►
From YouTube: 2/18/2021 - 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
F
E
F
A
A
Everyone
on
the
committee
good
morning
to
those
who
might
be
joining
us
over
the
internet
either
on
the
legislature's
website
or
the
youtube
channel,
welcome
to
day
18
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
and
welcome
to
the
judiciary
committee
now
before
we
get
started
this
morning,
I'll
go
over
just
a
few
brief
housekeeping
rules
for
members
on
the
zoom.
Please
make
sure
you
mute
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that,
will
help
with
the
feedback
for
presenters.
A
A
We
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree,
that's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
and
of
the
legislative
institution
as
well
as
staff,
and,
finally,
members
are
going
to
be
using
multiple
devices
most
likely
to
participate
in
this
virtual
zoom
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect.
A
If
somebody
appears
to
be
looking
at
another
device,
it
doesn't
mean
we
aren't
paying
attention,
we're
probably
just
trying
to
look
at
exhibits
on
another
device
while
also
participating
on
the
zoom.
So
with
that
being
said,
members
we
will
go
to
our
agenda
this
morning
and,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
two
bills
which
are
really
a
continuation
of
some
of
the
topics
we
took
up
yesterday
in
terms
of
incompetent
defendants.
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
25
assembly
bill
25
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
conditional
release
of
certain
persons
found
to
be
incompetent.
Welcome
back
to
the
committee,
dr
neighbors,
who
again
is
spending
an
hour
two
with
us
this
morning.
Welcome
dr
neighbors,
when
you're
ready
to
proceed,
go
ahead
and
present
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you.
D
Well,
thank
you
very
much
chairman
yeager.
I
we're
here
for
part
two
of
competency.
I
guess
today
for
the
record.
My
name
is
elizabeth,
nabors,
e-l-I-z-a-b-e-t-h
and
neighbors
capital
n-e-I-g-h-b-o-r-s.
D
D
So
I'm
going
to
just
briefly
go
over
this
bill
and
what
our
goals
and
intent
are
for.
It.
D
D
I
think,
as
we
discussed
yesterday
in
one
of
the
other
bills,
that
there
is
a
provision
in
nrs
178.461
for
individuals
who
are
unrestorable
and
dangerous
to
be
committed
to
a
forensic
facility
at
the
end
of
their
time
of
restoration,
and
these
are
individuals
who
have
various
have
had
very
serious
charges
at
this
point.
Of
course,
they
would
be
dismissed
without
prejudice
category
a
felonies
or
a
list
of
category
b,
felonies.
D
The
the
process
includes
there
would
be
a
hearing,
there
would
be
a
petition
for
conditional
release
and
then
the
process
is
if
that
is
approved.
D
There
is
an
order
for
them
to
be
placed
on
conditional
release.
That
includes
a
very
carefully
crafted
treatment
plan,
which
generally
involves
the
forensic
facility
agency
treatment
team,
as
well
as
the
individual
provider.
That
will
be
where
the
person
may
be
put
in
residence
in
the
community
and
in
that
plan
and
order
there
is
are
very
specific
conditions
of
release
that
the
individual
must
follow
in
order
to
continue
in
that
program.
D
These
residences
are
highly
structured
settings
with
a
very
high
level
of
supervision.
Often
residents
that
are
alarmed
the
individuals
have
24-hour
supervision
and
should
they,
for
example,
work
in
a
sheltered
setting
in
the
community.
They
would
have
a
supervision
and
escort
under
those
circumstances,.
D
So
we
have
had
a
number
of
individuals,
not
large
numbers
at
the
present
time.
There
are
four
in
the
north
and
one
in
the
south
who
are
placed
under
those
plans,
and
there
may
be
situations
where
should
there
be
decompensation
or
some
circumstance,
which
is
there
may
be
an
event
where
there
may
be
some
type
of
mental
health
crisis
or.
D
Our
concern
here
is
that
the
current
statute
is
written
in
such
a
way
that
when
currently
the
direction
is
that,
in
those
circumstances,
the
facility
has
to
contact
the
officers
of
the
court
and
the
judge
and
get
a
a
warrant
to
pick
up
the
person
and
bring
them
back
in
a
court
order.
D
D
The
second
part-
that's
the
first
procedural
change,
and
the
second
one
is
that
we
would
be
allowed
to
request
statute
would
allow
us
to
request
assistance
from
law
enforcement
in
making
that
return.
If
we
conclude
that
that
assistance
is
necessary
to
maintain
safety
and
have
a
smooth
transition
back
from
the
forensic
facility,
so
the
goal
of
the
bill
is
really
to
eliminate
any
delays
that
compromise
safety
and
and
to.
D
A
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
dr
neighbors.
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
one
thing
you
said
I
think
I
heard
it
accurately,
but
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation
you
were
talking
about
these
individuals
who
are
on
conditional
release,
and
I
think
you
said
there
are
currently
five
individuals
in
the
state
four
in
northern
nevada
and
one
in
southern
nevada.
So
I
wanted
to
confirm
that
at
the
present
time
we
have
five
individuals
on
this
type
of
conditional
release.
Yes,
okay,
great!
Thank
you.
A
B
Thank
you
miss
neighbors,
so
I
have
a
question
the
in
the
section
one
one
one
sub
two,
I'm
sorry
section,
one
sub
two
there's
reference
made
to
the
forensic
facility.
If
the
forensic
facility
has
probable
cause
to
believe
dot,
dot
dot
it
does
the
forensic
facility
have
access
to
a
dag
or
you
know.
That's
is
that
making
a
legal
determination
to
determine
probable
cause
and.
D
Through
you,
chairman,
yeager,
to
assembly,
one
cohn,
I
it's
really
also
a
clinical
determination,
I
would
say,
and
we
do
have
access
to
a
dag
who
regularly
is
available
to
us
to
answer
legal
questions.
D
And
who
make
those
determinations
in
their
reports,
so
they
do
have
a
license
are
licensed
and
on
the
list
of
individuals
who
make
that
decision.
D
In
addition
to
that,
the
definition
of
a
violation
of
the
conditional
release
is
already
enumerated
in
the
court
order
that
is
provided
to
the
facility
when
the
person
is
put
out
on
conditional
release.
So
we
have
a
definitive
list
of
the
behaviors
and
situations
that
would
constitute
that
violation.
B
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
get
you
know
we're
taught
as
attorneys
that
that
the
definition
of
practicing
law
is
applying
law
to
facts,
which
is
a
very
simple
way
to
get
to
to
violating
the
rules
against
practicing
law
without
license.
So
I
just
won't
want
to
set
up
our
forensic
facilities
to
be
technically
practicing
law
without
a
license
if
that's
considered
a
legal
determination.
B
A
A
C
F
A
C
F
Hi,
jim
hoffman
j,
I
m
h,
o
f,
f
m,
a
for
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
We
support
this
bill.
We
initially
had
some
concerns
with
some
of
the
language,
but
dr
neighbors
explained
the
bill
explained
its
purpose
assuaged
some
of
our
concerns
and
with
the
amendment
that
addresses
our
other
concerns.
F
C
C
E
E
A
C
I
stand
by,
we
are
currently
in
testimony
for
support
of
bill
ab25,
please
press
star
9
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
F
Good
morning,
mr
chairman,
this
is
john
pirro
back
for
a
third
time.
Hopefully
it
works
this
time,
I'm
just
going
to
say
ditto
to
what
mr
hoffman
and
miss
burgey
said
at
this
point,
and
just
let
the
committee
know
that
we're
in
support.
A
A
C
F
F
F
We
are
in
opposition
to
the
bill,
but
only
because
of
rules
of
the
committee
we've
been
very
pleased
with
the
conversations
we've
had
with
dr
neighbors
and
other
persons
related
to
this,
and
we
believe
that
we
will
come
to
an
agreement
that
puts
us
in
support
of
the
bill.
We
appreciate
her
patience
with
us
and
understanding
and
for
her
endeavors
in
this
area,
and
with
that
I'll
conclude,
my
testimony.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony.
Mr
d.
Lab
you've
got
the
first
one
under
your
belt,
so
I
believe,
hopefully
the
technical
issues
will
be
easier
from
here
on
out
until
we
can
all
get
together
in
a
committee
room,
and
I
appreciate
your
willingness
to
work
with
dr
neighbors
on
a
solution
for
your
concerns.
A
C
G
G
We
are
here
in
opposition,
but
just
due
to
the
rules
of
the
committee
we'd
like
to
thank
dr
neighbors
and
the
team
at
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health
for
spending
time
with
us,
sharing
their
goals,
explaining
the
process
and
listening
to
our
concerns
as
written,
the
the
the
bill
would
require
law
enforcement
officers
to
to
mandate
them
to
provide
transportation
upon
request
and,
as
dr
davis
mentions,
we've
been
working
with
them
to
alleviate
this
concern
in
the
broader
context,
we
believe
that
we
should
carefully
consider
if
and
how
law
enforcement
should
be
involved
in
interactions
dealing
with
mental
health
issues
to
ensure
it's
the
best
and
safest
approach
for
everyone.
G
A
A
A
Thank
you
broadcast
services,
I'll
close
neutral
testimony
and
dr
neighbors.
I
want
to
go
back
to
you
for
including
remarks,
but
I
did
just
have
a
quick
question.
I
thought
of,
as
we
were
taking
testimony
that
I
thought
you
might
be
able
to
answer,
and
that
is
this.
I
know
we
only
have
five
individuals
out
there
right
now,
but
when
they
are
conditionally
released,
are
they
usually
released
to
a
facility?
Are
they
released
to
family
members?
D
D
So
there's
a
high
level
of
communication
and
oversight
that
goes
on
and
then
the
placements
are
very
collaborative
and
we
know
within
great
detail
exactly
what
the
the
treatment
delivered
there
is.
A
Thank
you
for
answering
that
question
dr
neighbors,
and
any
concluding
remarks
you'd
like
to
make
at
this
time
on
assembly
bill
25.
D
I
we
certainly
appreciate
the
collaboration
that
we
have
had
and
and
the
input
and
we
learn
along
with
this
process,
and
so
that,
certainly
that
input
is
helpful
for
us
in
in
designing
our
programs
and
we
very
much
are
liking
and
appreciating
the
contact
community
contact
and
input
into
what
we
do
and
anticipate
that
will
continue.
So
thank
you
all
of
the
folks
who
provided
us
with
information
for
putting
forth
this
bill.
A
Thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
and
just
please
keep
me
informed
as
you
work
through
some
of
the
issues
that
were
highlighted
in
opposition.
It
sounds
like
you
guys
are
on
the
path
to
reaching
consensus,
if
not
already
there,
but
please
keep
us
updated,
and
that
will
help
us
know
if
and
when
the
bill
is
ready
to
be
moved
out
of
committee.
A
D
A
A
D
D
I
think
I'd
like
to
just
preface
my
remarks
about
that
bill.
With
a
comment
about.
D
The
sequential
intercept
model
and
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here
is
to
follow
with
our
services
that
model,
which
is
a
national
concept,
that's
been
around
for
a
while
that
provides
guidance
toward
intercepting
and
and
diverting
out
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
mentally
ill
individuals
into
treatment.
D
One
intercept
along
that
sequence
is
when
folks
are
incompetent
and
become
and
are
commit
crimes,
perhaps
largely
due
to
their
mental
illness
and
are
referred
for
competency.
D
So
we
are
looking
at
a
different
model
or
that
is
currently
written
into
the
statute
about
managing
misdemeanor
offenders,
for
whom
there
is
a
question
of
their
competency
to
proceed.
D
D
D
D
And
I
would
add
that
the
concept
here
that
we
were
seeking
to
put
forward
is
that
the
evaluator
the
procedure
would
stay.
The
same
through
the
point
that
a
person
is
designated
by
the
court
or
appointed
by
the
court
to
evaluate
somebody
for
competency
for
a
misdemeanor
offense
and
that
evaluator
would
in
their
recommendation
if
the
person
is
determined
to
be
incompetent,
to
offer
an
opinion
about
whether
they
meet
criteria
for
civil
commitment.
D
And
then
the
procedure
would
be
to
petition
for
civil
commitment
as
it's
written
now,
and
I'm
going
to
reference
at
the
end
of
my
remarks
that
we
have
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
bill
and
there
are
several
significant
issues
that
being
won
about
whether
it
would
be
a
petition
for
civil
commitment
or
a
legal
2000,
which
is
one
of
the
questions
that
has
been
brought
up,
but
to
comment
a
little
further
about
our
purpose.
In
doing
this,
within
the
the.
D
Process
of
of
misdemeanor
competency,
we
have
observed
that
misdemeanor
offenders
can
only
be
held
as
long
as
they
would
have
been
incarcerated
had
they
been
convicted.
So
that's
a
very
limited
time
available.
Once
a
person
has
started
on
this
process
by
the
time
they
would
actually
get
to
a
facility
one
of
the
forensic
facilities
for
treatment.
D
D
D
D
That
allows
us
to
retain
them
for
treatment,
and
the
likelihood
would
be
that
there
would
be
a
petition
for
civil
commitment
anyway,
so
the
person
then
has
been
detained
for
an
excessive
or
additional
amount
of
time
that
they
would
not
have
had
to
be
in
in
a
forensic
facility
had
we
just
simply
diverted
them
out
to
the
civil
system
for
treatment
to
begin
with,
so
we're
trying
to
accomplish
a
more
efficient
and
reasonable
system
for
these
folks.
D
About
how
that
legal
procedure
goes
forward,
as
I
said,
I
believe
it
is
really
what
is
happening
anyway
in
our
system
here
in
nevada.
D
Five
or
six
years,
probably
since
about
2012,
there's,
been
a
very
significant
decline
in
the
admission
of
misdemeanor
offenders
to
the
facility
to
the
forensic
facilities
anyway
for
formal
restoration.
D
So,
as
I
said,
we've
been
having
a
lively
dialogue
about
this
bill
and
I
can
enumerate
a
couple
of
the
concerns.
One
is
the
issue
of
dismissing
the
charges
for
the
individuals
and
filing
a
petition.
D
And
how
that
process
occurs
and
how
it
fits
with
the
diversion
process
to
help
these
individuals
attain
treatment
through
the
civil
system,
and
so
we
are
very
open
to
continue
this
discussion.
However,
we
do
support
the
concept
that
we
would
like
to.
A
Thank
you,
dr
neighbors
appreciate
the
presentation
and
committee
members
I'll.
Let
you
know
I've
gotten
some
communications
on
this
bill
as
well,
and
you
know,
I
don't
think
it's
quite
there
yet
in
terms
of
where
it
needs
to
be,
but
I
still
wanted
to
have
the
opportunity
for
the
committee
to
hear
the
bill,
so
we
could
at
least
frame
what
the
issues
are.
I
think
there's
still
quite
a
bit
of
work.
A
That
needs
to
be
done
to
get
this
bill
into
a
form
where
we
would
be
comfortable
passing
it,
and
I
think
we're
going
to
hear
from
some
folks
offering
testimony
exactly
what
those
issues
are,
and
I
know
that
work's
going
to
continue,
but
I
at
least
wanted
to
sort
of
get
through
this
presentation
and
give
them
a
chance
to
do
some
of
that
back-end
work
and
committee.
I
wanted
to
just
emphasize
a
couple
of
points
that
dr
neighbors
made
that
you
know.
A
Misdemeanors
are
a
little
bit
trickier
in
this
competency
setting
because,
of
course,
the
maximum
penalty
for
a
misdemeanor
would
be
six
months
incarcerated.
So
you
can't
really
hold
someone
beyond
that,
because
it
would
be
the
expiration
of
the
sentence,
and
I
think
we
have
some
regional
differences
in
terms
of
how
things
are
being
applied
right
now
with
misdemeanor
defendants
who
are
deemed
incompetent.
A
G
So
this
is
certainly
not
my
expertise
here
but-
and
I
guess
perhaps
I
just
need
better
understanding.
It
would
be
on
page
four,
which
would
be
section
one.
G
I'm
sorry
section,
two
four
where
the
change
is
made
and
so
help
me
understand,
I'm
sure
I'm
just
not
quite
fully
understanding
in
that
section
there,
which
would
be
the
change
where
it
says
the
court
shall
dismiss
the
charges
against
the
defendant
and
order
the
defendant
released
unless
a
petition
for
involuntary
commitment
is
requested.
G
So
my
concern-
or
perhaps
you
could
help
me
understand-
is
that
we
are
dismissing
the
charges,
but
it
seems
like
it's
optional,
whether
we're
dealing
with
the
defendant,
you
know
they're
just
dismissed
or
that
it's
optional,
if
there's
a
petition
for
involuntary
commitment.
So
if
there
is
no
request
for
an
involuntary
commitment,
then
are
we
letting
somebody
go
that
needs
help?
I
just
need
a
better
understanding
of
that.
D
Chairman
year,
through
you
to
assembly
woman
kasama,
that
is
one
of
the
concerns.
So
thank
you
for
asking
that
question
there.
There
would
be
the
option
obviously,
to
I
think
the
concern
here
are
people
who
are
incompetent
but
who
do
not
meet
the
criteria
for
civil
commitment,
and
that
is
a
bit
of
a
dilemma.
They
can
be
re
referred
for,
outpatient
services.
Obviously,
the
division
is
more
than
eager.
C
D
I
participated
in
the
national
forensic
directors
association
and
this
conversation
is
a
prominent
one
among
that
group
from
many
states
about
how
do
we
get
them
the
treatment
that
they
need
in
an
appropriate
way?
So
that's
one
of
the
things
that
the
group
that
has
been
discussing
this
proposal
is
addressing.
D
G
I'm
sure
it
is
a
difficult
challenge.
So
thank
you
for
hearing
my
question
on
that.
Thank
you,
chair.
Thank
you
for
asking.
G
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
for
your
presentation.
There's
always
two
sides
to
every
story,
and
so
mine
is
sort
of
the
flip
side
of
the
question
that
was
just
asked.
G
Are
you
proposing
that
if
somebody
is
charged
or
convicted
of
a
misdemeanor
and
can
only
be
held
in
a
jail
or
prison
for
six
months
that
you
would
be
able
to
commit
them
for
maybe
life?
I
mean
that
sounds
a
little
bit
scary
and
I
understand
there's
a
a
balance
of
legal
rights
and
medical
needs,
but
here
at
the
legislature
we
hold
the
constitution
pretty
dear
and
individual
rights
and
liberties
is
the
number
one
on
the
list.
So
I'm
just
not
sure
if
you
could
please
comment,
is
that
what
you're
trying
to
do?
D
Certainly
through
you,
chairman,
yeager
to
the
assembly
woman,
no,
we
are
constrained
in
terms
of
what
the
civil
commitment
laws,
one
of
the
things
that
the
is
stated
in
the
proposal
is
that
the
charges
would
be
dismissed,
in
which
case
these
individuals
would
fall
under
the
civil
statutes
and
a
person
can
only
be
committed
up
to
six
months
under
that
statute,
and
then
there
has
to
be
regular
reviews
of
that
commitment.
D
So
it
the
only
circumstance
really
under
which
somebody
might
be
committed
for
life.
It
would
be
if
they
were
found
not
guilty
by
reason
of
insanity
and
committed
under
that
statute.
It
is
an
open-ended
commitment
at
the
discretion
of
the
court.
How
long
that
commitment
continues,
but
these
are
misdemeanor
cases,
so
they
would.
They
would
only
qualify
under
the
civil
commitment
statutes
and
it's
a
very
limited
length
of
time.
G
You
said
that
after
six
months
they
would
go
in
front
of
a
review
review
board.
Is
it
possible
that
it
at
that
review
board,
they
would
be
found
that
they're
still
a
danger
to
their
self
or
others,
and
they
would
have
to
be
committed
for
another
six
months,
which
would
be
longer
than
their
jail
time.
D
That's
possible,
but
that
could
that
could
occur
under
civil
commitment
laws
without
they
actually
have
no
charges
at
that
point,
and
so
the
determinations
going
forward
would
be
based
on
their
danger
to
sell
for
others,
which
has
to
be
an
imminent
danger.
D
So
it's
possible
that
they
could
be
recommitted,
but
it's
unlikely.
That
is
a
very
limiting
definition,
which
means
that
in
the
moment
there
has
to
be
a
probable
cause
to
believe
that
the
person
is
going
to
injure
themselves
or
others
within
the
moment,
and
so
it
it's
possible.
They
could
be
recommitted
if
they've
displayed
behavior
that
warrants
that
and
that
the
panel
of
doctors
and
then
the
civil,
the
family
court
determines
meet
criteria
for
ongoing
civil
commitment.
A
And
you
know
I
want
to
build
on
that
for
just
a
moment,
because
I
think
it's
an
important
point
and
I
don't
want
it
to
be
lost
on
the
committee.
So
you
know
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
somebody
who's
charged
with
a
misdemeanor
and
they
come
into
the
criminal
justice
system,
but
because
they
are
not
competent
to
stand
trial
on
the
misdemeanor.
A
Those
charges
end
up
getting
dismissed
and
then
you
know
what
we
have
is
there's
a
civil
system
in
place
where
that
person
could
be
held
against
his
or
her
will
if
they
are
an
imminent
danger
to
themselves
or
others.
But
that
question
is
completely
separate
from
the
criminal
case.
Sometimes
the
criminal
charge
leads
someone
to
initiate
that
civil
petition,
because
that's
how
someone
learns
that
the
person
perhaps
is
an
imminent
danger
to
themselves
or
others.
So
you
know
that
process
sort
of
has
its
own
requirements
under
the
civil
system.
A
A
Most
folks
ultimately
decide
to
voluntarily
stay
committed
rather
than
then
fight
the
case
to
get
treatment
and
I
think
that's
sort
of
the
ultimate
goal,
but
you
know,
certainly
there
are
occasions
where
somebody
just
does
not
want
treatment
and
refuses
treatment
and
a
judicial
officer
has
to
make
a
decision
whether
that
release
is
safe.
So
I
didn't
want
that
to
be
lost
on
the
committee
that
sometimes
the
entryway
into
that
civil
system
is
a
criminal
misdemeanor,
but
it's
not
always
that
way.
A
There
are
a
lot
of
civil
commitment
petitions
filed
on
a
daily
basis,
particularly
down
in
clark
county,
but
very
few
of
them
actually
result
in
a
judicial
order
holding
the
person.
Sometimes
the
person
doesn't
meet
criteria
for
civil
commitment
and
they're
released,
sometimes
by
the
time
they
get
to
see
the
judge,
they're
they're,
better
already
and
they're
back
on
their
medications
and
doing
well.
A
So
if
anyone
has
additional
questions
about
how
that
process
works,
I
have
a
little
bit
of
familiarity
with
it,
and
I
know
assemblywoman
win
does
as
well
so
feel
free
to
ask
us
or
dr
neighbors
when
we're
finished
with
the
presentation
so
I'll
end.
My
testimony
on
the
civil
versus
criminal
system
and
ask
if
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members
vice
chairwin,
please
go
ahead.
F
Yeah,
that
is
an
open
invitation
to
anyone
on
the
committee.
I
actually
deal
with
these
type
of
issues
with
misdemeanor
cases
in
my
professional
world,
so
if
anyone
has
any
further
questions
just
about
the
process,
I
know
it
is
outside
of
most.
A
Thank
you
vice
chairwin.
I
appreciate
that
and
and
members
I
would
commend
you
to
do
that.
I
know
we're
really
busy
in
this
building.
But
if
you
leave
this
hearing
confused
about
what
the
heck's
going
on
in
these
bills,
please
reach
out
to
one
of
us.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
understanding
the
issues
so
that
if
and
when
we
get
to
a
vote,
we
can
comprehend
and
understand
what
we're
voting
on
and
decide
whether
it's
good
policy
additional
questions
from
committee
members,
okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
raised.
A
Thank
you,
dr
neighbors,
for
the
presentation
and
thank
you
for
your
indulgence
and
letting
me
do
a
little
bit
of
explaining
beyond
your
presentation.
We'll
have
you
wait
for
any
concluding
remarks
once
we
get
through
the
testimony
at
this
time,
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
36.
A
C
F
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
are
in
support
of
this
measure.
However,
as
dr
neighbors
noted,
we
are
in
ongoing
discussions.
Last
night
we
were
in
a
long
discussion
and
I
realized
that
I
needed
to
bring
in
people
way
smarter
than
me
to
include
judge
yeager,
judge
craig,
an
attorney
for
my
office
jessica
murphy,
to
discuss
some
of
the
issues
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
the
successful
mysto
diversion
program.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
mr
pirro,
and
thank
you
for
working
on
this
issue.
I
I
do
understand
that
we
are
bringing
additional
interested
persons
in,
and
I
think
that
is
the
right
approach
on
this.
So
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
work
on
it.
Bps
do
we
have
anybody
else
on
the
line
in
support
of
assembly
bill
36.
A
C
F
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones,
j,
o
h,
n,
j,
o
n
s,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district,
attorney's
association
and
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office.
We
are
here
in
opposition
to
ab36
as
it's
currently
written,
but
we
want
to
thank
administrators
sheriff
and
dr
neighbors
and
their
entire
team
for
meeting
with
us
on
several
occasions
about
this
bill.
We
understand
the
division's
goal
to
clarify
and
standardize
the
competency
statute
with
respect
to
misdemeanor
cases
and
and
we
actually
support
that
goal.
F
We
have
all
agreed
to
continue
discussions
and,
as
john
piero
just
mentioned,
we're
going
to
bring
in
judges
and
other
interested
parties
from
around
the
state
to
help
find
a
solution
that
works
for
everybody.
Assemblywoman
kasama's
question
hits
directly
at
the
da's
concern
currently
in
the
clark
county
da's
office.
We
work
with
the
courts
and
the
defense
bar
to
both
divert
stabilize
and
supervise
those
alleged
to
have
committed
misdemeanors
who
have
been
deemed
incompetent.
F
B
F
We
do
utilize
the
services
of
the
division,
but
we
also
through
the
criminal
case,
continue
to
supervise
them
to
help
ensure
that
they're,
following
through
with
any
treatment
plan,
we
are
worried
that
this
bill
would
upend
the
efforts
in
clark
county
to
provide
needed
services
and
follow
through
with
these
defendants.
F
A
Thank
you,
mr
jones,
for
your
testimony
and
thank
you
for
reaching
out
to
me
yesterday
and
letting
me
know
where
everyone
was
on
this
bill
and
again.
I
appreciate
your
willingness
to
contribute
to
this
discussion
and
to
try
to
find
a
solution
to
what
is
most
certainly
a
tricky
issue.
C
E
E
So
I
just
note
that
this
is
definitely
a
bill
that
we
are
ongoing
in
discussions,
and
I
really
appreciate
all
the
conversations
that
we've
been
able
to
have
with
dr
neighbors.
We
support
their
intentions
but
oppose
this
bill
as
written,
because
we
do
believe
that
it
will
inadvertently
keep
our
misdemeanor
clients
whose
criminal
charges
are
to
be
dismissed
in
jail
longer
than
is
intended
or
in
current
practice.
E
E
The
petition,
as
referenced
in
there
should
be
denied
because
our
clients,
when
they're
in
custody,
do
not
meet
the
criteria
necessary
for
that
petition.
So
we
are
proposed
and
have
been
working
with
the
division
to
modify
that
language
to
state
instead
that
an
application
for
emergency
admission
pursuant
to
chapter
433-a
is
initiated.
E
Unfortunately,
at
this
point
that
won't
address
all
the
concerns,
given
the
different
way
that
these
cases
are
handled
between
clark
and
washoe,
and
so
we
appreciate
dr
neighbors
in
the
division's
willingness
to
continue
to
work
with
us
to
ensure
that
we
are
creating
a
law
that
will
work
for
all
clients,
regardless
of
the
jurisdiction
that
they
are
charged
in.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
testify
today.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
burchie,
and
likewise
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
work
on
this
issue
certainly
appreciate
and
respect
that
there's
a
regional
difference
in
how
these
cases
are
approached,
which
makes
finding
a
solution
a
little
bit
more
difficult,
but
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
participate
and
bring,
in
others
as
appropriate,
bps
anybody
else
in
opposition
on
the
phone
line.
A
C
F
Now
morning,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee,
stephen
konyan,
for
the
record,
picking
up
where
I
left
off
yesterday,
I
kind
of
want
to
generally
ditto
the
remarks
from
ab
23
and
24
and
apply
them
both
to
this
bill,
as
well
as
the
last
one,
unfortunately
kind
of
with
four
things
going
on
at
once.
This
missed
the
last
one,
but
it's
kind
of
the
same
same
lane
and
kind
of
picking
up
where
prior
speakers
left
off.
F
Unfortunately,
the
previous
supervisor
for
want
of
a
better
term
of
one
such
diversionary
court
or
wrap
around
court.
However,
we
want
to
look
at
it.
Ian
clarke
was
recently
robed
having
won
election,
but
just
kind
of
resources
are
really
constrained
and
kind
of
backwards
between
clark
and
washoe.
I
think
so.
It
kind
of
creates
this
kind
of
pigeonhole
for
folks
that
could
truly
benefit
from.
F
A
C
F
Hi,
jim
hoffman
for
nacj,
so,
as
mr
pirro
said,
we
think
this
is
a
good
bill
and
we
support
this
concept.
F
As
ms
burchie
said,
this
would
pose
a
specific
problem
to
how
they
do
things
in
washoe,
county
nacj
represents
lawyers,
both
parts
of
the
state
as
well
as
in
the
rurals,
so
we
are
testifying
in
neutral
on
the
bill,
but,
as
everyone
has
said,
discussions
are
ongoing
and
we
hope
to
get
to
a
place
where
everybody
can
support
it.
Thank.
A
Thank
you,
as
always
bps.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
before
we
go
to
dr
neighbors,
dr
neighbors.
I
wanted
to
congratulate
you.
I
don't
know
if
I've
ever
seen
a
split
in
the
public
defender
lobbyist,
so
that
might
be
a
first
in
the
judiciary
committee
which
I
think
you
know
does
speak
to
how
difficult
this
issue
can
be,
and
certainly
the
regional
differences
and
how
things
are
applied
right
now.
So
dr
neighbors,
please
go
ahead
and
provide
any
concluding
remarks
on
assembly
bill.
36.
D
Well,
I'd
just
like
to
thank
everybody,
north
and
south.
I
I
think
that
this
is
an
exciting
dialogue
to
be
able
to
look
at
this
process
and
make
it
work
better
for
all
of
us,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
everyone
stepping
in
and
helping
us
with
that,
and
I
look
forward
to
coming
up
with
solutions
to
these
really
challenging
problems.
It
is
tricky,
so
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
dr
neighbors.
I
appreciate
that
and
and
again
just
keep
us
updated.
It
sounds
like
there's
still
a
lot
of
folks
to
bring
into
the
discussion,
so
we'll
give
you
some
time
to
do
that
and
if
and
when
you're
ready.
Just
just
let
us
know
and
thank
you
again
for
joining
us
here
this
morning
for
day
two
of
incompetency
or
competency.
However,
we
might
want
to
call
it.
A
So
I'll
close
the
bill
hearing
on
assembly
bill
36.
That
means
we'll
go
to
the
final
item
on
our
agenda
this
morning,
which
is
public
comment
by
way
of
reminder
we'll
take
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment.
Speakers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Bps
when
we're
ready.
Could
we
open
the
public
comment
line
and
see
if
there's
anyone
there
who'd
like
to
give
testimony
this
morning.
C
F
H
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T,
my
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
killed
by
reno
police
and
washoe
county
sheriff's,
heart
tight
and
asphyxiated
to
death.
According
to
fatalentcounters.org,
395
people
have
died
during
interactions
with
law
enforcement
in
nevada,
284
in
clark,
county
63
in
washington,
county
and
48
in
the
other
counties.
When
police
kill
your
loved
one,
you
become
a
subject
matter:
expert
on
the
shortcomings,
corruption
and
injustice
that
plague
the
county
or
state
where
your
loved
one
was
murdered
by
police.
H
You
learn
and
understand
the
way
things
work
and
truth
be
told
it's
the
same
mo
across
the
country,
criminalize
the
victim
criminalize,
their
family
and
victimize
the
family.
Over
and
over.
Currently,
there
is
no
nrs
mandating
a
time
frame
for
lease
of
release
of
a
da's
investigative
reports
in
officer
involved
shootings
in
washer.
H
Some
washout
families
have
waited
over
two
years
for
d.a
chris
hicks
to
release
a
report
justifying
their
loved
ones,
killing
it
took
a
die
in
out
front
of
hick's
office
to
have
him
release
the
body,
cam,
footage
and
report
of
the
shooting
of
eighteen-year-old
mataya
lee,
who
was
in
crisis
and
shot
and
killed.
Johnny
bonte
was
killed,
10
10,
22
17.
The
report
wasn't
released
until
5
30,
1
19
and,
tragically
his
wife,
lisa
bonta,
never
got
to
know
the
names
of
the
officers
who
killed
her
husband
as
she
died
from
cancer
112
2019..
H
There
are
plenty
of
laws
to
protect
police.
I
urge
you
to
support
any
not
to
support
any
bills,
this
session
that
weaken
police
accountability
and
transparency,
nor
support
any
bills
that
provide
them
greater
protections
than
they
already
have
victims
of
police
violence.
Are
your
community
members
too?
Who
is
protecting
them?
Thank
you.
A
C
C
H
Daniel
purdy
for
the
record
d-a-n-I-e-l
p-u-r-d-y
daniel,
pretty
brother
of
thomas
purdy,
murdered
at
washout
county
jail.
I
was
just
listening
to
your
what's
going
on
there
today
about
mental
illness
and
things
like
that
and
how
people
serve
their
time
and
then
they
want
to
have
them
commit
be
held
on
a
commitment
I
mean.
If
someone
is
sentenced
to
six
months
of
jail,
it
should
be
six
months
of
jail.
H
It's
not
all
of
a
sudden.
We
think
that
you're
criminally
insane
or
something
so
we
need
to
hold
you
in
a
facility
longer,
and
then
I
heard
the
doctor
talking
about
chemical
restraint.
That
has
to
be
the
most
disgusting
thing.
I've
ever
heard,
of
course,
some
things
like
that
are
needed,
but
there
should
be
a
very
high
standard
when
it
comes
to
using
chemical
restraint
on
people
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much
have
yourself
a
great
day.
C
A
Thank
you
bps
appreciate
that,
so
we
will
close
public
comment
before
we
talk
about
the
lay
of
the
land
anything
else
from
members
this
morning
again,
I
just
see
smiling
content
faces,
so
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised
so
I'll.
Take
that
as
a
sign
that
there
aren't
additional
comments.
A
Members
again,
thank
you
for
this
morning.
Obviously
we
heard
a
couple
bills
that
still
have
a
little
bit
of
work
left
to
do
so,
we'll
give
interested
persons
an
opportunity
to
get
through
that
work
before
you
will
see
any
of
these
bills
on
a
work
session
and
again
want
to
invite
members.
If
you
have
questions
to
reach
out
to
myself
or
the
vice
chair
or
dr
neighbors,
to
get
more
information
about
how
this
process
works.
A
So
tomorrow
we're
going
to
be
starting
at
8
o'clock.
I
know
it's
early
compared
to
what
we've
been
doing,
I'm
going
to
have
the
pleasure
of
presenting
two
of
my
bills
to
the
committee,
so
our
vice
chair
will
be
running
most
of
the
meeting
tomorrow
morning
and
then
we
are
still
working
on
the
agenda
for
next
week.
I
will
just
kind
of
tell
you
as
a
preview,
that
it's
looking
pretty
likely
that
we
will
not
have
a
meeting
on
monday.
A
I
can
confirm
that
tomorrow,
of
course,
but
we
probably
will
not
have
a
meeting
monday,
we
probably
will
have
meetings
the
rest
of
the
week,
especially
as
we
continue
to
get
bills
to
the
committee,
I'm
not
yet
sure
what
time
we'll
be
meeting
next
week,
but
I
will
let
you
know
before
the
meetings
are
agendas
or
as
their
agenda.
So
with
that
being
said,
committee.
Thank
you
for
your
attention
this
morning
and
we
will
see
you
tomorrow
morning
at
eight
o'clock.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.