have
individuals
choosing
to
do
something
versus
forcing
them
to
do
something,
so
that
in
and
of
itself
lends
a
lot
greater
success
to
the
program.
L
The
other
thing
that
we've
learned
is
that
that,
in
in
in
correct
that
those
sanctions,
if
you
are
going
to
do
corrections
or
sanctions,
they
are
punishments.
I
is
the
word
we
try
and
get
away
from
that.
They
need
to
be
swift,
they
need
to
be
certain
and
they
need
to
be
fair,
and
so
what
the
24
7
program
does
is
when
an
individual
comes
in
person
and
tests
positive,
it
allows
you
to
address
it
immediately.
L
We
wouldn't,
and
it's
not
effective,
whether
you're,
a
parent,
an
employer
or
a
teacher
or
a
coach.
You
don't
address
something
months
after
that
there
somebody
makes
a
mistake
you're
trying
to
address
it
immediately
to
have
the
best
outcome,
and
so
24
7
allows
that,
because
the
person's
coming
in
person
to
provide
that
test-
and
you
can
immediately
address
it-
whether
that's
through
a
short
period
of
jail
time
or
that's
through
treatment-
increased
testing
whatever
it
may
be.
L
We
have
learned
that
that's
the
most
effective
and
then
it
has
to
be
certain
so
rather
than
defendant
wondering
what's
going
to
happen
if
this,
if
I
do
this
and
testing
those
boundaries
like
we
get
individuals
that
do
whether
it's
our
teenagers
that
test
those
boundaries
or
it's
our
defendants,
we
have
a
clearly
defined.
So
in
my
drug
court,
every
possible
action
you
take.
That's
against
our
rules
has
a
has
a
consequence
and
it's
a
fair
consequence.
The
defendants
agree
to
in
fact
it's
it's
a
contract
and
they
they
say.
Yes,
I
get
it.
L
L
Success
again
is
having
a
healthy
and
happy
lifestyle
that
avoids
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
these
changes
will
allow
judges
to
do
that.
They
also
allow
easy
and
affordable
means
for
these
defendants
to
do
this,
and
so
we've
learned
that
as
well
that
if
you
put
unreasonable
expectations
on
individuals
they're
just
not
going
to
do
it,
and
so
the
breath
test
in
south
dakota
is
a
dollar.
You
come
in
you're
there.
For
really
I
I
visited
it.
L
The
program
in
rapid
city
we
saw
600
people
come
in
and
out
in
and
out
that
morning,
they're
there
for
a
minute
or
two
at
most,
they
pay
their
dollar,
they
do
their
pbt
and
they're
on
their
way.
It's
open
from
5
30
in
in
the
morning
to
8
30
in
the
morning
at
5
30
in
the
evening
day
30
in
the
evening.
L
So
you
know,
people
don't
have
to
come
to
the
court,
find
a
parking
spot,
go
through
security
and
then
go
provide
their
test,
and
so
we
developed
this
location
and
and
the
the
your
body
approved
of
the
the
24
7
program
two
years
ago
with
assembly,
woman
tolls
was
carrying
that
bill
and
now
we
need,
but
unfortunately
it
was
only
applicable
to
second
and
third
time
offenders.
It
was
only
applicable
after
they
were
convicted
and
again
that
that
this
is
not
consistent
with
the
best
practices
of
behavior
modification.
L
We
need
this
very
soon.
We
need
this
ability
to
do
it
as
a
form
of
pre-trial
release
and
we'll
get
these
people
out
of
jail.
Let
them
keep
their
jobs,
help
them
be
successful,
but
keep
our
roadways
safe
by
by
keeping
them
sober
and-
and
it
gives
positive
feedback,
and
that's
another
great
thing
that
I
I
watched
it
in
person.
I
see
it
in
person
at
our
our
location.
L
Somebody
comes
in,
and
tests
clean
and
they're
told
hey
have
a
great
day
thanks
so
much
for
being
here
today
and
testing
clean
and
building
that
positive
relationship
with
law
enforcement
at
this
time
is
incredibly
important
as
well
and
and
the
defendant's
understanding
that
we're
not
all
out
against
them
that
we're
trying
to
help
them
obtain
and
maintain
sobriety
and
keep
their
job
and
and
their
their
livelihood
is
incredibly
important
as
well
for
our
criminal
justice
system.
L
So
those
are
some
of
the
many
reasons
why
I'm
here
today
asking
for
these
amendments
to
our
24
7
program,
so
it
can
be
applicable
to
first-time
offenders
so
that
it
can
be
applicable
right
after
they're
arrested,
so
we
can
get
the
best
positive
result
for
them
and
for
our
community.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
judge
pearson,
appreciate
that
testimony
and
appreciate
all
you're
doing
to
help
offenders
and
also
keep
the
community
safe
and
know
it's
a
lot
of
work.
Those
specialty
courts
take
a
lot
of
personal
investment,
so,
just
on
behalf
of
the
committee
want
to
thank
you
for
the
work
you're
doing.
A
J
Cherry
yeager
for
the
record,
this
is
andrew.
We
do
have
fred
shackle
from
the
nevada
department
of
transportation.
I
don't
know
if
he
has
anything
prepared
or
is
just
here
for
questions.
A
Oh
great,
I
see
that
he
has
turned
his
camera
on,
so
we
will
go
to
him
next
and
I
guess
before
or
as
part
of
I'm
not
sure,
if
you're
going
to
make
remarks.
But
I
wanted
to
know
if
you
could
also
just
address
the
potential
loss
of
federal
funding
or
restriction
of
federal
funding
that
prompted
the
bill
and
I'll
note
for
committee
members.
A
This
was
not
on
nellis
until
about
10
minutes
ago
I
neglected
to
post
this,
but
back
in
november
of
2019,
the
state
department
of
transportation
here
in
the
state
received
a
letter
from
the
u.s
department
of
transportation,
expressing
some
concerns
about
some
changes
we
had
made
in
2019.
That
potentially
would
have
resulted
in
some
restrictions
to
federal
monies
that
we
receive.
A
So
that,
in
fact,
was
the
genesis
of
the
bill
and
why
I
requested
it
as
a
committee
bill,
but,
as
you
can
hear,
we
used
it
to
clean
up
some
other
aspects
of
dui
law
as
well,
which
I
will
be
the
first
to
acknowledge.
This
is
a
complicated
and
technical
area
of
the
statute,
but
I've
probably
said
too
much
now,
so
I
will
go
to
department
of
transportation.
If
you'd
like
to
make
any
remarks,
please.
K
For
the
record
fred
shockle
chief
traffic
safety
engineer
for
ndot
good
morning,
chairman
jaeger
and
fellow
committee
members
ndot,
is
in
support
of
ab427.
K
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
testimony
and
committee.
I
hope
that
clears
up
a
few
things
and
that
letter
is
on
nellis,
it's
quite
long,
but
upon
receiving
that
we
began
to
work
on
what
the
necessary
changes
would
be,
so
that
that
highway
fund
money
wouldn't
be
restricted
in
any
way
that
comes
into
the
state.
So
I
know
we've
gone
through
a
number
of
different
sections
of
the
bill
again.
A
I
know
this
is
a
very
technical
area
of
the
law,
but
I
wanted
to
give
members
a
chance
to
ask
any
questions
of
our
presenters
if
you
have
any
questions
at
this
time.
So
if
you
do
have
questions,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screen
so
that
I
can
see
you
would
appreciate
it,
let
me
scroll
through.
M
Thank
you,
chair
and
chair
being
new
to
the
committee
and
back
to
the
legislature.
Would
it
be
inappropriate
for
someone
to
give
me
a
very
short
summation
of
how
this
program
works?
I'm
confused.
I
thought
it
was
tied
into
the
vehicle.
The
judge
was
talking
about
how
the
people
come
in
and
breathe
there
in
the
locations,
so
I'm
a
little
confused
on
them
process
itself.
If
that
would
be
allowed
by
you
chair.
A
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
assembly,
member,
scott
pearson,
for
the
record,
and
so
yes,
assembly,
member
o'neill.
The
ignition
interlock
is
one
way
to
try
and
make
sure
individuals
don't
drive
under
the
influence
after
they've
been
arrested
for
a
dui,
and
so
that
was
put
in
places
as
terry
yeager
mentioned
in
2017.
L
It
comes
in
at
different
stages.
First,
it
was
just
as
a
form
of
punishment
after
conviction,
and
then
it
was
provided
also
as
an
avenue
to
reinstatement
of
your
driver's
license
on
a
restricted
level.
The
24
7
program
it
all.
I
asked
for
in
2019.
I
might
have
asked
for
it
before.
That
is
an
ore,
because
in
some
circumstances
we
we
do
need
in-person
testing.
L
If
it's
available,
it's
not
now
that
that
24
7
program's
not
going
to
be
available
across
the
state
for
everybody,
and
so
the
interlock
is,
is
an
important
tool
for
those
individuals
or
it
may
be
that
a
judge
has
somebody
test
in
person
for
a
period
of
time
and
then
says:
you've
earned
the
right
to
just
test
in
your
car
by
interlock.
We
want
that
flexibility,
but
a
lot
of
our
individuals
about
half
of
our
dui
defendants
are
also
using
control
substances
and
there's
no
way
for
the
interlock
to
test
for
controlled
substances.
L
So
we
need
that
in-person
urinalysis
testing
for
those
individuals,
and
so
they
work
in
they
can
work
in
conjunction.
They
can
work
both
one
and
then
the
other
or
one
instead
of
the
other
and
so
they're
not
opposed
to
each
other
they're.
L
Both
recognized
best
practices
they're
both
recognized
by
nitsa,
with
regards
to
what
you
heard
section,
164,
compliance
which
also,
in
addition
to
to
having
some
sentencing
requirements
on
duis,
also
has
requirements
with
regards
to
driver's
license
on
repeat
offenders
and
the
only
way
you
get
you're
allowed
to
deviate
from
the
one
year.
A
mandatory
suspension
on
a
dui
conviction
for
a
second
offense
is,
if
you
have
interlock
or
24
7.,
and
so
they're,
both
effective
tools,
they're,
both
validated
in
studies,
and
they
can
work
again
in
conjunction
with
each
other.
L
We
just
want
to
give
the
the
judges
of
this
state
and
the
defendants,
the
participants
in
the
state
that
the
most
available
tools
that
are
validated
in
order
for
them
to
be
successful
and
keep
our
roadways
safe.
M
M
K
It,
oh
yes,
thank
you
for
the
question
sean
sever
from
the
dmv.
I
do
have
two
people
on
the
zoom
call
that
can
help
answer
questions.
One
is
zach
cord
from
the
dmv
he's
our
subject
matter
expert
on
this
and
then
also
our
administrative
law
judge
tom
connor.
So
if
you
one
of
you
guys,
could
answer
that,
for
me,
that'd
be
great.
M
Morning
this
is
tom,
connor
chief
administrative
law
judge
for
the
department.
One
of
the
concerns
that
came
out
of
the
the
original
bill
when
it
passed
in
2017
is
there
was
conflicting
language
in
the
statute.
M
A
person
was
required
to
have
their
driver's
license
revoked
in
one
part
of
the
statute
and
another
part
of
the
statute
said
the
person
could
begin
driving
again
if
they
installed
a
breath.
Interlock.
M
Well,
a
revocation
means
the
loss
of
your
privilege
to
drive,
so
we
had
statutes
that
were
in
effect
conflicting
with
each
other.
So
we
had
language
in
the
statute
originally,
which
pertained
to
traditional
restricted
drivers
licenses,
meaning
that
those
licenses
were
limited
to
the
time
and
the
purpose
that
the
person
was
using
for,
for
example,
a
person
with
a
restricted
license
could
drive
to
work
and
then,
if
they
were
not
working,
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
drive.
M
M
Was
the
language
of
the
breath
interlock
was
placed
inside
that
restricted
driver's
license
section
of
the
statute
and
what
that
did
was
created
sort
of
a
kind
of
confusion
as
to
what
a
restricted
driver's
license
was
for,
and
I
I
explained
to
people
several
times
they
asked
questions
about
this.
Well,
if
I
get
a
restricted,
if
I
get
a
breath
interlock,
does
that
mean
I
can
only
drive
to
work
with
it?
No,
you
can
drive
anytime.
You
want
to
as
long
as
you
test,
you
don't
have
any
blood
alkaline,
your
blood.
M
So
the
reason
we
want
to
make
these
changes
is
to
make
it
clear
that
we
have
the
authority
that
if
a
person
is
revoked,
that
we
can
reinstate
them
with
a
breath
interlock
and
then
also
to
provide
for
in
a
separate
section,
the
restriction,
the
traditional
restricted
driver's
license
and
and
those
would
apply
to
people
who
have
license
revocations
or
suspensions
that
are
not
dui
related.
For
example,
if
you
have
a
point
violation
suspension,
you
can
certainly
get
a
restricted
driver's
license,
but
it's
not
restricted
by
breath.
Interlock.
M
Obviously
so
we
wanted
to
separate
the
two
make
it
clear
that
there
was
a
a
specific
provision
for
restricted
licensing,
the
traditional
restricted
licensing,
and
then
this
breath
interlock
privilege
to
drive,
which
is
which
was
which
will
currently
be
defined
in
statute
as
the
ability
to
drive
with.
As
long
as
you
have
a
breath,
interlock
in
your
vehicle
and
thus
for
dui.
Only.
A
Thank
you,
mr
connor
and
assemblyman
o'neill.
Let
me
ask
because
I
I
think
you
may
have
been
asking
about
section
11
of
the
bill,
which
was
the
establishment
of
the.
So
I
appreciate
that
information,
mr
cotter,
because
before
we
take
that
next
question
I
mean
this
was
one
of
the
confusions
that
resulted
as
again.
This
is
a
very
technical
area
of
law,
but
there
was
real
confusion
about
when
you
had
to
get
a
breath
interlock
device
when
you
had
to
get
a
restricted
license.
A
What
kind
of
credit
you
got
towards
your
sentence
when
you
got
that
breath
interlock
device?
So
a
lot
of
what
you
see
here
is
trying
to
make
that
very
clear
in
statute.
So
offenders
are
getting
accurate
advice
from
their
lawyers
and
they're
being
told
accurately
by
our
state
agencies
about
what
their
options
are
when
they
have
a
dui.
But
I
think
the
question
that
assemblyman
o'neill
was
asking
pertains
to
essentially
section
11
of
the
bill.
That
requires
the
depart.
A
J
Correct
chair,
andrew
bennett
for
the
record
to
briefly
answer
this
question.
Currently,
there
is
no
mechanism
for
the
department
of
public
safety
to
collect
funds
through
this
program.
Yes,
this
program
has
been
operating
since
2017,
but
it
is
a
national
best
practice
that
the
agency
that
holds
the
the
ability
to
implement
this
program
is
usually
one
that
that
collects
funds,
and
so
this
language
specifically
allows
us
to
adapt
that
policy
to
be
able
to
collect
funds
on
behalf
of
this
program
to
self-sustain
this
program
as.
A
Well
and
I'll
just
ask
a
follow-up
on
that.
If
I
could,
mr
bennett,
I
I
think
we
might
have
some
representatives
from
ignition
interlock
programs,
but
have
you
had
discussions
with
them
about
this
particular
provision
and
if
so,
are
you
at
liberty
to
state
what
their
feelings
might
be
about
establishing
the
program
as
envisioned
in
section
11.
J
J
We
will
be
sure
that
they
pass
that
along
and
if
they
don't,
we
will
pass
that
along
for
them,
but
it
is
one
where
we
do
believe
that
we
we
have
the
full
support
of
you
know,
making
sure
and
again
the
simplicity
of
this
bill
boils
down
to
two
points.
Number
one
is
making
the
necessary
changes
to.
You
know,
meet
the
federal
requirements
and
to
make
sure
that
we
improve
existing
programs
and
so
between
the
letter
of
support,
and
that
brief
explanation.
I
hope
that
that
answers
the
question.
M
Yeah,
chad,
I
guess,
if
I
may,
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
really
is
so
how
have
we
been
paying
for
this?
Has
this
been
coming
out
of
highway
funds
for
the
last
couple
years
or
we've
been
getting
money?
Where
have
they
been
going?
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
the
two-thirds
part
where
it's
been
successful.
M
I
like
the
program,
I
think
it's
a
great
program.
Actually
I
want
to
support
the
bill,
I'm
just
confused
over.
How
have
we
been
paying
for
it
and
now
are
the
offenders
finally
paying
for
it
themselves
for
that
privilege
and
I'm
sorry
for
taking
all
the
time
chair.
I
know
other
people
have
questions
so.
J
Andrew
bennett
for
the
record
from
the
office
traffic
safety,
I
was
asked
to
pinch
it
late
yesterday,
and
so
I'm
gonna
try
to
pass
this
off
to
either
daniel
hafeman
from
our
office
or
possibly
the
dmv,
but
just
to
clarify
how
if
any
funding
has
been
collected.
How
has
it
been
collected
so
far.
E
Thank
you
andrew
for
the
record.
This
is
danielle
hickman
with
office
of
traffic
safety.
Apparently
we
don't
collect
any
fees
for
interlock
devices
at
all.
The
only
people
that
collected
these
are
the
vendors
of
the
manufacturer
and
that's
from
installation
or
violation
from
the
offenders,
and
we
want
to
establish
this
program
and
and
get
it
self-sustained
to
assist
with
people
that
cannot
afford
it
or
that
need
help
with
other
types
of
treatment.
E
A
Out
greatly
it
it's
totally
fine
assemblyman
o'neill,
and
I
did
have
a
question
asked
of
me
that
I
wanted
to
address,
and
that
question
was
this
issue
of
the
funding
that
could
be
at
loss.
If
we
don't
make
these
corrections
and
I'll
clarify,
it
was
never
that
nevada
was
going
to
lose
funding,
but
we
receive
various
funds
from
the
federal
government,
and
some
of
those
funds
are
restricted
and
some
of
them
are
not.
A
So
if
we
don't
make
the
changes
in
this
bill
to
get
us
in
compliance
with
the
federal
government,
it
would
essentially
restrict
about
eight
million
dollars
of
funding.
So
that's
funding
we
receive
now
and
the
state
can
basically
use
for
construction
projects
and
and
the
like.
If
we,
if
we
don't
pass
these
changes,
that
money
would
have
to
be
diverted
to
program
education,
programs
or
public
service
programs
to
combat
impaired
driving.
A
So
the
issue
was
one
of
restriction
of
about
eight
million
dollars
which
obviously
raised
some
red
flags,
because
it's
better
for
the
state
to
have
discretion
about
how
to
spend
that
money.
So
that's
essentially
what
we're
talking
about,
I
believe,
on
an
annual
basis,
would
be
about
eight
million
dollars.
So
hopefully
that
makes
a
little
bit
of
a
clearer
record.
I
don't
think
the
letter
on
nellis
has
an
amount,
but
through
my
discussions,
that's
what
we
we
learned
was
at
stake.
K
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
mr
sieber,
and
all
those
from
the
department
of
transportation
and
public
safety.
Just
a
quick
question.
There
was
a
mention
of
fees
to
be
collected
from
the
vendors
and
not
from
those
who
are
in
the
program.
Could
you
please
expand
upon
a
couple
things
like
if
a
person
is
in
the
program
just
an
average
hookup
fee?
K
I
think
I
missed
that
if
you
said
it
earlier
and
what
portion
of
the
feed
that
the
person
in
the
program
pays,
are
you
looking
to
collect
from
the
vendor?
K
My
concern
would
be
that
they
might
increase
the
the
hookup
fee
in
order
to
now
pay
a
fee
to
the
dmv
which
might
make
it
inaccessible
for
some
people
to
participate.
E
Yes,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
danielle
hafeman
officer
traffic
safety.
We
are
going
to
be
charging
only
20
per
installation
and
right
now,
one
of
the
biggest
issues
with
the
vendors
is
they
can
charge
anywhere
from
eighty
dollars
to
two
hundred
dollars
per
installation
and
there's
no
way
to
govern
that.
A
I
don't
see
additional
questions
before
we
move
on
to
testimony,
though
I
did
want
to
let
committee
members
know
I
think,
we'll
we
may
hear
some
supportive,
some
opposition
tests
buddy,
I'm
not
sure,
but
this
is
still
a
little
bit
of
a
work
in
progress
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
we
make
the
the
necessary
corrections
so
that
the
federal
government
doesn't
restrict
our
funds.
A
So
I
will
just
let
you
know
that
we're
still
working
on
some
of
these
more
technical
provisions
of
what
we
can
put
in
here
and
what
we
can't
so
with
that
being
said,
I
will
now
go
to
testimony
for
our
presenters.
Thank
you
and
if
you
wouldn't
mind
just
standing
by
for
a
little
bit,
we'll
have
a
chance
to
take
some
testimony
and
then
we'll
have
some
wrap-up
comments.
So
at
this
time
I'll
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
427.
A
A
N
N
D
A
N
D
But
we
want
to
thank
the
bill's
proponents
for
meeting
with
us
yesterday
and
we
believe
we
can
ultimately
come
to
agreement.
Nacj
supports
a
number
of
the
changes
made
in
this
bill.
In
addition,
there
are
a
number
of
other
changes
that
we
appreciate
are
necessary
for
federal
funding,
and
so
we
don't
oppose
those,
even
if
we
don't
love
them.
D
Unfortunately,
we
do
have
some
concerns
that
put
us
in
opposition
for
now.
First,
the
bill
is
currently
drafted
requires
interlock
devices
for
duis
that
don't
involve
alcohol,
even
though
interlock
devices
can't
detect
when
someone
is
intoxicated
from
marijuana
or
other
drugs.
This
has
no
benefit
to
public
safety.
D
D
Third,
we
share
the
concerns
reflected
in
judge
pearson's
amendment
about
the
language
regarding
24
7
sobriety
testing.
Again,
nacj
met
with
the
bill's
proponents
last
night
and
had
a
productive
conversation
with
them,
which
we
are
thankful.
Ultimately,
while
we're
here
in
opposition.
In
order
to
put
our
concerns
on
the
record,
we
think
we
can
get
to
agreement,
but
we
do
not
object
to
the
committee
moving
the
bill
forward.
While
we
continue
to
work
on
these
issues.
Thank.
A
N
D
D
As
for
meeting
with
us
yesterday
to
discuss
our
concerns,
we
appreciate
the
cleanup
language
to
help
ensure
that
the
stats
you
do
not
contradict
each
other
as
assemblyman
yeager
indicated.
This
is
a
very
complicated
section
of
the
law,
where,
unfortunately,
there's
been
a
lot
of
confusion
due
to
only
portions
of
the
law
being
changed,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
issues
in
terms
of
what
we
can
actually
tell
to
our
clients
and,
what's
being
done
in
practice,
versus
what
other
portions
of
the
statutes
state.
So
we
agree
with
making
those
technical
changes.
D
N
A
A
N
A
J
Thank
you,
cherry
yeager,
andrew
bennett,
for
the
record
from
the
office
of
traffic
safety.
I
want
to
thank
the
chair,
the
vice
chair
and
the
members
of
this
committee
for
allowing
us
to
spend
a
few
moments
this
morning
to
talk
about
this
vitally
important
public
safety
program
that
we
have
in
place
again,
just
to
clarify
you
know
the
intent.
The
intention
of
this
bill
is
to
improve
the
existing
program
and
align
with
federal
requirements.
J
We
have
had
productive
conversations
over
the
last
few
days
and
we
hope
that
we
are
able
to
move
this
bill
forward,
as
we
do
believe
with
the
the
amendments
that
have
been
discussed,
that
we
can
make
sure
and
ensure
that
the
public
safety
and
traffic
safety
is
at
the
top
of
mind.
I
always
like
to
conclude
with
the
mission
statement
of
the
office
traffic
safety,
which
is
to
eliminate
serious
injuries
and
fatalities.
J
So
everyone
arrives
home
safely
and
we
are
extremely
cautious
when
we
propose
legislation
and
every
time
that
we
do,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
in
line
with
that
mission,
because
lives
are
on
the
line,
and
we
thank
you
for
the
time.
This
morning-
and
we
hope
that
you
have
a
great
rest
of
your
day,.
L
Just
briefly
because
I
failed
and
for
the
record
scott
pearson,
I
failed
to
mention
the
amendment
that
I
have
proposed
to
av427.
I
appreciate
the
other
speakers
making
that
point
currently
as
written.
It
would
only
allow
in-person
testing
twice
a
day
at
sober
low
24
location
and
that
that
is
proved
unrealistic
in
south
dakota
and
the
other
states
have
had
the
program.
It's
unrealistic.
I
can
tell
you
as
a
judge
for
every
person.
L
It
is
the
goal
about
75
of
the
people
in
south
dakota
do
test
in
person
twice
a
day,
but
there
are
some
individuals
who
cannot,
and
there
is
technology
like
an
interlock
that
allows
them
to
test
remotely
or
a
handheld
device
or
an
ankle
bracelet,
and
so
we
need
that
amendment
in
order
to
make
sure,
quite
frankly
that
that
we
provide
equal
opportunity
and
equal
protection
for
all
individuals
and
defendants,
and
we
have
a
fair
and
effective
program
so
again
strongly
support
ab4
27,
I'm
so
thankful
to
chairman
yeager
and
the
stakeholders
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
improve
this
program,
and
I
I
would
encourage
you
not
only
to
pass
it,
but
then
to
also
include
that
amendment
so
that
it's
an
effective
program.
A
Thank
you
so
much
judge
pearson
and
thank
you
to
the
rest
of
our
folks
who
are
here
to
present
and
to
answer
questions.
We
appreciate
your
time
and
hope
you
have
a
good
rest
of
the
morning.
You
might
want
to
stick
around
for
just
a
second,
because
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
427,
but
committee,
given
that
it
is
deadline
week.
I
would
like
to
move
this
bill
out
of
committee
this
morning
in
the
following
fashion.
A
We
have
actually
three
different
proposed
amendments
that
are
up
on
nellis.
One
is
from
me
one
is
from
judge
pearson.
Then
we
have
another
one
from
the
board
of
director
coalition
of
ignition
interlock
manufacturers,
which
seems
to
align
pretty
closely
with
what
judge
pearson
was
requesting.
So
I
would
like
to
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
with
all
three
of
those
amendments
with
the
qualifier
that
I'll
work
with
legal
counsel
to
figure
out
if
there's
anything
in
there.
A
That
would
be
problematic
as
far
as
federal
funding
and
if
that's
the
case,
it
probably
will
not
make
it
into
the
amendment.
But
we
want
to
do
as
much
as
we
can
without
having
eight
million
dollars
restricted.
So
at
this
time
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
as
stated
so.
D
A
A
Let
me
scroll
the
screen
to
assemblyman
liquor.
M
A
A
I
think
we
we
have
had
that
discussion
in
the
past,
that
you
know
the
technology
right
now
doesn't
allow
a
breath
interlock
device
to
do
anything
other
than
test
for
alcohol,
though
I'm
hopeful
that,
with
advent
of
new
technologies,
perhaps
that
can
be
augmented,
but
I'm
certainly
committed
to
take
a
look
at
the
issue
and
see
if
we
can
make
that
change.
I
just
don't
know
if
we
can
without
restricting
the
federal
money.
So
that
would
be
the
issue
there,
but
you've
got
my
word
that
I'll
work
on
that.
N
Yes,
and
just.
B
A
note
I
know
that
I
like
the
bill,
I
will
vote
yes
out
of
committee
and
just
reserving
the
right
to
a
change,
keep
you
informed
and
I
believe
that's
true
for
my
colleagues
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
M
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
assemblyman,
o'neill
and
we'll
remind
members
to
it.
Things
are
moving
really
fast
this
week.
So
obviously
I
understand
the
need
to
actually
see
amendments
and
just
would
request
that
members.
Let
me
know
if
they
change
the
vote
between
now
and
the
floor
vote,
which
will
happen
sometime
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
most
likely
unless
the
bill
gets
scooped
up
by
ways
and
means,
then
it
could
be
significantly
longer
into
session.
A
F
A
Thank
you,
so
I
think
right
now
we
just
had
assemblyman
wheeler
as
an
a
that
means.
The
motion
does
carry
I'll
note
that
vice
chair
win
had
to
step
out,
so
she
was
not
present
for
the
vote,
but
it
does
carry
regardless
based
on
who
voted,
and
I
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
on
that.
One
and
and
again
committee
members
will
wait
to
see
what
that
amendment
looks
like,
and
you
have
my
commitment
that
we'll
we'll
try
to
get
this
as
right
as
possible
before
the
floor
vote.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
assemblyman
wheeler,
okay,
so
we've
got
that
bill
processed
out
again.
Thank
you
to
the
committee
to
the
presenters
this
morning
for
being
here
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
the
work
with
you,
so
committee
we're
going
to
move
along
on
our
agenda
and
I'm
going
to
take
the
second
bill
on
the
agenda
next,
because
I
think
it'll
be
a
little
bit
quicker
than
the
first
bill.
So
again
just
want
to
thank
those
who
are
waiting
patiently
on
the
zoom.
A
We
are
going
to
get
to
all
of
the
bills
on
the
agenda
this
morning,
just
going
to
take
us
a
little
bit
of
time.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
404
assembly
bill
404
revises
provisions
relating
to
orders
for
protection
against
domestic
violence,
and,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
I
think
we
have
our
own
assemblywoman
billbray
axelrod
to
make
some
introductory
remarks,
as
well
as
miss
bortolin
and
miss
mcdonald,
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
some
questions.
P
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
shannon
bilbray
axelrod
representing
district
34.
with
me
today,
to
help
walk
through
ab404
is
bailey
bortolin,
representing
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers.
We
also
have
two
attorneys
from
legal
aid
of
southern
nevada
on
the
zoo.
Should
you
have
any
questions
april,
greene
directing
attorney
for
the
family,
justice
project
and
stephanie
mcdonald,
directing
attorney
for
the
family
law
self
help
center
domestic
violence
affects
people
in
every
community,
regardless
of
economic
status,
age,
race,
gender,
sexual
orientation,
religion
or
nationality.
P
P
Victims
of
domestic
violence
are
often
cut
off
from
their
family
and
friends
by
their
abuser
and
made
to
feel
completely
alone.
It
is
vitally
important
that
we
put
in
place
structures
to
protect
and
support
victims.
Studies
show
that
victims
of
abuse
are
often
at
the
greatest
risk
when
they
attempt
to
flee
their
abusers.
P
P
First,
it
ensures
that
victims
of
domestic
violence
have
equal
access
to
protection
orders
in
nevada's
court
system
by
adding
clear
jurisdictional
statutes
where
the
law
is
currently
silent.
Without
this
change,
there
can
be
inconsistencies
in
different
courtrooms
or
different
parts
of
the
state.
As
to
when
a
victim
fact,
pattern
is
eligible
for
a
protection
order.
P
The
reality
is
victims
of
domestic
violence
cannot
often
not
stay
put
where
they
are
when
they
are
fleeing
violence.
Nevada
is
a
very
transient
state
and
our
domestic
violence
stats
reflect
that.
It
makes
sense
and
is
good
policy
to
allow
victims
who
are
here
to
access
help
by
applying
help
here
applying
for
those
protection
orders.
P
P
The
last
thing
we
want
and
what
we
have
unfortunately
seen
in
the
past-
are
victims
filing
protection
orders
seeking
protection,
but
instead
of
having
that
piece
of
paper
in,
but
instead
having
that
piece
of
paper
inform
a
dangerous
party
of
their
new
address.
Sadly,
victims
of
domestic
violence
have
died
from
their
addresses
being
disclosed
in
this
manner.
The
language
of
the
bill
is
how
the
legal
system
is
navigating
this
difficult
situation
and
will
ensure
consistency
across
the
board.
Q
Thank
you
so
much
billy
bordelin
for
the
record,
representing
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers
good
morning,
it's
nice
to
see
you
all
again
and
thank
you
to
assembly
and
bilbray
axelrod
for
helping
us
with
this
bill.
As
she
said,
it
really
just
does
two
things
so
for
a
very
quick
walk
through
in
the
interest
of
time
section.
One
is
where
we
have
put
that
jurisdictional
language.
Q
That
makes
it
clear
when
someone
has
jurisdiction
to
apply
for
a
protection
order
in
nevada,
and
I
would
point
out
that
I
have
submitted
on
nellis
an
american
bar
association
chart
that
is
pretty
outdated.
It's
from
2009,
and
it
shows
that
way
back
in
2009
over
30
states
already
had
this
language
that
is
currently
missing
from
our
laws
that
doesn't
allow
someone
who
came
to
nevada
because
they
are
fleeing
that
domestic
violence
to
apply.
Q
I
would
say,
the
law
is
somewhat
silent,
so
some
judges
are
allowing
it
in
practice
and
other
judges
aren't
allowing
it
in
practice.
So
we
thought
it
time
to
make
that
clear
and
consistent
and
then
section
three
or
yes,
section
three
is
that
address
confidentiality,
language
and,
as
the
assemblywoman
said,
this
is
reflecting
what
we
are
doing.
Q
That
makes
it
clear
when
someone
is
able
to
withhold
their
address.
If
the
adverse
party
already
knows
your
address,
you
should
not
be
withholding
it.
It's
if
it's
truly
a
safety
concern
that
you
do
not
want
it
disclosed,
and
I
would
add
that
that
is
a
difficult
balancing
act
and
we
do
not
advise
people
to
withhold
their
address
unless
absolutely
necessary.
Q
So
this
is
not
a
heavily
used
situation
and
we
are
not
advocating
that
more
people
should
withhold,
but
in
those
truly
dire
circumstances
we
don't
want
the
protection
order
to
be
the
thing
that
makes
someone's
situation
more
dangerous
because
it
discloses
that
information
so
that
statutory
language
does
reflect
what
we
are
doing
in
practice
as
a
legal
system.
So
with
that,
we
are
available
for
questions.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
guess
it's
actually
more
of
a
statement
than
a
question.
I
wanted
to
thank
the
assembly
woman
and
for
bringing
this
through
the
committee
on
just
judiciary.
This
is
long
overdue,
long
needed.
I
you
know.
I've
actually
seen
this
in
in
action
where
people
have
moved
to
my
area
to
get
away
from
someone
and
then
have
to
refile
again,
and
it's
just
ridiculous.
So
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
vote
this
thing
out.
A
If
so,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screen
and
let
me
know,
I
don't
see
questions,
let
me
just
ask
a
quick
one
for
legislative
intent
in
section
one
of
the
bill.
It
talks
about
an
applicant
somewhere,
an
applicant
might
be
temporarily
located
and
I
just
wondered
if
you
give
us
a
couple
of
examples
of
when
that
provision
might
come
into
play.
Q
Sure
bailey
bortlin
for
the
record-
and
I
will
let
april
green,
speak
to
this
as
well
who
is
on,
but
I
think,
for
statutory
choice
languages.
Q
Do
you
know
that
this
is
where
you're
going
to
stay
long-term
and
should
that
be
a
barrier
to
whether
or
not
you
feel
that
you
are
safe
in
this
moment
and
need
this
protection
order,
but
april,
do
you
want
to
speak
to
that
as
well?.
O
Sure
so,
in
fact,
I
april
green
with
legal
aid
center.
I
I
practice
in
tpo
court
regularly,
as
well
as
the
other
five
attorneys
practicing
family
law
and
legally
at
legal
aid
in
las
vegas.
So
I
had
a
case
where
parties
had
lived
in
las
vegas
for
a
good
part
of
their
short
marriage
and
then
moved
to
arizona
for
a
few
months.
O
Domestic
violence
had
occurred
against
the
applicant
in
both
states,
but
the
last
incident
was
serious,
precipitated
the
application
for
the
tpo
but
occurred
in
arizona
and
having
no,
where
to
stay.
No
contacts,
no
family
in
arizona,
client
packed
up
the
car
took
the
baby
drove
home
to
las
vegas,
where
her
mother
lived
and
applied
for
the
tpo
here
in
las
vegas.
O
Ironically,
they
gave
her
the
initial
tpo,
but
at
the
extension
hearing,
the
hearing
master
gleaned
that
some
of
the
violence
happened
in
arizona
and
even
though
there
was
also
violence
that
happened
in
nevada,
he
denied
the
tpo
on
jurisdictional
grounds,
because
the
violence
that
made
her
apply
for
the
tpo
happened
out
of
state
now,
so
believing
that
she
was
in
serious
danger,
this
particular
client
did
go
to
arizona
at
that
point
to
apply
for
a
protection
order
and
she
was
denied
because
she
was
no
longer
a
resident
of
nevada,
so
she
was
not
able
to
get
a
tpo
in
either
state
and
that's
part
of
the
confusion
and
the
trouble
that
people
who
seriously
need
these
kinds
of
protections
cannot
get
when
there
are
ambiguities
and
confusion
in
the
law.
O
Now
this
particular
applicant,
ironically,
is
still
in
las
vegas.
Las
vegas
is
her
home.
She
was
not
able
to
get
the
help
from
the
the
courts
here
and
not
long
after
all
of
this
happened,
the
her
ex-husband,
who
was
the
applicant
in
the
tpo
case,
actually
killed
someone
in
nevada.
O
I
believe
that
he
was
exonerated
because
of
a
self-defense
allegation,
but
I
do
think
this
speaks
to
that
the
person's
ability
to
to
be
violent
and
engaged
in
violence-
and
she
was
probably
well
founded
in
her
fear
of
her
husband
and
I
haven't
practiced
in
our
tpo
court
for
over
18
years.
O
Protection
orders
are
entitled
to
full
faith
and
credit
all
over
the
united
states
and
and
as
bailly
said,
other
states
have
long
ago
adopted
this,
and
I
feel,
like
nevada
is
uniquely
situated
as
far
as
domestic
violence.
When
you
compare
the
statistics,
for
instance,
between
2004
and
18
2018,
we
were
number
one
for
domestic
violence:
homicides
against
women,
we're
almost
always
in
the
top
ten
and
usually
in
the
top
five,
and
I
really
think
if
somebody
did
the
math
on
this,
we
could
be
considered
numerically.
The
number
one
state
for
domestic
violence,
homicides
and
incidences.
O
Safeness
has
given
statistics
recently
that
there
was
a
76
spike
in
calls
during
the
pandemic.
Their
shelter
is
100
percent
occupied,
and
it
usually
is.
This
is
a
big
issue
here,
we're
the
14th
highest
state
as
far
as
gun
usage
of
guns
in
the
country
gun
rates
in
the
country,
tpo
court,
literally
in
clark
county
hears
thousands
of
cases
a
couple
of
thousands
of
cases
every
month.
I'm
sure
stephanie
can
speak
to
this
and
sexual
trafficking
and
the
legal
sex
trade
business
fuels
the
illegal
sex
trade
business.
O
We
made
the
list
of
the
dirty
dozen,
and
all
of
these
things
are
interrelated,
so
I
just
feel
like
our
our
laws
should
be.
Non-Ambiguous
should
be
very
clear
and
and
bent
towards
safety
of
victims
and
children.
We
don't
want
to
have
a
situation
where
we
are
coming
up
with
all
kinds
of
different
decisions
and
making
these
protection
order
determinations
because
the
law
is
ambiguous,
so
we
really
need
this
change.
I
forgot
to
say
good
morning
to
the
chair
committee,
staff
and
other
guests,
I'm
happy
to
be
here.
O
I
feel
very
passionate
about
this
because
I
have
represented
people
who
have
been
denied
protection
orders
arbitrarily
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
because
clearly,
tpo
court
is
a
specialty
type
court
with
subject
matter
jurisdiction
if
there
were
challenges
to
jurisdiction.
Obviously
the
court
has
the
wherewithal
to
address
those,
but
that
should
not
stop
the
court
from
being
able
to
grant
protection
orders
to
domestic
violence,
victims
who
are
present
in
our
state
and
need
protection.
O
A
Thank
you
miss
green,
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you
do
in
getting
domestic
violence
protection
orders.
I
know
that's
really
emotional
work,
but
is
really
really
important
work,
and
so
we,
just
as
a
committee,
want
to
thank
you
for
that
work
and
we
wish
you
were
not
so
busy,
but
hopefully
this
will
help
in
this
process
and
thank
you
for
answering
the
question
about
temporarily
located
with
that
arizona,
nevada
example.
I
think
that
it
really
illustrates
the
problem
we're
trying
to
fix
in
assembly
bill
404.
A
O
I
Thank
you
chair
and
I'm
I'm
sorry
if
this
was
covered
and-
and
so
please
tell
me
if
it
was-
I
had
to
step
out
for
a
moment,
but
I
just
want
to
just
clear
confirm
a
couple
of
things.
So
I
I
understand
the
jurisdictional
issue.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
that
those
tpos
will
not
grant
any
type
of
jurisdiction
for
any
other
domestic
case,
including
custody,
even
if
there's
a
temporary
order
as
part
of
the
tpo.
Q
Haley
borderlin
for
the
record,
yes,
assembly,
woman,
that
is
correct.
It
isn't
nrs
33,
which
is
only
the
protection
orders.
Okay,
so
it
will
not
apply
outside
of
that
situation.
I
Great,
thank
you
and
then
also
with
the
the
confidential
address.
I
I
I
support
that.
I
understand
that,
but
I
what
happens
I
mean
we
could
theoretically
have
an
issue
where,
if
there
does
need
to
be
a
domestic
case
and
the
the
adverse
party
who
would
be
the
plaintiff
in
the
domestic
case
wouldn't
have
an
address
to
serve
so
theoretically,
you
could
have
someone
the
adverse
party
coming
into
court
being
served
coming
into
court,
but
not
being
able
to
serve
for
the
domestic
case.
I
Is
there
any
way
to
do
service
through
the
courts
or
something
like
that,
so
that
that
domestic
complaint
can
be
served
on
the
defendant?
In
the
domestic
case,
who's?
The?
Who
is
the
movement
in
the
protective
order
case.
B
Thank
you
absolutely
stephanie,
mcdonald,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
all
for
the
time
today
in
hearing
our
bill
it
it
does
not
allow
again,
as
bailly
kind
of
alluded
to
earlier.
This
just
applies
to
the
protection
order
cases.
It
would
not
apply
to
domestic
cases
where
litigants
are
required
to
disclose
contact
information.
B
It
does
present
issues
with
service
in
that
domestic
case,
where
the
parties
are
responsible
for
serving
one
another.
However,
there
are
a
couple
of
options
people
can
use
within
the
domestic
case.
The
first
is
they
don't
have
to
provide
a
residential
address.
They
simply
have
to
provide
a
mailing
address,
so
possibly
they
have
a
po
box
that
would
be
acceptable,
assuming
we're
not
needing
to
do
personal
service.
Of
course,
most
services
done
by
mail
after
the
initial
complaint
and
summons,
but
generally
we're
suggesting
either
obtain
a
po
box.
B
So
your
residence
is
still
protected,
possibly
provide
a
friend
or
family
member's
address.
If
there's
somebody
out
there
who
is
not
opposed
to
disclosing
their
address
for
service
purposes
or
there's.
Also,
the
state's
confidential
address
program
in
which
a
victim
of
domestic
violence
can
get
a
confidential
address
through
an
advocate.
A
domestic
violence
advocate
that
can
be
used
for
service
purposes
as
well,
which
gives
them
a
fictitious
address
to
use
for
legal
and
other
purposes
it
does
not.
B
It
still
creates
the
issue
of
documents
that
need
to
be
personally
served,
in
which
case
maybe
there
will
be
another
hearing,
in
which
case
people
can
be
served
on
the
record
in
open
court.
People
don't
have
to
be
served
at
a
home
address,
so
there
are.
There
are
other
ways
to
get
around
that,
but
it
does
not
protect
their
address
in
the
domestic
case.
They
will
still
be
responsible
for
service
in
that
arena.
I
Thank
you
and
and
yeah.
I
guess
I
I
am
concerned
with
the
the
concept
of
someone
who
is.
One
party
is
getting
the
benefit
of
the
court
for
and
being
able
to
come
to
the
court
and
and
have
issues
addressed
and
the
other
party
isn't
because
of
that
initial
service.
That
does
need
to
be
in
person,
especially
now
that
we
are
doing
so
many
hearings
on
online
over
the
over
the
different
apps
and
so,
for
instance,
blue
jeans
and
clark
county.
I
A
I
think
I
have
you
all
on
one
screen.
Finally,
that's
nice.
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
thank
you
to
our
presenters,
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment.
While
we
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
at
this
time,
I'll
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
404,
we
did
hear
enthusiastic
supportive
testimony
from
miss
green
as
part
of
the
presentation
and
again
want
to
thank
her
for
her
work
in
this
area.
Is
there
anybody
else
on
the
zoom
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
assemblyville
404?
N
N
D
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
serena
evans
s-e-r-e-n-a-e-b-a-n-s
and
I'm
the
policy
specialist
for
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
First,
I
want
to
give
a
big
huge
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
like
it
was
mentioned
in
the
presentation.
D
We
also
appreciate
section
one
of
this
bill
which
would
expand
the
jurisdictions
in
which
victim
survivors
can
apply
for
protection
orders
many
times
after
enduring
and
clean
abuse
victim
survivors
seek
safety
in
new
counties
or
new
states.
This
important
piece
of
legislation
would
make
sure
that
all
victim
survivors
can
seek
safety
anywhere
in
nevada,
regardless
of
where
their
abuse
took
place.
This
bill
is
small
but
mighty
and
will
create
the
necessary
protections
for
victim
survivors
and
we
encourage
your
support
of
ab404.
Thank
you
so
much.
N
D
Good
morning,
chair
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
abby
pike,
that's
a
a-b-b-e-y-p-I-k-e
for
the
record.
I
am
currently
serving
as
an
intern
for
assembly
woman,
bilbray
axelrod,
but
I
am
not
speaking
today
on
her
behalf.
I
am
also
the
policy
director
of
the
associated
students
of
the
university
of
nevada.
I
strongly
support
assembly
bill
404
because
it
will
expand
protections
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
The
changes
made
in
section
1
of
this
bill
will
clarify
the
con
the
county,
where
a
victim
of
domestic
violence
may
apply
for
an
order
of
protection.
D
This
ensures
that
victims
are
protected
even
if
they
are
temporarily
located
somewhere
outside
of
their
home
county
or
have
to
travel
across
county
lines
for
work
section.
Three
of
this
bill
also
further
protects
applicants
for
an
order
of
protection
by
requiring
that
there
is
a
procedure
in
place
if
they
wish
to
keep
their
address
and
contact
information
confidential.
D
N
D
The
city
supports
giving
fleeing
victims
of
domestic
violence,
quick
and
easy
access
to
protective
orders.
This
bill
makes
it
clear
that
victims
can
be
protected
in
numerous
places
and
gives
victims,
flexibility
and
clarity
when
filing
for
domestic
violence
protective
orders.
These
measures
help
protect
victims
in
the
community
as
a
whole.
The
city
of
north
las
vegas
is
in
full
support
of
ab404
and
urges
the
committee's
support
and
passage.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
today.
N
F
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
christopher
reese
r-I-e-f
and
I'm
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
In
the
spirit
of
brevity,
I
will
simply
echo
the
presenters
and
offer
support
for
av-404.
We
support
protections
for
survivors
of
domestic
violence
that
ensure
their
safety
from
an
abusive
partner.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
This
morning,.
N
D
D
A
N
D
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
tess
opferman
f-o-p-f-e-r-m-a-n
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
women's
lobby.
We
are
in
full
support
of
ab404,
which
helps
give
clarity
and
nrs
for
where
a
person
is
able
to
apply
for
a
temporary
protective
order.
This
is
critical
for
victim
survivors
of
domestic
violence,
who
may
have
fled
their
abuser
for
safety
and
may
be
staying
in
an
address
outside
of
the
county
or
state
in
which
they
reside.
D
A
N
N
A
N
N
A
P
I
would
just
say
thank
you
to
the
committee
and
and
thank
you
for
all
the
calls
and
support
and
let's
get
her
done.
Q
And
bailey
borderland
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
we
absolutely
recognize
the
legal
intricacies
of
the
confidentiality
piece
and
it's
something.
We've
been
grappling
with
for
many
many
years
through
those
conversations
with
the
statewide
forms
committee
and
the
supreme
court.
We
we
do
feel
that
this
is
the
best
way
to
strike
the
balance.
Q
I
would
note
that,
a
few
months
into
being
a
lawyer
what
it
feels
like
many
years
ago
now
I
was
working
at
the
courts
and
we
did
have
a
case
where
the
hearing
master
disclosed
the
address
through
the
tpo
and
it
did
result
in
a
murder
and
it's
something
that
stays
with
you
and
it's
something
that
is
difficult
to
balance.
Q
When
you
look
at
how
to
work
through
it,
but
as
a
system
with
the
self-help
centers
and
with
legal
aid
and
the
court
systems,
we
are
working
through
them
on
a
case-by-case
basis
on
an
individual
fact
pattern
to
make
sure
that
we
can
find
a
path
forward
for
each
case
that
is
safe
and
measured,
but
does
balance
that
due
process
issue.
So,
thank
you
all
for
hearing
the
bill
today
and
I
appreciate
your
time.
A
A
A
Let
me
just
do
that.
Okay,
thank
you
committee.
So
moving
right
along
we're
going
to
now
take
our
first
bill
listed
on
the
agenda.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
113
assembly,
though
113
provides
that
there
is
no
limitation
of
time
within
which
a
criminal
prosecution
first
for
sex
trafficking
must
be
commenced.
Committee
members,
members
of
the
public,
I
will
inform
you
that
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
on
nellis,
that
is,
from
the
sponsor
of
the
bill.
A
So
you'll
find
that,
under
the
exhibit
tab
and
I'll
welcome
back
to
our
virtual
presentation
table
our
own
assemblywoman
hardy
to
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
a
chance
time
for
some
questions.
So
assemblywoman
hardy.
Welcome
back
to
that
virtual
presentation
table
and
please
proceed.
H
Good
morning
and
thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
for
the
record,
I
am
melissa
hardy
representing
assembly
district
22
in
clark
county,
and
I
want
to
present
for
your
consideration
assembly
bill
113,
which
extends
the
statute
of
limitations
for
prosecution
of
sex
trafficking.
And,
as
the
chair
mentioned,
there
is
an
amendment
on
nellis
for
you
to
view
as
well.
H
So
in
the
interest
of
time,
I
want
to
be
brief
in
my
opening
remarks
so
that
we
can
focus
on
the
merits
of
the
bill
and
hear
the
story
of
the
young
woman
that
brought
this
issue
to
my
attention.
During
the
interim,
I
have
some
longer
remarks
that
I
prepared
that
includes
additional
background
and
data
that
I
will
have
submitted
for
the
committee's
review
of
their
convenience.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
touch
quickly
about
where
this
this
bill
came
from.
I
had
the
privilege
of
participating
with
an
organization
at
the
unlv
boyd
school
of
law.
It's
called
the
policy
and
legislation
society
and
they
held
their
inaugural,
making
the
law,
competition
in
2020
and
one
of
the
bills
in
that
semi
final
in
the
semifinals
was
presented
by
miss
gabrielle
folio,
and
this
was
the
bill,
and
so
after
that
competition
was
over
and
preparing
for
session.
H
I
spoke
with
her
and
asked
if
she
would
be
okay
with
me
carrying
this
bill
for
this
session,
and
so
she
agreed-
and
she
has
been
a
tremendous
help
in
research
and
preparing
for
this
this
bill
and
especially
for
this
hearing
today.
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
now
is
turn
it
over
to
miss
gabrielle
folio
and
she
will
she's
a
senior
staffer
at
the
nevada
law
journal
and
a
juris
doctorate
candidate
at
unlv's,
william
s,
lloyd,
school
of
law.
H
She
will
tell
you
her
story
and
how
she
came
to
write
this
bill
and
after
miss
folio,
I
will
have
brian
schwartz,
discuss
the
bill
and
go
through
the
amendment,
and
then
we
will
be
ready
for
questions.
R
R
R
A
common
misconception
about
sex
trafficking
is
that
it's
perpetuated
by
strangers
in
a
van
but
in
reality,
trafficking
often
occurs
not
primarily
through
physical
violence,
but
through
intense
and
intentional
psychological
abuse
and
manipulation.
Traffickers
will
target
the
most
vulnerable
individuals
who
lack
a
broader
support
system
and
generally
have
a
history
of
other
types
of
abuse.
R
R
Coping
mechanisms
have
been
shown
to
be
enhanced
by
factors
that
are
endemic
to
the
tragedy
of
sex
trafficking
because
with
sex
trafficking,
we
are
talking
about
repeated,
high-intensity
physical
traumas
for
an
extended
period
of
time,
coupled
with
severe
psychological
manipulation,
and
then,
on
top
of
all
of
that,
we
also
have
certain
factors
that
make
it
especially
difficult
for
survivors
of
sex
trafficking
to
talk
to
police
law.
Enforcement,
of
course,
is
a
male
dominated
field,
and
most
of
these
victim
survivors
have
been
abused
primarily
by
men.
R
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
bolio,
and
thank
you
for
participating
in
the
the
competition
that
you
referenced.
I
had
the
pleasure,
along
with
assemblywoman
hardy
and
some
of
her
other
colleagues
assemblyman
or
licker
as
well
assembly.
I
think
a
lot
of
us
were
judges
of
the
most
recent
competition
which
happened
either
last
weekend
or
the
weekend
before.
A
I
can't
remember,
but
obviously
very
impressed
by
our
boyd
law
students
and
the
work
that
you
all
are
doing,
and
I
have
no
doubt
at
all
that
many
of
you
will
be
sitting
in
these
seats
or
standing
in
front
of
these
computer
screens
in
not
too
distant
future.
So
thank
you
for
your
remarks
and
for
working
on
this
concept.
S
Thank
you
chair,
you
know,
thank
you,
jerry,
yeager
and
committee
members.
My
name
is
brian
schwartz
s-c-h-w-a-r-t-z.
S
I
work
for
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and
I'm
currently
assigned
to
the
sex
trafficking
unit
of
our
special
victims
units.
So
this
amendment
to
this
bill.
It's
super
important
to
our
unit
and
allowing
us
to
get
the
justice
for
these
victims
that
they
desperately
need.
I
I
couldn't,
I
couldn't
have
said
it
better
myself.
S
The
way
miss
bolio
explained
it
the
the
different
challenges
that
we
face
as
a
prosecuting
unit
to
even
get
through
to
the
victims
at
times
that
they're,
actually
the
victims
that
they,
the
the
sex
traffickers,
have
them
under
such
a
spell
that
they've
been
manipulated,
controlled,
and
it's
really
sad
to
see.
S
We
just
actually
prosecuted
one
of
my
my
my
colleague,
petenell
prosecuted
case
recently,
where
fortunately,
he
was
found
guilty,
but
the
victims
testified
on
behalf
of
their
abuser
on
behalf
of
their
trafficker,
but
fortunately
the
the
jury
was
able
to
kind
of
see
through
what
was
going
on
and
understand
the
severity
of
the
matter.
But
if
I
could,
just
before
I
get
too
sidetracked,
I
would
like
to
address
the
specific
amendments.
S
As
cherry
yeager
mentioned,
it
looks
like
we
will
be
removing
sections
one
two
and
four
of
the
bill
and
amending
section
three
essentially
to
make
it
a
six-year
statute
of
limitations
to
report
sex
trafficking
previously
a
four
year
so
be
extending
it
an
extra
two
years
and
and
that's
extremely
important
to
us
and
for
all
the
reasons
that
I
mentioned.
Miss
bolio
mentioned
the
victims.
Just
aren't
always
ready
to
talk
about
it.
They
they
have
to
have
a
lot
and
it's.
I
did
domestic
violence
prosecution
before
this
and
it's
a
very
similar.
S
We
always
called
it
a
cycle
of
abuse
and-
and
I,
like
the
the
trauma
bond,
that
this
polio
referenced,
but
the
unique
relationship
that
is
developed
between
the
the
victim
and
the
trafficker
based
on
manipulation,
control,
fear
the
fact
that
they
don't
believe
that
they
are
a
victim.
The
fact
they've
been
isolated
from
all
their
friends
and
family
and
believe
they
have
no
one
else
there
to
support
them.
S
A
H
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
this
would
probably
be
for
mr
schwartz,
but
anyone
could
answer
if
you
wanted
to.
F
Is
that
a
lot
of
times
these
kids
that
are
sex
trafficked,
don't
get
out
of
that
relationship
for
a
long
time,
as
you
were
saying,
mr
schwartz,
and
they
are,
you
know
basically
under
the
thumb
of
these
traffickers,
for
such
a
long
time
and
the
jeffrey
epstein
case,
all
the
allegations
there
come
are
coming
to
mind
right
now.
Some
of
these
children,
basically
years
and
years
later,
finally
come
to
grips
with
it
and
bring
it.
So
why
are
we
limiting
this
to
six
years?
This?
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
F
It
seems
to
me
that
if
you
were
guilty
once
you're
guilty
forever.
S
And
that's
a
great
that's
a
great
point:
assemblyman
wheeler!
I
I
know
that
initially,
that
was
the
intent
there
were
there.
I
think
we
came
to
the
conclusion,
and
I
know
everyone
else
could
probably
jump
in
on
that-
came
to
the
conclusion
that
it
might
not
be
successful
with
with
a
life
a
lifelong
or,
I
guess,
the
extent
of
when
we
could
bring
forward
claims.
S
But
I
guess
to
to
point
you
in
one
direction:
if,
if
it
is
a
minor
sex
trafficked,
there
is
a
separate
statute
that
will
address
an
extended
period
of
time
that
they
have
to
report.
So
if
they
are,
I
believe,
a
minor
at
the
time
they
have
until
either
age
36
or
age
48,
depending
on
specific
parameters
when
they
become
aware
of
what
happened
to
them.
S
171,
just
looking
for
the
specific
0.95
addresses
that
for
a
victim
that
was
under
the
age
of
18
at
the
time,
so
this
would
really
focus
more
on
someone
who's
already
an
adult,
and
while
I
don't
disagree
with
your
position,
I
think
that
at
this
point
any
extension
of
time
would
give
an
adult
that
much
more
time
to
come
forward
with
it,
and
while
I
would
certainly
also
support
a
situation
where
we
extended
it
beyond
the
six
years.
At
this
point,
I
think
that's
where
we're
at.
F
That's
sad,
that's
actually
sad
this
should
I
hate
someone's.
S
And
we've,
certainly,
I
think,
the
six
year
time
frame
it
certainly
wouldn't
cover
everyone,
as
you've
mentioned,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
victims
that
aren't
ready
for
six
years.
I
mean
people
spend
their
whole
life
not
being
comfortable
coming
forward
to
talk
about
this,
and
it
gets
me
a
little
emotional,
even
thinking
about
it.
But
I
think
this
is
where
we're
at
now-
and
you
know-
I'd
certainly
be
happy
to
participate
in
the
future.
If
anyone
wanted
testimony
or
support
for
me
on
an
extended
extension.
A
Well,
you're
free
to
make
whatever
emotion,
you'd
like
to
summon
wheeler,
but
I
probably
won't
recognize
that
motion
as
the
bill's
been
presented
with
an
amendment.
So
we
can
address
that
when
we
get
to
that
point.
I'll
also
note
for
the
committee
that
sex
the
crime
of
sex
trafficking
is
rather
new
in
the
state
of
nevada.
It
did
not
exist
prior
to
2013
when
attorney
general
cortez
masto
brought
legislation
that
was
passed
through
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
A
A
B
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
I
was
wondering
if
there
was
anyone
that
can
answer,
why
we
have
statute
of
limitations
for
crimes
and
just
like
why
that
exists
in
general.
S
I,
I
guess
the
from
my
understanding-
and
you
know,
just
in
general
statute
limitations
would
exist
just
so
that
a
defendant
would
not
have
to
they'd,
have
a
certain
amount
of
time
to
have
the
charges
brought
forth
against
them
and
and
be
informed
of
something
that
it
wouldn't
come
up.
20
years
later,
that
they'd
be
charged
with
something
that
happened
so
long
ago
and
depending
on
the
type
of
crime
you
know,
there's
there's
certainly
exceptions
to
that.
S
You
know
for
different,
more
offensive
crimes,
maybe
there's
there's
no
statute
or
a
longer
period
of
time,
but
my
understanding
of
statute
of
limitations
would
always
be
just
to
give
some
sort
of
guideline
that
you
would
be
informed
of
and
brought
forth
charges
against
you
within
a
certain
number
of
years
and
of
course,
the
sooner
that
a
charge
is
brought
forward.
The
more
fresh
recollections
are
from
witnesses
and
in
victims
and
more
fresh,
the
evidence
is
so.
I
assume
that
would
be
one
again
kind
of
policy
reason
why
we
have
statute
limitations
as
well.
R
I
also
did
some
research
into
that
question
in
preparation
for
my
presentation.
I
don't
know
if.
A
R
Gabrielle
bolio
again
for
the
record
yeah,
there
are
a
couple
of
rationales.
In
addition
to
what
mr
schwartz
mentioned,
one
concern
is
also
just
an
influx
of
of
cases
that
could
potentially
overwhelm
the
system.
R
I'd
argue
that
that's
not
really
applicable
here,
given
the
type
of
discretion
that
prosecutors
have
in
terms
of
making
decisions
based
on
the
actual
evidence
available
and
then
related
to
that
is
that
sometimes
the
question
of
difficulty
in
prosecuting
if
evidence
is
stale
but
out
again
argue
that
that's
not
necessarily
applicable
here
in
light
of
nevada's
advancements
in
terms
of
handling
dna
evidence
and
just
the
excellence
of
our
of
our
government
offices,
and
actually
you
know
preparing
these
cases
ahead
of
time.
D
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
assemblywoman
hardy.
I
I
mean
I
I
know
the
answer
to
this
and
I
know
that
there
has
been
a
long
debate
about
statute
of
limitations
like
throughout
our
creation
of
our
judicial
system.
Can
you
describe
what
other
crimes
have
no
statute
of
limitations.
S
Brian
schwartz
again
I
it
seemed
like
by
the
silence.
Maybe
that
was
directed
at
me-
miss
vice
chairwin.
D
S
Yeah
and
I
I
would
hate
to
give
you
guys
an
answer
without
being
sure
myself,
you
know,
I
know
sexual
assault
some
there
there's
there's
scenarios
where
right
now
we're
prosecuting
a
lot
of
cold
cases
for
sexual
assault.
That
happened
back
in
the
80s
and
that's
based
now
on
dna
dna
evidence
that's
come
forward,
and
so
I
know
there's
a
much
higher
statute
limitations.
For
that
you
know.
S
I
don't
particularly
specialize
in
murders,
but
I
I
know
that
there's
a
much
higher,
if
not
there
might
not
be
any
for
murders,
but
I
wouldn't
feel
comfortable
testifying
to
any
of
this.
For
you
guys
at
this
point,
I'd
be
happy
to
get
back
to
you
and
provide
you
with
the
exact
specifics.
But
I
honestly
don't
know
offhand
the
all
the
ones
that
wouldn't
have
that
wouldn't
have
it.
D
A
Thank
you,
mr
wilkinson.
It's
nice
to
have
you
back
in
committee.
After
all
your
hard
work
drafting
bills,
I
know
you
are
now
hard
at
work,
drafting
amendments
and
again
don't
want
to
miss
an
opportunity
to
thank
you
for
that.
Hard
work
that
you
and
the
rest
of
the
legal
team
are
doing
on
our
behalf.
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
all
for
being
here
to
present.
I
also
am
a
sponsor
on
the
bill.
I
appreciate
the
work
that's
been
done,
certainly
we'd
like
to
have
it
longer,
but
we
under
we
understand,
there's
a
little
bit
at
a
time
incremental,
as
chairman
mentioned
2013,
to
present
we're
getting
there.
I
am
curious
and
whoever
might
know
this
if,
if
we
have
this
data,
do
we
have
like
an
average
age
of
those
involved
that
are
victims
of
sex
trafficking
in
nevada
or
a
general
idea
of
the
age.
H
I
would
probably
ask
misfolio
if
she
has
in
her
research
any
information
on
that.
R
I
wouldn't
want
to
mislead
it
sorry
gabrielle
for
the
record.
I
wouldn't
want
to
mislead
anyone.
I
can
try
to
get
some
of
that
research
for
you,
but
it
is
incredibly
difficult
to
get
statistics
here
in
nevada
that
are
accurate,
partly
because
of
the
recency
of
the
of
the
law,
but
also
just
because
of
the
complications
that
come
with
the
nature
of
the
crime.
So
I
would
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
that.
H
And
and
that's
fine,
I
appreciate
that.
I
kind
of
put
you
on
this
there
and
I
guess
the
reason
I'm
asking
it
would
be
interesting
to
know
not
not
that
we
have
to
have
that
data
right
away.
Is
that
talking
about
we
went
from
four
to
six
years
and
that
the
idea
that
the
victims
need
some
time.
H
It
would
be
interesting.
We
do
a
lot
of
talking
in
our
committee
about
25
years
old
and
the
brain
being
fully
developed,
and
not
only
with
the
trauma
that
these
young
people
have
gone
through,
but
you
know
just
the
development
of
their
brain
and
why
some
of
us
would
like
it
to
be
a
little
bit
longer
that
these
these
victims
can
get
to
a
place
emotionally
physically
psychologically
to
where
they
can
deal
with
it,
so
that
that
was
the
purpose
of
my
question
was
just
to
see
in
relationship
to
25
years
old
and
such
so.
P
You
chair,
I
guess
I
just
wanted
a
little
clarification
from
the
questions
that
vice
chair
had
asked
about:
laws
that
had
no
statute
of
limitations
like
sexual
assault,
wouldn't
a
lot
of
sex
trafficking.
Victims
fall
under
sexual
assault
as
well,
especially
underage
ones.
I
would
gather,
but
I'd
just
like
some
clarification
on
that.
S
And
brian
schwartz
with
the
district
attorney's
office
in
my
experience,
yes,
there
there
has
been
a
lot
of,
at
least
when
we,
when
we
charge
our
cases.
There
is
a
lot
of
sexual
assault
that
happens
to
these
victims
of
sex
trafficking
as
well,
typically,
the
evidence
that
we
have
of
the
sex
trafficking,
and
I
guess
it's
hard
to
say
whether
or
not
it
it's
in
all
the
cases.
But
I
would
say
to
answer
your
question.
Yes,
there
is
a
little
bit,
but
the
way
that
we
typically
charge
our
cases
for
sex
trafficking.
S
S
Sometimes
it
will
depend
on
the
victim
if
they're
willing
to
move
forward
on
also
prosecuting
for
sexual
assault,
because
a
lot
of
times,
especially
with
the
younger
victims,
they're
comfortable
at
this
point,
talking
about
being
sex
trafficked
but
they're
not
comfortable,
talking
about
being
sexually
assaulted,
and
so
there
has
been
a
little
bit
of
a
distinction.
So
I
do
think
it's
still
important
that
we,
you
know,
have
a
distinction
that
sex
trafficking
continue
to
be.
S
P
Thank
you
for
that.
I
I
wasn't
suggesting
that
we
don't
increase
the
limit.
I
just
I
just
kind
of
want
to
understand
if
there
was
still
an
opportunity
to
to
pursue
charges
for
these
folks,
even
after
the
statute
of
limitation
of
sex
trafficking
expired.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
and
let
me
ask
this
question,
I'm
I
I'm
just
not
sure
the
answer,
but
I
believe
we
did
some
work
in
the
last
couple
sessions
to
deal
with
sexual
assault
as
it
relates
to
minors
as
well,
or
perhaps
it
was
sex
trafficking.
So
I
don't,
I
believe,
assemblywoman
krasner
worked
on
that.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
I
know
at
least
there
was
a
civil
one
as
well,
but
does
anyone
on
the
zoom-
and
this
would
include
mr
wilkinson?
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
it
that's
printed
out
in
section
four
of
the
bill
in
nrs
171.095,
mr
schwartz
mentioned
that
earlier
it's
actually
36
years,
depending
on
whether
the
victim
discovered
or
should
have
discovered
whether
he
or
she
was
a
victim.
K
So
and
there's
also,
you
know,
obviously
the
special
limitations
for
sexual
assault,
but
sexual
abuse
covers
sexual
assault
as
well,
so
36
or
43.
You
have
it's
it's
pretty
complicated
area,
because
if
you
have
a
report
filed
of
sexual
assault,
then
the
statute
of
limitations
goes
away
also.
A
A
Great-
and
I
I
am
under
the
impression
I
I
hate
to
reference
bills
that
are
not
here
or
may
not
get
over
here,
but
I
am
also
under
the
impression
that
the
senate
may
be
considering
legislation
to
remove
the
statute
of
limitations
on
the
civil
side
for
sex
trafficking.
So
I
don't
know
how
that's
going
to
go
over
there
and
whether
we
may
see
it,
but
we
might
so
that's
a
possibility
as
well.
So
now
we've
thoroughly
confused
everyone
about
the
statute
of
limitations
under
our
laws,
both
criminal
and
civil.
H
And
yes,
I
am
fine
with
that
and
I
just
wanted
to
just
say
when
I
started.
You
know
first
heard
this
bill
and
then
started
working
with
miss,
polio
and-
and
you
know,
asking
people
in
the
legal
field
about
these
statutes
and
limitations
and
they're
they.
They
are
different
like
depending
on
the
age
of
the
person
and
when
it's
recorded-
and
so
I
hope,
everyone
through
all
this
kind
of
understands
how
it
applies,
and
you
know
yes
would.
H
I
have
liked
it
to
be
longer,
of
course,
but
we
worked
really
hard
and
wanted
to
get
to
a
place
that
we
can
agree
and
give
these
victims
more
time.
H
I
think
from
the
what
you've
heard
and
I
think
on
this
committee,
we
have
talked
a
lot
about
victims
in
general
and
it
isn't
just
the
physical,
the
sometimes
the
physical
abuse
you
know,
wounds
heal,
but
it's
the
emotional.
It's
the
amen,
the
mental
abuse
that
they
get
and,
as
miss
polio
said
that
trauma
bond.
H
They
brainwash
these
people,
they
get
them
so
hooked
to
them
and
a
lot
of
times.
That
is
what
is,
is
harder
to
get
past
and
to
get
the
victims
to
a
point
where
they
understand
that
it
wasn't
their
fault
and
that
they
feel
safe
to
report
these,
and
so
that
was
the
goal
as
to
to
give
them
extra
time.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that,
in
conclusion
and
thank
you,
everyone.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
hardy,
us
other
other
questions
from
committee
members
this
morning.
K
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
I
don't
have
a
question,
but
I
would
like
to
also
be
added
as
a
co-sponsor
sibley
woman
hardy,
I
have
a
dear
friend
whose
family
was
affected
by
this,
and
I
appreciate
your
hard
work
you
and
ms
voglio
for
your
hard
work.
Thank
you.
A
Additional
questions
from
committee
members-
I'm
not
seeing
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so
I
want
to
thank
the
three
of
you
for
presenting
the
bill.
Please
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
to
do
some
concluding
remarks
on
the
bill
at
this
time.
I'll
open
up
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
113..
A
T
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
lauren
boytel
l-a-u-r-e-n-b-o-I-t-e-l,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
impact
nv,
and
I
chair
the
nevada
policy
council
on
human
trafficking,
which
is
a
diverse
cross-section
of
community
leaders
and
survivors
from
the
public,
private
and
ngo
sectors.
Our
mission
at
the
policy
council
is
to
advocate
for
just
an
equitable
policy
solutions
through
education,
collaboration
coalition,
building
that
improve
the
state
and
federal
anti-trafficking
systems,
better
support
victims,
survivors
and
providers,
decrease
demand
and
ultimately
contribute
to
decreasing
human
trafficking
in
nevada.
T
On
behalf
of
the
policy
council,
we
would
like
to
formally
support
the
amended
version
of
ab113
that
will
extend
the
statute
of
limitations
for
sex
trafficking
offenses
from
four
to
six
years.
This
is
in
alignment
with
our
council's
policy
agenda
and
we
support
it
for
the
following
reasons:
the
biggest
one
being
victim
support.
T
T
Sometimes
victims
don't
even
self-identify
or
realize
they
are
being
trafficked
until
years
later,
not
to
mention
the
shame
and
embarrassment
surrounding
the
issue.
Survivors
can
take
years
to
come
forward,
especially
when
they
face
the
daunting
challenge
of
proving
it
happened
facing
their
abusers
and
financing
a
years-long
legal
battle.
T
T
I
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
and
miss
boitel
I,
since
since
2013
and
the
now
senators
bill
we
I
I
think,
there's
been
a
shift
in
what
most
of
us
who
aren't
involved
in
in
this
field,
know
about
trafficking
and
how
it
affects
families
from
all
walks
of
life
that
in
nevada
it
are
you
seeing
changes
in
in
trafficking
in
the
and
the
you
know,
because
that
awareness
is
out
there
is
there.
So
I
I'm
sorry
this
really
isn't
about
the
bill.
I
But
when
you
were
mentioning
your
credentials,
I
was
you
know.
I
just
started
to
have
the
question
the
thoughts
and-
and
I
know
because
of
that-
you're
really
involved-
and
you
know
what's
going
on
in
the
ground
and
in
our
neighborhoods
and
communities.
But
so
are
we
seeing
any
kind
of
changes
in
in
how
the
trafficking
happening
and
because
the
community
now
knows
more
about
it,
any
anything
like
that.
T
Thank
you
for
the
question
again
lauren
boytel
for
the
record.
I
would
be
really
only
be
able
to
offer
sort
of
anecdotal
kind
of
stories
about
that,
and
it's
really
from
our
policy
members
specifically
in
the
private
sector,
and
I
think
the
biggest
change
is
just
the
community
and
kind
of
political
will
to
discuss
the
issue
be
more
comfortable,
recognizing
it
as
an
important
issue
of
the
social
fabric
of
our
state
and
really
be
able
to
address
it.
T
But
in
terms
of
the
leadership
on
the
policy
side,
I
think
it's
just
a
greater
awareness
and
and
willingness
to
address
the
issue,
discuss
the
issue
better
help
victim
survivors
and
hopefully,
eventually
put
some
more
penalties
on
buyer
conduct
and
traffickers
as
well.
I
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So,
just
so,
just
to
be
clear,
not
really
any
idea.
If
the
that,
because
we're
more
aware
of
it,
we
as
a
society
are
doing
more
to
protect
ourselves
and
and
the
traffickers
are
having
to
change
their
mo,
is
what
I'm
getting
from
that.
We
don't
really
you're
not
really
seeing
anything
like
that.
T
A
N
N
D
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
in
support
of
ab-113
and
mr
chairman,
just
in
the
interest
of
robbie,
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
hardy
for
bringing
the
bill
and
we
endorse
the
comments
major
in
the
presentation.
Thank
you.
N
F
Good
morning,
chairman
jaeger
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
christopher
reese
r-I-e-s
on
behalf
of
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
As
earlier,
I
will
be
brief
and
just
express
our
support
for
ab-113
that
extends
the
statute
of
limitations
to
prosecute
sex
traffickers
and
get
justice
to
the
victim
survivors.
Thank
you.
N
C
C
Representing
the
washington
county
sheriff's
office
in
the
interest
of
time
I
will
say
ditto
to
the
comments
from
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
and
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office.
We
are
in
support
of
assembly
bill
113
with
the
proposed
amendment
and
thank
the
sponsors
for
bringing
the
bill
forward.
Thank
you.
A
N
A
N
A
H
Okay,
I,
if
it's
okay
I'll,
have
mr
schwartz.
If
he
wants
to
say
anything
I'll,
let
him
say
something
to
mr
miss
folio
and
then
I'll
close
up.
A
S
Schwartz,
I
don't
have
anything
additional
that,
but
again
thank
you,
assemblywomanhardy
for
allowing
me
to
assist
with
this
and
again
really
excited
that
we're
moving
in
the
right
direction,
with
the
statute
of
limitations
for
for
sex
trafficking.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
schwartz.
Miss
bolio.
R
Gabrielle
bolio
for
the
record,
just
thank
you
again
hardy
for
sponsoring
this
film
and
for
all
of
you,
who've
come
out
and
support
just
means
a
lot
to
me
and
to
the
people
that
I
work
with.
So
thank
you
so
much.
H
You
know
this
is
something
that
has
I've
just
recently
been,
you
know,
working
on
and
it's
not
been
brought
to
my
attention,
and
I
just
think
this
is
something
so
important,
and
I
wanted
to
get
this
bill
to
a
point
like
I
said
where
it
could
be
supported
and
have
agreement,
and
I
I
just
feel
that
extending
the
statute
of
limitations
provides
more
time
for
survivors
to
come
to
terms
with
what
happened
to
them
and
what
they
experienced
and
feel
comfortable
seeking
justice.
A
Time
today,
thank
you,
assemblywoman
hardy,
and
thank
you
to
your
co-presenters
for
spending
some
time
with
us
on
this
wednesday
morning
in
assembly,
judiciary.
We
definitely
appreciate
it
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day,
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
404,
but
I
am
now
going
to
move
into
a
work
session
on
assembly
bill
404.
A
H
H
More
assemblywoman,
billbray
axelrod
would
also
like
to
be
added,
and
that's.
I
would
love
that.
A
A
A
A
I
was
already
called
out
on
it,
so
I
get
real-time
fact
checked
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
Thank
you,
miss
thornton,
for
pointing
out
that
I
sent
the
wrong
bill.
Okay,
so
I
think
the
amendments
we
have,
then,
are
the
one
from
assemblywoman
hardy
and
I
think
everyone
wants
to
be
added
to
the
sponsor,
including
myself.
So
we'll
just
do
that
and
if,
in
fact
you
don't
want
to
be
a
sponsor,
just
let
me
know
and
we'll
figure
that
out
in
the
drafting
of
the
bill.
A
D
Thank
you
assemblywoman
hardy,
for
bringing
this
bill
and
also
adding
me
as
a
sponsor
to
the
bill.
I
know
that
I
have
some
serious
concerns,
just
balancing
and
the
original
language
of
your
bill.
Obviously
balancing
like
our
long-standing
due
process
and
constitutional
protections
that
we
have
that
are
kind
of
incorporated
in
a
lot
of
our
statute
of
limitations.
D
You
know
I'm
grateful
that
senator
now
senator
cortez
masto
brought
this
bill
in
2013
to
create
this
crime,
because
I
think
bringing
that
awareness
to
these
victims
to
these
issues
that
are
in
our
community
and
that
this
is
an
ever-evolving
kind
of
process.
So
I
think
landing
on
this
six
years
is,
I
think,
it's
a
good
starting
place,
and
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
I
know
you
will
continue
to
work
on
this
issue
moving
forward
throughout
your
legislative
career.
D
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
further
further
discussion
on
the
motion,
and
again
just
so
I
have
assemblywoman
kasama.
Did
you
have
something
just
so
I
have
the
motion
correct.
So
I
don't
know
if
I
stated
it
the
correct
way,
but
this
is
assembly
built
113.
The
motion
is
to
amend
and
do
pass
with
those
two
amendments.
We
had
a
motion
and
a
second
members
if
you
could
turn
your
audio
on
please
to
take
the
voice
vote.
So
all
of
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
assembly
bill.
A
Nobody
opposed
so
motion
carries
unanimously,
congratulations,
assemblywoman
hardy
and,
of
course
I
will
assign
you
the
floor
statement
on
your
bill.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
You're
welcome.
Thank
you
committee
for
getting
us
through
three
bills
and
three
work
sessions.
Three
votes
on
those
bills,
as
well
as
our
work
session.
That
takes
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
this
morning,
which
is
public
comment.
We
reserve
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Callers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
A
N
N
C
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
sister
thomas
purdy,
who
was
killed
by
reno
police
and
warsha
county
sheriff's
office,
poor
and
local
income
people
face
a
far
greater
risk
of
being
targeted,
profiled
fined,
arrested,
harassed,
violated
and
incarcerated
for
minor
offenses
than
other
americans.
A
broken
taillight,
an
unpaid
parking
ticket,
a
minor
drug
offense
sitting
on
a
sidewalk
or
sleeping
on
a
park
bench
can
all
result
in
jail
time.
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
23
year
old,
jordan,
alexander
allen,
lindstrom
was
in
his
was
23
years
old
when
he
died
on
may
19
2019
with
struggles
at
home.
C
He
lived
on
the
streets
of
reno
nevada
from
about
the
age
of
14.
Essentially,
he
was
raised
by
a
community.
Most
don't
even
realize
exist.
Who
exactly
am
I
referring
to
the
homeless
that
have
taken
refuge
all
along
the
banks
of
the
truckee
river
throughout
the
reno's
box
area?
Jordan
grew
up
with
the
idea
that
you
do
whatever
was
needed
to
survive
for
himself.
C
C
Even
had
he
been
homeless,
reno
police
and
washer
sheriff's
had
a
duty
of
care
to
my
brother
photos
of
jordan,
remind
me
of
thomas
those
bright
blue
eyes
and
blonde
hair
and
so
much
life
ahead
of
them.
I'd
like
to
suggest
you
check
out
the
minko
project,
inc,
dot,
w-I-x-s
dot
com
or
their
facebook
page
the
minko
project.
The
minko
project
was
founded
in
honor
of
the
memory
of
jordan,
who
set
a
beautiful
example
of
what
it
means
to
love
unconditionally.
A
N
A
A
A
We
don't
have
an
agenda
out
yet,
but
I
anticipate
that'll
be
at
eight
o'clock
and
my
sincere
hope
for
the
committee
is
that
I
can
we
can
finish
with
our
work
on
friday
morning
and
you
know
we'll
likely
have
to
recess
to
the
call
of
the
chair
just
in
case
we
don't
get
everything
correct
in
the
morning,
but
hopefully
we
can
get
everything
knocked
out
in
the
morning.
So
I
know
it's
been
a
long
week
committee.
I
appreciate
you
all
being
here
on
time
and
your
thoughtful
questions.