►
From YouTube: 4/6/2021 - 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
D
E
F
E
G
E
B
F
H
A
Here,
for
the
time
being,
please
mark
assemblywoman,
bilbray,
axelrod,
assemblywoman,
marzola
and
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
absent
excuse.
I
do
expect
all
of
them
to
be
joining
us
at
some
point
this
morning
they
are
tied
up
in
other
committees,
and
I
know
we
have
a
couple
members
who
have
to
pop
over
there
at
some
point
during
the
meeting,
so
please
feel
free
to
just
go
ahead
and
do
that.
A
In
addition,
if
you
are
presenting
a
bill
or
answering
questions,
please
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
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
being
respectful
of
one
another,
the
legislative
process
and
of
our
staff.
Finally,
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
virtual
meeting.
A
At
this
time,
I'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
161
assembly
bill
161
makes
various
changes
relating
to
actions
for
summary
eviction.
Just
by
way
of
reminder
before
I
hand
the
presentation
over,
I
noted
yesterday
at
the
in
the
meeting
that
there
would
be
an
amendment
forthcoming
on
assembly
bill
161.
A
That
essentially
turns
the
bill
into
an
interim
study,
and
so
that
amendment
is
available
on
nellis
as
an
exhibit,
and
I
think
you
all
should
have
received
that
sometime
yesterday
by
email,
so
assemblywoman
torres
welcome
back
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
we'll
give
you
and
any
presenters
a
chance
to
make
opening
remarks
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
So
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman
selena
torres
representing
assembly
district
3
and
it's
always
great
to
be
back
in
the
judiciary
committee
here
with
me
on
the
zoom
today
is
quentin
savoir
savoia
political
director
for
make
it
work
nevada,
representing
the
nevada
housing
justice
alliance.
J
I
would
like
to
start
by
just
reminding
the
committee
once
again
that
I
do
have
a
proposed
amendment
to
replace
the
original
bill
with
an
interim
study
on
nevada's
eviction
laws,
and
I
believe
it
has
already
been
posted
on
nellis
ab161,
as
originally
drafted
eliminates
summary
eviction
in
nevada.
There
are
two
eviction
procedures,
summary
eviction
and
formal
eviction.
Summary
eviction
is
unique
to
nevada.
Nevada
is
the
only
state
where
the
burden
of
initiating
the
eviction
court
case
falls
in
the
tenant
instead
of
the
landlord.
J
In
fact,
it
is
the
only
legal
proceeding
of
any
kind
that
I'm
aware
of
that
requires
a
defendant
to
initiate
a
court
action
by
first
filing
an
answer.
It
is
akin
to
requiring
someone
to
sue
themselves
for
an
opportunity
to
mount
a
defense
if
a
tenant
does
not
file
an
answer
with
the
court
after
they
receive
a
seven
day
notice,
the
landlord
can
get
an
order
for
eviction,
similarly,
which,
without
the
due
process
of
a
court
hearing
that
means
that,
if,
within
seven
days,
a
tenant
does
not
correctly
navigate
the
legal
system.
J
Amid
the
crisis
of
receiving
an
eviction
notice
to
file
an
answer,
no
summons
complaints,
lawsuit
trial
or
hearing
is
required
to
evict,
as
it
is
in
other
states
and
normal
legal
proceedings.
The
landlord
can
then
move
to
get
an
order,
removing
the
tenant
within
24
hours
and
the
family
finds
out
when
the
lockout
has
been
effectuated.
A
J
Appreciate
it
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
start
this
section,
because
I'm
not
sure
where
the
coven
19
pandemic
has
highlighted
this
and
many
inequities
throughout
our
state.
Too
many
people
have
slipped
through
the
cracks
of
the
eviction
protections
that
were
put
in
place
because
they
didn't
have
the
benefit
of
a
court
hearing
or
assistance
navigating
the
process
in
60
days
the
eviction
protections
will
expire
and
evictions
will
resume.
J
We
have
every
indication
that
there
will
be
a
flood
of
evictions
with
thousands
of
cases
already
pending
in
the
system.
Nevada
will
have
the
hardest
time
connecting
people
with
resources,
assistance
and
relief
because
of
the
abnormal
structure
of
our
laws.
We
have
no
way
to
know
how
many
eviction
notices
go
out
on
any
given
day,
but
our
best
estimate
comes
from
process
servers
who
have
shared
in
the
past
that
in
normal
times
they
believe
that
for
every
thousand
notices
they
send
out
only
a
hundred
people
file
to
an
answer.
J
J
At
the
same
time,
when
evictions
resume,
we
will
need
to
triage
our
response
and
find
a
path
forward
that
will
help
the
most
people
stay
in
their
homes.
I
recognize
that
this
is
not
an
ideal
time
to
turn
our
eviction
system
on
its
head
and
attempt
to
implement
something
completely
new.
Instead,
we
need
to
focus
on
strengthening
our
protections
that
are
already
in
place
to
respond
to
this
immediate
crisis.
J
Nonetheless,
we
do
need
to
draw
a
line
in
the
sand,
and
now
is
the
time
for
us
to
take
up
this
important
conversation
on
the
merit
of
our
eviction
laws.
That's
why
the
amendment
you
have
before
you
proposes
a
critical
interim
study
on
evictions
it'll
be
informed
by
the
lessons
we
have
learned
and
we'll
continue
to
learn
from
the
pandemic
and
it'll
give
us
the
opportunity
to
thoroughly
consider
the
interests
of
all
sides,
hear
from
all
stakeholders
and
come
back
with
policy
recommendations
that
are
safe,
smart
and
equitable.
J
I
appreciate
the
realtors
association
and
the
apartment
association
for
being
willing
to
engage
in
this
dialogue
over
the
last
few
months,
alongside
legal
aid
in
the
nevada
housing
justice
coalition.
I
look
forward
to
an
interim
study
so
that
we
may
continue
this
dialogue
and
develop
a
strategy
that
will
work
for
the
great
state
of
nevada.
J
With
that,
I'm
going
to
ask
ventricular
to
say
a
few
words
and
then
I'll
be
available
for
questions
fantastic
cherry
yeager.
Thank
you
for
having
me
back
in
assembly,
judiciary,
the
best
show
on
youtube
at
8
am
and
honorable
committee
members.
I
am
quentin
savoie
deputy
director
of
make
it
work
nevada,
representing
the
nevada
housing
justice
alliance.
J
Our
coalition
is
comprised
of
more
than
two
dozen
organizations
that
work
alongside
the
families
who
are
first
hand
staring
down
the
threat
of
summary
eviction.
We
know
this
process
is
wholly
unique
to
nevada,
where
landlords
are
able
to
sidestep
the
judicial
process
to
remove
a
family
from
their
home.
J
Our
coalition
is
familiar
with
this
process.
Some
of
us
have
experienced
it,
while
others
of
us
work
directly
with
the
families
to
help
them
maintain
some
sense
of
stability
and
security
while
enduring
this
inhumane
and
arguably
unconstitutional
process
we're
familiar
with
the
devastation
in
a
mother's
voice.
J
Rights
were
especially
lopsided
in
nevada,
giving
an
upper
hand
to
landlords
and
property
managers
all
over
the
state.
During
this
global
pandemic,
we've
watched
them
exercise
this
power
by
removing
families
from
their
homes,
despite
intermittent
eviction
moratoria
over
the
year,
the
families
that
have
borne
the
brunt.
The
most
of
these
evictions,
our
family
likes
mine,
led
by
black
women
that
are
having
to
make
it
work
with
less
and
less.
J
J
We
know
that
mama
and
her
children
in
the
background
asking
what's
wrong:
mama,
while
they're
tussling
with
one
another
over
space
in
their
temporary
home,
while
trying
to
distance
learn
during
the
32nd
special
session
of
the
nevada
legislature,
there
was
unanimous
support
to
declare
racism.
A
public
health
crisis
in
this
state
ab161,
as
amended,
will
reveal
this
crisis
as
it
relates
to
summary
evictions
and
bring
to
light
the
devastating
stories
and
heartbreaking
experiences
of
our
neighbors.
J
A
J
No
we're
ready
for
question
and
I
will
note
that,
on
the
line
we
also
do
have
lauren
lauren
pena,
an
attorney
and
eviction.
Subject
matter
expert.
A
G
Thank
you
chair
and
assemblywoman
taurus.
I
understand
the
bill
and
this
question
I
have
for
you
is
not
necessarily
directed
towards
the
bill.
It's
a
belief
that
I
have
and
when
we
do
these
studies
that
they're
heavily
favored
when
in
the
numbers
in
your
bill,
it
would
be
in
this
case.
Probably
four
democrats.
Two
republicans
when
I
was
asked
you
end
up
with
six.
G
G
What
I'm
getting
to
is
whether
in
this
bill
or
this
bill
specifically,
but
on
all
future
bills
that
go
to
studies,
I'd
really
like
to
see
us,
and
would
you
be
willing
to
make
the
number
skewed
either
3
2
four
three
something
along
that
line
by
adjusting
the
appointments
and
it
isn't
political
in
the
sense
of
democrat
republican,
it's
who's
ever
there
that
we
start
doing
it
that
way
to
have
those
uneven
numbers.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblyman
o'neil
something
once
horus
for
the
record.
I
I
think
that
we're
trying
to
model
the
study
off
of
other
legislative
studies
that
have
been
done
in
the
past,
and
so
that
is
why
we
have
the
makeup
of
this
committee.
But
you
know
I'm
open
to
continuing
to
have
a
dialogue
on
how
the
the
composition
of
the
committee
should
look.
J
But
my
understanding
is
that
the
majority
of
studies
that
have
been
proposed
not
only
this
session
but
in
previous
sessions,
are
similar
to
this,
and
I
don't
know
that
it's
necessarily
been
an
issue
in
the
past.
So
I
you
know,
I'm
definitely
open
to
continuing
to
consult
with
legal
on
to
see
if
that's
an
issue
that
has
arose
and
see
if
there
is
the
need
for
an
amendment
there.
G
G
Thank
you,
mr
sabah.
You
said
that
the
current
eviction
law,
if
I
understood
you
correctly,
you
believe,
is
unconstitutional.
They
assume
you
mean
in
the
state.
Has
a
action
been
filed
to
address
that
issue,
then.
J
A
G
Morning,
lauren
pena,
can
you
hear
me
we
can
good.
My
own.
My
own
face
is
frozen
in
response
to
the
question
assemblyman
o'neill,
if
you're
asking
and
has
ever
a
constitutional
contest,
been
filed
against
the
summary
eviction
statutes.
G
G
I
appreciate
that
I
was
just
he
made
the
comment.
I
was
just
curious
and
I'm
going
to
assume
the
results
then
have
been
in
favor
of
the
landlord.
I
wouldn't
necessarily
say
that
assemblyman
lauren
penny
again.
However,
I
think
that
what
has
been
challenged
is
the
due
process
when
it
comes
to
the
service
of
eviction
notices
prior
to
the
2019
legislative
session.
G
Eviction
notices
were
initiated
by
the
service
of
a
landlord
or
a
landlord's
agent
on
the
tenant,
and
so
there
was
definitely
some
question
and
conversation
about
the
lack
of
due
process
in
regards
to
that,
in
addition
to
the
lack
of
a
hearing
when
a
landlord
was
able
to
file
a
complaint
without
the
tenant's
appearance
and
obtain
an
eviction
order,
I
appreciate
that's
interesting.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
for
the
time
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
J
G
I
think
there's
actually
having
an
even
number
has
some
virtues
that
if
you
have
an
odd
number,
it
allows
a
bare
majority
to
prevail,
and
sometimes
it's
good
to
have
more
than
a
bare
majority.
When
we're
looking
for
recommendations
from
a
study
committee.
So
I
I
think
it's
fine
to
have
an
even
number.
G
Let
me
drag
my
mouse
over
there.
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
and
to
the
committees.
When
you
talk
about
the
committee
makeup
too,
it
just
makes
me
think
that
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
to
have
one
of
the
judges
that
handles
a
lot
of
these
cases,
because
they've
been
doing
it
for
years
and
have
a
lot
of
insight.
J
Well,
thank
you
for
the
question
of
someone
because
I'm
not
going
to
be
the
chair
of
someone
tories
for
the
for
the
record.
I
I.
I
definitely
think
that
judges
should
be
a
part
of
it,
but
this
is
a
legislative
study,
so
it
does
have
to
be
composed
of
legislative
members,
but
I
I'm
sure
that
the
chair
of
this
committee
would
be
reaching
out
to
the
judges
that
do
work
with
these
programs
and
processes.
J
And
you
know
I
will
say
that
throughout
the
last
couple
months,
as
we
looked
at
this
legislation,
consider
the
possibility
of
turning
it
into
this
conceptual
amendment,
which
is
a
study
I
did
speak
with.
Judges
specifically
from
southern
nevada,
judge
saragosa,
and
I
think
that
they're
they're
very
supportive
of
this
and
recognize
that
this
would
be
positive
for
us
to
open
that
dialogue
and
have
this
conversation
throughout
those
months.
J
So
I
have
no
doubt
that
they'll
be
a
part
of
the
process,
but
because
it
is
a
legislative
commission,
it
does
have
to
a
legislative
committee.
It
does
have
to
be
composed
of
legislators.
A
And
I'll
add
to
that
as
well,
just
because
I've
served
on
a
number
of
these.
I
would
anticipate
on
this.
This
study
there
would
be
interested
persons
probably
attending
and
presenting
at
every
meeting,
including
judges,
folks,
representing
landlords,
folks,
representing
tenants,
so
assemblywoman
torres
is
right
in
terms
of
the
voting
voting
members
would
have
to
be
legislators
under
the
study
committee,
but
I
think
this
committee
in
particular
would
would
benefit
from
that
expertise,
and
you
know,
in
fact
I
think,
that's
one
of
the
reasons
in
conversations
with
assemblywoman
torres.
A
We
decided
to
go
this
direction,
because
this
is
just
such
a
big
topic
that
I
think
given
word
deadline
week.
I
don't
think
we
could
do
it
justice
in
this
committee
this
week,
but
I
I
really
look
forward
to
the
work
that
will
hopefully
happen
if
this
bill
is
to
pass
and
be
adopted,
because
I
think
it
is
important
and
there
are
a
lot
of
voices
that
need
to
be
heard,
and
hopefully
those
voices
can
be
heard
in
person
if
we
can
get
back
to
something
approaching
normal
in
the
interim.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
so
assemblywoman
torres.
Mr
savoie,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
We'll
have
you
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment.
While
we
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill,
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
161..
A
G
Good
morning,
bailey
gordolin
for
the
record
representing
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
the
assembly
woman
in
the
committee
for
bringing
this
bill.
This
is
a
conversation
that
we
illegally
have
wanted
to
have
for
many
many
years.
My
predecessor
often
says
he's
been
working
on
this
issue
for
40
years
and
never
gotten
this
far.
So
I
hope
that
we
are
able
to
have
this
conversation
in
the
interim
in
the
interest
of
time,
because
I
know
this
committee
has
no
other
work
to
do.
G
We
have
asked
organizations
that
are
supporting
this
and
we
think
you've
heard
from
them
throughout
the
session
already,
so
you
know
where
they
stand
to
sign
on
to
a
letter
that
I
have
submitted
to
nellis.
So
if
you
open
that
exhibit
you'll
be
able
to
see
that
there
is
a
long
list
of
community
organizations
who
have
been
working
on
the
housing
crisis,
assisting
community
members
in
need
who
look
forward
to
having
this
continued
dialogue.
So
I
would
just
ask
that
you
reference
that
for
support
to
save
us
all
a
little
bit
of
time.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you
miss
bortolin,
and
I
will
note
that
for
the
record
committee
there
there
is
an
exhibit
on
nellis
that
is
signed
by
many
organizations
in
support
of
the
study,
and
so
I
appreciate
miss
bordelin
and
others
doing
that
in
letter
fashion.
So
we
have
a
little
bit
more
time
to
work
on
some
of
the
other
bills
in
committee
today.
A
E
A
Thank
you
bps.
Before
I
close
support
of
testimony,
I
did
want
to
note.
As
previously
stated,
there
is
a
letter
on
nell
assigned
by
many
organizations.
There
is
a
second
letter
of
support
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
culinary
workers
union,
local
226
as
well,
so
that
is
part
of
the
record
at
this
time.
I'll
close
testimony
in
support,
I
will
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition.
E
K
Good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
committee
mackenzie
warren
with
mcdonald
carano
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
state
department
association,
the
apartment
association
is
testifying
in
opposition
today
on
assembly,
bill
161,
but
this
is
not
without
recognition
of
the
decision
to
roll
this
concept
into
an
interim
study.
Since
kovitt,
the
apartment
association
has
lost
an
estimated
100
million
dollars
in
rent
in
clark
and
108
million
dollars
in
washoe.
K
K
To
be
sure,
this
pain
is
shared
and
it
felt
in
our
affordability
and
access
issues
and
to
eliminate
the
summary
evictions
process
without
any
analysis
or
assessment
of
the
same
would
have
been
short-sighted.
As
you
heard
from
the
sponsor,
and
such
a
decision
could
have
been
met
with
an
unexpected
result
during
this
time
of
uncertainty-
and
we
testify
in
opposition
today,
because
we
can
only
be
cautiously
optimistic
that
the
apartment
association
will
be
meaningfully
included
in
the
proposed
interim
study.
Yet
we
represent
67
percent
of
all
multi-family
housing.
K
Our
data
is
always
available
on
rent
vacancy
evictions.
It's
here,
for
you,
you've
also
heard
that
summary
evictions
are
unique
to
nevada,
yet
also
unique
is
nevada's
housing,
industry,
our
tenant
composition
and
our
transient
state,
and
this
all
plays
a
role,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
evictions
and
you'll.
Hear
me
say
this:
a
lot
this
session,
that
the
apartment
association
is
simply
not
in
the
business
of
evicting
our
residents.
We
thrive
when
our
residents
thrive
and,
as
this
very
committee
has
already
heard
on
at
least
one
other
landlord
tenant
bill.
K
The
realities
of
this
pandemic
have
left,
have
left
many
of
us
hurting,
but
the
more
we
lose,
the
less
we
have
left
to
give
to
programs
that
seek
to
root
out
homelessness
and
provide
creative
solutions
that
keep
our
residents
in
units
wiping
out
an
entire
eviction
process
without
a
hard
look
is
not
the
answer,
and
we
do
have
reservations
about
the
true
aim
of
this
study.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
miss
warren.
You
know
I
will
note.
Some
of
your
testimonies
seem
to
indicate
that
the
summary
eviction
process
is
is
going
to
go
away
and
just
note
for
the
record
that
what
is
being
proposed
here
is
a
study
of
that
process.
That
would
happen
in
the
interim,
so
this
bill
does
not
seek
to
get
rid
of
summary
eviction,
and
I
would
expect
and
hope
that
the
apartment
association
would
participate
if
this
bill
is
to
be
adopted,
and
the
study
is
to
happen,
and
I
would
I
would
expect
that
to
happen.
A
A
J
Pikachu
yeager
someone
taurez
for
the
record.
I
I
want
to
keep
these
closing
remarks
brief.
As
I
know,
I'm
the
judy
shared
committee
has
a
number
of
other
pieces
of
legislation
to
look
at
this
morning.
You
know
I
just
want
to
reiterate
the
comments
from
the
chair
that
this
piece
of
legislation
in
no
way
ends.
Summary
evictions,
and
I
have
you,
know,
extended
the
olive
branch
to
both
associations,
the
writers
association,
the
apartment
association.
J
I
informed
them
of
the
study
that
this
was
a
piece
of
legislation
moving
towards
a
study
so
that
we
could
have
this
dialogue
and
really
evaluate
the
eviction
process,
and
I
think
that's
how
we
make
good
policy
in
the
state
of
nevada,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
you
support
the
current
system
or
not.
J
In
order
for
us
to
have
these
policy
discussions,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
take
the
time
to
really
evaluate
what
would
work
here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
I
am
sure
that
this
study
will
give
us
the
opportunity
to
do
so,
and
I
would
hope
that
the
associations
would
be
at
the
table
and
be
a
part
of
this
dialogue
as
well,
so
that
we
can
find
the
solution
for
the
state
of
nevada.
I
also
just
you
know.
J
J
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
for
the
record
so
as
to
ensure
that
you
know
they're
not
going
to
influence
our
political
decisions,
but
rather
they
can
help,
explain
the
processes
so
that
we
understand
them
better
and
might
understand
where
some
of
the
issues
currently
exist.
I
appreciate
the
committee
for
taking
the
time
and
I
hope
you
all
have
a
great
rest
of
your
morning.
J
A
A
We
don't
have
a
bill
in
front
of
us,
but
I
do
suspect
by
the
end
of
the
session,
we'll
have
something
that
hopefully
strikes
the
right
balance
between
you
know,
making
sure
that
landlords
who
have
many
of
whom
have
not
been
paid
during
this
pandemic
can
recoup
some
of
that
money,
but
we
also
are
aiming
to
protect
tenants
as
well.
So
I
didn't
want
committee
members
or
anyone
listening
in
the
public
to
think
that
this
was
all
we
were
going
to
do
this
session.
A
There
are
some
some
other
efforts
underway
and-
and
I
suspect
that,
before
the
end
of
session,
we'll
be
able
to
hear
another
bill
with
us,
a
concept
that
hopefully
is,
is
going
to
get
us
through
these
next
several
months
in
a
way
that
works
for
everyone,
so
just
want
to.
Let
members
know
that
those
efforts
are
underway,
and
so
this
is
not
the
last
step.
A
A
A
And
again,
members,
I'm
just
working
on
alerting
assemblyman
flores
that
we
are
ready
for
him.
So.
F
A
A
Okay
committee,
I
see
that
we
have
chairman
flores
joining
us,
assemblyman
flores.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
I
know
things
are
really
hectic
over
in
government
affairs
this
morning.
So
we
appreciate
you
popping
over
here
quickly.
At
this
time
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
440
assembly
bill
440
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
issuance
of
certain
citations
committee
members.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
assemblyman
flores
here
to
present
the
bill
and
I
think
he
has
mr
pirro
with
him
as
well.
So
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
and
esteemed
colleagues
of
the
judiciary
committee.
I
am
assembly
manager
florist
for
the
record
representing
assembly
district
28..
B
B
I
say
that
only
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
this
this
bill
did
not
originate
with
me,
and
I
also
wanted
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that,
unfortunately,
unlike
other
bills,
I
didn't
have
an
opportunity
to
work
this
bill
present
the
language
go
back
and
forth
with
stakeholders,
amend
it
and
then
come
to
a
place
that,
even
if
we
disagreed
the
language
was
somewhere
where
I
was
very
comfortable
with
it,
because
I
I
was
a
member
of
that
interim
committee
chaired
by
senator
harris.
B
I
I
agreed
to
step
up
and
help
with
this
presentation
today,
but
I
start
with
that
preface
because
I
I
think
it's
important,
that
I
be
fair
to
the
opposition
and
say
that
I
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
sit
down
with
them
and
work
this
bill
out
to
address
any
kinks
that
we
may
have
with
the
with
the
language
or
address
some
of
their
concerns.
That
was
not
by
design
again.
B
If
I,
if
I
can
go
back
specifically
to
january
21st
2020,
I,
as
I
specifically
mentioned
the
2019-2020
interim
committee,
to
conduct
an
interim
study
on
issues
relating
to
pre-trial
release,
convened
and
specifically
that
on
that
particular
date,
we
had
a
a
very
meaningful
presentation
by
ncsl
and
specifically
one
of
the
questions
that
that
was
posed
and
and
one
of
the
the
some
of
the
data
that
came
about
from
that
conversation
is
citation
in
lieu
of
arrests.
B
As
we
know,
nationwide
we
are
in
a
very
specific
movement
to
try
to
ensure
that
we
are
minimizing
our
de
facto
put
people
in
jail,
a
knee-jerk
reaction
to
a
are
there
other
ways
of
ensuring
that
folks
show
up
to
court.
Are
there
other
ways
of
ensuring
that
we
can
minimize
and
and
still
ensure,
that
we're
moving
away
from
the
behavior?
B
We
don't
want,
in
this
case,
being
a
particular
crime,
but
that
we're
not
always
yielding
to
rest
and
and-
and
we
all
know
the
consequences
of
that
and
I'll
get
into
that.
But
in
that
particular
presentation
they
talked
about
how
there's
23
new
laws
between
2012
and
2018,
where
they
moved
from
citation
in
lieu
of
arrest
nationwide,
and
they
talked
about
how
nearly
almost
every
single
state
or
better
said.
B
Every
single
state
gives
some
type
of
leeway
and
and
and
puts
it
on
the
office
here,
giving
them
the
opportunity
to
say,
and
you,
through
your
criteria
through
your
lens,
should
we
be
arresting
or
should
we
just
be
giving
and
issuing
a
citation?
B
In
fact,
in
some
states
they
even
went
as
far
as
allowing
for
citations,
even
for
cases
or
instances
of
felonies
where
they
weren't
violent,
and
they
thought
that
it
was
appropriate
for
for
them
to
consider
that
and
in
this
particular
bill
and
in
that
interim
committee.
B
B
Should
they
ever
be
in
a
scenario
where
they
they've
committed
a
particular
violation,
but
that
did
not
involve
violence
and
it
was
not
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
a
felony.
B
Obviously,
if
an
officer
is
issuing
citations
for
these
low
offenders
in
lieu
of
rest,
that
means
that
they
will
be
much
more.
They
they'll
be
much
faster.
B
There's
a
that
same
ncsl
study
that
that
I
referenced
earlier
talked
about
that
the
average
citation
can
take
right
around
24
minutes,
but
the
average
arrest
is
closer
to
85
minutes
86
minutes.
So
I
wanted
to
make
that
point.
Number
one
officers
are
more
efficient,
but
number
two
we've
also
been
talking
about
trying
to
enhance
community
policing
relations
and
when
you
know
that
an
individual
commits
a
misdemeanor,
offense
and
they're
arrested.
B
Understandably,
we
can
understand
how
that
could
have
some
devastating
results
with
our
relationship
when
we're
trying
to
just
ensure
that
we
stop
that
conduct.
A
citation
very
well
can
achieve
that
purpose.
B
More
importantly,
the
reduced
criminal
justice
system
costs.
Obviously,
if
somebody
goes
to
jail,
that
means
taking
up
a
jail
cell.
That
means
them
having
to
present
themselves
before
court,
all
the
staff
and
resources
that
go
into
that
on
top
of
the
detrimental
impacts
that
that
will
have
to
that
individual
and
and
lastly,
we
have
been
talking
about
for
a
long
time
that
we
really
need
to
move
away
from
the
de
facto
notion
of
of
arresting
folk
consistently,
in
fact,
there's
a
study
that
goes
all
the
way
back
to
the
1960s.
B
When
we
were
issuing
traffic
citations,
new
york
had
a
a
study
where
they
said
it's
just
burdensome
and
too
expensive
for
us
to
be
arresting
an
individual
for
every
single,
tiny
citation
and
really
they.
They
were
some
of
the
pioneers
and
and
moving
away
from
this
notion
that
we
needed
to
arrest
for
every
single
violation,
and
we
I
you
know
we
do
have
to
balance
it
right
because,
but
you
know
the
question.
B
The
underlying
question
is
what
is
the
purpose
of
of
arresting
somebody,
and
I
would
say
that
the
idea
was
to
ensure
that
they
show
up
to
court
that
we
wanna
ensure
that
we're
persuading
individuals
for
not
conducting
unlawful
activity,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
folks
show
up
to
court
and
and
take
care
of
their
fines
right
and
all
those-
and
you
know
doing
those
things
is
important.
B
So
the
question
is:
is
a
citation
adequate
will
citation
help
in
achieving
that
purpose
and
that
same
ncsl?
Study
that
I
referenced
in
the
interim
hearing
talked
about
how
in
those
and
these
low-level
offenses
and
misdemeanor
crimes,
it
is,
and
so
I
think
it
is
powerful
for
us
to
see
that
I
think
where
we
drop
the
ball
as
a
society
nationwide.
B
Is
we
put
so
much
discretion
in
the
hands
of
officers
and,
like
I
said
they
have
that
now,
you'll
hear
from
law
enforcement
talking
about
that
that
in
a
lot
of
these
misdemeanor
crimes,
that
they
already
have
that
discretion
to
decide
whether
or
not
they'll
issue
a
citation
in
lieu
of
an
arrest.
B
But
I
think
if
we
can
put
some
of
that
in
statute,
we
we
set
a
consistent
across
the
board
message
and
and
that
we
ensure
that
two
similar
individuals
who
have
committed
the
same
exact
low-level
offense
are
equally
situated
and
that
one
individual,
because
they
happen
to
be
in
one
jurisdiction,
won't
be
subjected
to
arrest.
While
another
individual
who
happens
to
be
in
a
different
jurisdiction
will
get
a
citation.
I
think.
B
As
as
a
state,
we
can
come
to
some
consensus
that
in
the
very
lowest
crimes
we
shouldn't
be
putting
folk
in
jail
in
any
scenario.
Now,
if
I
could
very
quickly
walk
you
through
the,
I
know
that
there's
some
amendments
that
were
being
worked
on
again,
I
unfortunately
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
be
a
part
of
that
process.
I
don't
believe
we
have
an
amendment
now,
so
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
the
bill
as
we
have
it
now,
as
you
may
have
noticed,
the
bill
is
about
25
pages.
B
I
don't
intend
to
do
a
section
by
section,
as
I
think
that
is
unnecessary
and
I'll
explain
why,
as
I'm
walking
through
the
bill,
but
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
I
walk
through
the
bill
and
do
my
due
diligence
with
that.
So
I'm
looking
at
page
three
now
and
specifically
looking
at
sections
one
through
five,
and
I
wanted
to
explain
the
logic
in
when
we
we
had
this
conversation
during
the
interim
committee.
B
So
you'll
see
section
two
talks
about
an
aggregate
offense,
and
this
went
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
law
enforcement
and
other
members
of
the
community,
along
with
some
of
the
members
of
the
actual
committee
itself.
B
One
of
the
concerns
raised
is
well
what,
if
you
have
an
a
low
offense,
a
misdemeanor
trespass,
but
then
that
individual
keeps
doing
it.
You'll
see
section
two
talks
about
an
aggregate
offense,
that's
what
we
were
trying
to
capture
there.
We
want
law
enforcement.
Obviously
we
want
law
enforcement
to
issue
a
citation,
but
we
don't
want
them
to
have
to
be
concerned
about
saying
well,
every
single
time
I
got
to
come
back
to
this
particular
situation.
Of
this
trespass.
B
All
I
can
do
is
a
citation.
We
don't
want
to
tie
the
hands
of
law
enforcement.
So
again,
if
it's
a
one-time,
individual
trespass
sure
citation
done,
but
if
we
have
to
come
back
and
and
there's
another
scenario
there,
then
we
want
to.
We
wanted
to
capture
that
specifically
and
section
two
crime
of
violence.
I
think
some
of
the
concerns
raised
by
the
committee
members
of
the
community
in
law
enforcement
were
well
what
about
crimes
of
violence?
B
We
know
that
in
the
state
of
nevada,
unfortunately,
domestic
violence
is
horrible
and
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
in
those
scenarios
that
we
weren't
just
telling
individuals
that
they
could
somehow
walk
away
from
from
the
situation
with
just
a
citation
of
the
officer
thought
that
maybe
somebody
else
could
be
in
danger
or
something
like
that.
So
in
those
scenarios
there
is
no
mandatory
citation
in
lieu
of
arrest.
B
We.
I
also
wanted
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
the
discretion
remains
with
law
enforcement.
With
you
know
a
felony
gross
misdemeanor,
violent
misdemeanors
or
aggregate
offenses.
They
still
have
the
discretion
that
they
have
now,
whatever
they
think
based
on
their
criteria
and
what
they're
reading
the
situation
as
they'll
be
able
to
continue
to
apply
that
discretion.
What
we're
saying
is
no
discretion
mandatory
citation
when
it's
the
first
time,
no
non-violent
crime
and
it's
not
a
gross
misdemeanor,
a
felony.
B
So
it's
a
misdemeanor,
that's
the
only
time
that
we're
triggering
the
mandatory
the
must
if
we
stay
in
that
same
section.
B
I
wanted
to
also
make
it
abundantly
clear,
because
one
of
the
concerns
I
got
was
well
there's
some
scenarios
where
it
may
be
a
first-time
misdemeanor,
where
I
still
want
to
make
an
arrest
and
having
conversations
with
just
officers
that
I
happen
to
have
a
relationship
with
that.
I
had
a
phone
call
with
last
night
and
I'm
thankful,
I'm
thankful
to
them
for
answering
the
phone,
and
I
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
If
you
see
page
three,
I'm
looking
at
lines
39
through
42
and
then
in
page
four
lines,
one
through
six.
B
I
bring
that
up
because
it
says
it
talks
about
when
a
citation
doesn't
have
to
be
implemented.
This
is
already
in
statute
by
the
way,
this
is
the
current
law.
So
even
with
the
rules,
we're
applying
we're
still
ensuring
that
an
arrest
can
be
made.
B
As
follows,
so
it
says
specifically,
excuse
me-
and
I
misstated
that-
and
I
get
my
apologies.
This
is
when
you
have
to
apply
it
and
then
I'll
go
in
page
in
in
the
next
two
pages
I'll
get
into
when,
when
there's
exceptions
to
the
rules.
So
when
the
citation
has
to
be
issued
in
my
apologies,
I
misstated
that
I
jumped
ahead
to
the
other
section.
The
warrant
is
issued
upon
a
defense
punishable
as
a
misdemeanor.
B
The
police
officer
has
that
has
no
indication
that
the
defendant
has
previously
failed
to
appear
or
charge
reflected
in
the
warrant.
The
defendant
provides
satisfactory
evidence
that
his
or
her
identity
of
the
peace
officer,
the
defendant,
signs
the
wrong
promise
to
appear
in
court,
and
the
peace
officer
has
reasonable
grounds
to
believe
the
defendant
will
keep
her
promise
to
appear
in
court.
So
again,
a
citation
doesn't
have
to
be
issued
if
this
is
not
true
right.
B
So
if
you
can't
make,
if
you
can't
identify
the
particular
individual,
if
in
the
past
they
have
a
history
of
not
showing
up
to
court
if
there's
an
outstanding
warrant,
if
their
scenarios
like
or
they
refuse
to
sign
a
document-
and
many
of
you
have
may
have
seen
this
where
you'll
say
yes
I'll
show
up
to
court
by
signing
you're,
not
saying
you're
guilty
you're,
just
saying
you're
gonna
show
up
if
you're
not
doing
that,
then
the
officer
can
can
say.
Well,
you
know
what
an
arrest
is
still
necessary
here.
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
abundantly
clear.
You'll
see
that
as
we
move
through
through
the
the
the
bill
itself,
there
is
a
whole
host
of
sections
referenced.
B
The
reason
you'll
see
so
many
sections
referenced
here
in
is
because
the
bill
goes
into
arrest
done
by
officers
we'll
go
into
citations
for
traffic
violations,
we'll
go
into
crashes,
we'll
go
into
watercraft
issues,
so
things
that
happen
not
in
your
traditional
setting
like
on
the
streets
but
elsewhere,
so
things
that
involve
a
warning
getting
involved.
Things
like
that.
That's
why
this
bill
is
so
lengthy,
but
in
every
single
session
the
intent
is
the
same.
B
If
it's
a
low,
if
it's
a
misdemeanor,
not
in
the
aggregate
and
it's
not
an
aggregate
offense
and
it's
not
a
gross
misdemeanor,
a
felony,
then
a
citation
has
to
be
issued
in
lieu
of
an
arrest
and
with
that
again
I
don't
want
to
go
through
every
single
section,
because
it
repeats
itself.
That
is
the
objective
of
every
section,
but
because
we
have
so
many
different
sections
that
applies
to
that
you'll
see
in
there
too.
One
of
the
questions
that
I
got
preemptively
there
was
a
question
as
to
a
private
arrest.
B
You'll
see
that
in
page
four
section,
seven
nrs171
that
that's
referring
to
like
private
officers,
security
officers,
so
that
that's
what
that
that
goes
to
just
to
make
that
abundantly
clear
when
they
can
do
arrests
and
that's
what's
being
triggered
there
with
that.
Mr
chairman
and
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
again,
I
apologize
for
stumbling
there
a
little
bit.
B
But
if
I
could
now
hand
over
the
presentation
to
mr
john
piero,
who
will
provide
a
little
bit
more
of
a
concise
breakdown
of
how
this
applies
in
the
day-to-day.
What
he
sees
through
his
lens
as
within
the
public
defenders
world
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions.
C
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager
john
pirro,
for
the
record
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
a
few
things
that
assemblyman
flores
touched
on
on
2016.
The
international
association
of
chiefs
of
police
did
a
nationwide
survey
that
found
that
most
police
agencies
widely
embraced
the
citation
and
rule
of
arrest
policy.
So
what
this
bill
seeks
to
do
is
codify
that
good
policy,
but
provide
some
constraints
on
when
a
citation
should
be
given
and
when
a
arrest
should
occur.
C
As
assemblymen
flourish
said,
it's
a
time
saving
measure,
but
what
they
did
find
is
that,
even
though
most
departments
are
doing
this
practice,
they're
not
studying
the
data,
so
this
would
also
be
a
good
way
to
collect
data
on
the
issue,
and
it
was
actually
heartening
to
know
that
nevada
is
not
the
only
place
that
has
a
lack
of
data
as
well
as
assemblyman
flores
said
some
of
the
things
as
in
section
6.
It
deals
with
city
and
county
ordinances.
C
Those
are
generally
misdemeanors
and
those
are
low-level
non-violent
misdemeanors.
So
it
would
start
with
the
must,
instead
of
the
may,
for
non-violent,
misdemeanors
and
violations
of
the
city
and
county
ordinances.
Think
possession
of
drug
paraphernalia
disorderly
conduct
things
of
that
nature.
Section
seven
deals
with,
as
assemblymen
flores
said,
the
maybe
an
arrest
at
walmart.
I
think
most
jurisdictions
here
have
a
walmart,
but
if
the
person
is
not
giving
their
id
or
their
proper
information
which
down
south,
but
all
of
our
agencies
have
a
way
to
verify
information
on
name
alone
through
scope,.
C
C
It
talks
about
mandating
citations
for
traffic,
but
not
the
serious
traffic
offenses,
like
dui
reckless
driving
a
crash
that
results
in
a
death,
and
I
just
I
just
want
to
clarify
the
committee
before
I
close
out
senator
harris
sent
me
over
a
conceptual
amendment
that
would
address
some
of
the
concerns
of
officers
in
the
field
when
they're
talking
about
well.
A
Thank
you
so
much
mr
pirro,
chair
flores,
before
I
turn
it
over
to
other
members.
Mr
appear,
this
is
probably
a
question
for
you.
I
know.
Over
the
years
we've
talked
quite
a
bit
about
what
the
cost
is
to
hold
someone,
at
least
in
the
clark
county
detention
center
in
southern
nevada,
and
I
wondered
if
you
had
updated
numbers
on
what
the
most
recent
cost
numbers
are
for
what
what
it
costs
to
incarcerate
for
a
day
there.
C
John
pirro,
currently,
after
speaking
with
director
d-lab,
who
I'm
sure
all
of
you
know
it
was
190,
but
there's
a
request
to
this
legislative
body
to
raise
the
cost
for
when
clark
county
detention
center
is
holding
somebody
from
the
state
to
raise
it
to
200
a
day
so
that
that
request
is
pending
before
that
body.
So
I
think
if
this
body
passes
that
the
updated
cost
would
be
about
200
a
day
to
hold
somebody.
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
both
for
the
presentation,
and
this
is
for
sheriff
flores,
but
I
think
also
mr
piro
might
have
some
input
just
based
on
his
experience.
So
in
toward
the
beginning
of
the
presentation
you
mentioned
that
the
studies
have
shown
that
people
do
appear
when
they're,
just
when
they're
cited
right,
that
they
don't
they're
not
required
jail
time
to
make
sure
that
they
show
up
do
do
we
know.
Why
is
it
that
people
are
afraid
that
people
are
just
inherently
follow
the
rules.
B
Hi,
thank
you
for
that
question.
Assemblywoman
through
you,
mr
chairman,
somebody
never
flourish
for
the
record,
so
I
wanted
to
make
two
points
because
you
you
touched
on
some
something
important.
B
The
data
has
two
two
numbers
that
I
saw
so
the
likelihood
of
you
showing
up
and
addressing
a
particular
issue
if
it's
your
first
offense
is
actually
higher
so
and
which
is
goes
to
the
spirit
of
this
bill.
So
I
wanted
to
make
that
point,
and
second,
I
don't
know
that
they
they've
delineated.
Why
people
show
up.
I
think
what
they've
identified
is
that
people
do
show
up
and
that's
the
point
I
think
for
a
long
time.
B
The
notion
was
that
the
de
facto
status
of
going
to
to
arresting
somebody
was
the
only
way
to
get
folk
in
to
to
address
whatever
issues
matters
they
had
pending
has
proven
that
that,
in
fact,
is
not
necessarily
the
case.
People
do
show
up
and
there's
a
lot
of
different
ideas
out
there,
and
in
fact
some
states
have
a
they'll
send
out
an
email
reminder.
B
C
And
then
chairman,
if
I
may
jump
in
as
well
go
ahead
briefly,
assemblywoman
cohen,
I
believe
john
pirro
for
the
record.
I
believe
that
we
saw
an
increase
in
citations
and
and
not
making
arrests
during
the
covet
pandemic.
Metro
was
doing
a
very
good
job
of
not
over
arresting
and
just
to
give
some
clarity.
I've
been
on
the
criminal
justice
coordinating
council
since
2017
working
with
all
criminal
justice
agencies,
partners,
the
da's,
the
police,
the
courts
and
that's
how
we
created
the
initial
arraignment
court,
but
part
of
the
impetus
for
that
was
our
jail.
C
The
clark
county
detention
center
was
over
packed
and
in
fact,
we
we
have
two
functions
of
the
jail.
We
have
the
clark
county
detention
center
in
maine,
and
then
we
have
the
north
valley
complex,
which
what
our
jail
was
so
over,
packed
that
anybody
that
worked
at
the
north
valley,
complex
was
overtime
only
so
that
was
costing
a
lot
of
money.
C
So
the
pew
charitable
trust
and
all
these
organizations
came
in
and
gave
us
money
to
work
on
this
issue,
and
they
said
you
need
to
hit
a
benchmark
of
reducing
your
jail
population
and
no
matter
what
we
were
doing.
We
weren't
hitting
it
until
the
covent
pandemic
happened.
Then
we
actually
had
lower
numbers
that
let
us
hit
the
benchmarks
that
the
grants
were
for.
So
I
think
this
policy
does
work
in
practice
and
the
code
pandemic
unfortunately
showed
us
a
way
to
work
it
out.
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
for
allowing
me
the
question
so
my
my
question
here
would
be
how
many,
how
many
people
will
we
not
be
putting
in
jail
that
we
would
have
should
this
bill
pass,
so
how
many
people
are
we
saving
not
putting
in
jail
and,
like
you
said,
there's
a
cost
of
190
or
200
a
day?
C
A
G
A
I
I
think
you
are
asking
the
question
correctly
well,
hopefully
somebody
can
give
us
some
kind
of
estimate
and,
if
not
then
we'll
see
if
we
can
get
that
information
following
the
hearing,
but
I
think
you
are
asking
it
the
right
way.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
A
B
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
am
committed
to
continuing
to
work
with
all
the
stakeholders.
I
am
confident
that
there
will
be
amendments
again.
B
Unfortunately,
I
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
work
the
bill
in
the
way
that
I
wish
I
could
have,
but
I
am
committed
in
the
next
couple
of
days
to
coming
back
to
the
committee
having
worked
the
bill
and
providing
you
some
insight
as
to
the
concerns
raised
by
the
opposition
and
hopefully
addressing
some
of
their
concerns.
Mr
chairman,
with
your
permission
and
mr
mr
piero,
thank
you,
sir,
for
stepping
up
to
the
plate
and
helping
me
today.
B
A
A
E
L
L
L
White
people
and
black
people
use
illegal
drugs
at
the
same
rate,
for
instance,
but
there
is
still
a
substantial
discrepancy
in
arrest
rate,
the
legislature
should
strike
a
balance.
There
is
value
in
giving
police
officers
some
level
of
discretion
to
enforce
the
law,
but
we
know
on
an
empirical
basis
that
if
they
have
too
much
discretion,
the
law
can
get
enforced
in
a
racially
biased
manner.
L
E
D
D
We
do
believe
that
individuals
would
still
come
to
court
has
been
evidenced
in
other
studies,
and
this
is
yet
another
way
that
we
can
show
our
citizens
that
we
do
value
them
and
that
if
they
made
one
mistake,
that
mistake
does
not
have
to
dictate
the
rest
of
their
lives.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention.
E
G
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
holly
welborn,
h-o-l-l-y
w-e-l-b-o-r-n
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
For
the
sake
of
time
I
will
say
ditto
to
my
colleagues
at
nacj.
They
made
most
of
the
points
I
intended
to
make.
This
morning.
We
thank
the
interim
bail
study
committee
for
their
hard
work
and
look
forward
to
working
on
the
package
of
bills
that
came
out
of
that
interim
study.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
A
A
E
E
M
M
We
oppose
ab440
because
misdemeanor
crimes
should
not
be
minimized
or
marginalized,
and
officers
should
have
discretion
to
provide
for
the
safety
of
the
community.
This
is
particularly
true
considering
how
ab-440
defines
violent
crimes
and
aggregate
crimes.
That
definition
leaves
out,
for
example,
the
misdemeanor
crime
of
violation
of
a
temporary
protective
order.
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
is
a
concerning
offense
and
that
the
victim
deserves
protection
with
the
way
ab440
is
written.
It
would
not
matter
how
many
times
a
person
had
shown
up
to
the
victim's
home.
M
The
most
the
police
could
do
would
be
to
issue
a
citation,
and
if
the
person
refused
to
stop
the
behavior,
the
police
could
still
not
arrest
them
as
another
example,
as
ab440
is
currently
written.
If
a
stranger
walked
through
an
unlocked
door
into
your
home,
the
police
could
not
arrest
the
person
they
could
give
them
a
citation
for
trespass,
but
if
they
refuse
to
leave
your
home,
there
is
nothing
the
police
could
do,
because
trespass
is
not
an
aggregate
offense,
as
defined
in
the
bill.
M
The
same
would
apply
to
a
person
who,
for
example,
walked
into
the
same
small
business
every
single
day
and
stole
a
thousand
dollars
worth
of
merchandise.
Each
time
the
police
could
issue
a
citation
each
day,
but
could
not
arrest
the
person
for
petty
larceny
to
be
clear.
A
citation
cannot
stop
conduct
and
if
the
officer
can't
make
a
misdemeanor
arrest
for
most
charges,
no
matter
what
there
is
a
likelihood,
they
will
be
called
to
the
same
situation
again
shortly
thereafter.
M
Ab440
does
not
take
into
account
the
varying
situations
that
we
see.
Day-To-Day
officers
need
discretion
in
order
to
determine
how
dangerous
the
situation
is,
regardless
of
the
crime,
they
ultimately
charge,
the
suspect
with,
and
they
need
to
have
the
discretion
to
make
an
arrest
to
prevent
a
situation
from
escalating
from
a
simple
misdemeanor
to
a
violent
felony.
When
the
need
arises,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
E
I
I
Testimony
during
that
committee
was
given
by
jail
staff
regarding
jail
numbers
and
jail
issues,
but
not
police
officers
in
the
field
who
deal
with
misdemeanor
crimes.
This
bill
basically
takes
away
a
police
officer's
discretion
and
their
ability
to
deal
with
misdemeanor
offenses
that
have
a
potential
to
continue
to
escalate
or
where
citations
do
not
solve
the
issue.
I
The
problem
is,
is
that
sometimes
an
arrest
is
needed
to
solve
a
problem
or
to
prevent
future
trouble.
There
is
no
language
in
this
bill
that
allows
for
arrest
when
a
violation
will
continue
or
such
a
situation
will
escalate.
This
bill
will
have
a
huge
negative
impact
on
public
safety,
it'll
impact
businesses.
I
I
I
Our
capacity
in
the
jail
is,
fourth
is
about
4
000
inmates,
and
currently
we
have
around
2
800
inmates
on
average,
which
is
way
below
capacity.
We've
seen
around
a
13
decrease
in
jail
bookings
since
2007,
and
our
average
daily
population
for
misdemeanors
is
about
11
percent
of
our
jail
population
is
misdemeanors
and
most
of
those
are
dui's
domestic
violence
where
we're
mandated
to
make
an
arrest.
I
A
E
H
H
H
We
continually
work
with
the
courts
law
enforcement,
non-profits,
inmate
assistant
programs
to
ensure
only
those
who
need
to
be
arrested
are
arrested.
The
newly
created
detention
services
unit
has
on-site,
behavioral
health,
clinicians,
social
workers,
discharge
planners
and
deputies
dedicated
to
helping
those
who
are
routinely
arrested,
help
curb
recidivism.
H
We
want
to
have
our
we
want
to
have
our
community
aware
of
the
fact.
We
are
listening
to
their
concerns
and
addressing
their
needs.
A
b
440
does
not
listen
to
their
needs.
Law
enforcement
has
a
discretion
currently
to
conduct
a
verbal
counseling,
a
separation
of
parties,
a
written
warning,
a
citation
or
an
arrest
in
those
instances
where
reason
and
common
sense
are
continually
ignored,
crime
isn't
always
black
and
white,
or
violent,
and
non-violent.
Persistent
harassment,
victim
intimidation
and
calls
for
service
from
our
community
beg
for
enforcement
action.
H
The
public
demands
it
and
our
oath
of
office
confirms
it.
We
are
here
to
serve
and
protect
law
enforcement
does
not
take
a
rest
lightly.
Arrests
are
made
when
no
other
option
is
available
consistently:
the
suspect's
actions
demeanor
and
mental
well-being,
direct
law
enforcement
on
the
path
that
must
be
taken.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members
for
the
opportunity
to
listen
to
our
concerns
today.
H
E
H
E
M
J-E-N-N-I-F-E-R-N-O-B-L-E-
and
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
this
morning
in
opposition
to
ab-440
we'd,
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
sending
us
a
conceptual
amendment
this
morning
and
looking
at
it
in
the
context
of
a
bill.
It
may
alleviate
some
of
our
concerns
regarding
section
six
and
seven.
However,
we
do
have
several
remaining
concerns
in
section
six,
two,
I'm
sorry
in
sections
two,
sixteen
and
throughout
the
bill
we
suggest
replacing
the
word
aggregate
with
another
term,
such
as
subsequent
in
nevada,
criminal
law.
M
Aggregation
is
a
term
of
art
and
a
concept
that
applies
to
sentencing,
and
we
are
concerned
about
the
possibility
of
confusion,
etc.
Additionally,
there's
an
ongoing
challenge
with
the
completeness
of
criminal
histories
that
would
have
application
throughout
this
bill.
It's
an
issue.
That's
been
recognized
by
the
ach
criminal
justice
information
sharing
subcommittee,
on
which
I've
had
the
privilege
to
set
the
last
two
interim
as
well
as
other
legislative
committees.
M
M
So
this
means
that
a
person
could
have
committed
the
same
crime
there
they've
just
committed
any
number
of
times,
but
the
officer
wouldn't
be
able
to
verify
that
section.
5
sub
2
requires
the
use
of
a
citation
in
a
non-traffic
context,
even
where
a
judge
has
issued
a
warrant
for
the
person's
arrest
unless
the
person
has
previously
been
convicted
of
the
same
offense.
There
are
two
issues
with
this.
First
we're
effectively
invalidating
a
valid
warrant
issued
by
a
judge
which
we
see
as
an
infringement
on
judicial
function.
M
Judges
should
be
able
to
issue
a
warrant
for
arrests
when
they
believe
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
coupled
by
probable
cause
merit
the
issuance
of
that
warrant
and
while
the
crime
and
issue
may
be
non-violent
other
factors
in
a
person's
criminal
history,
such
as
failures
to
comply,
failure,
failures
to
appear
or
a
history
of
violent
behavior,
they
make
a
warrant.
The
best
approach
in
lieu
of
a
citation
additionally
there's
a
requirement
that
the
person
be
cited
in
lieu
of
arrests
for
every
misdemeanor
criminal
offense.
M
So
this
includes
destruction
of
property,
obtaining
money
by
false
pretenses,
larceny
theft,
possession
of
stolen
property,
etc.
So
a
person
could
steal
many
thousand
dollars
worth
of
items
from
different
stores
in
the
shopping
center
and
they
can
know
they're
not
going
to
jail
that
day.
We
think
we
need
to
seriously
consider
whether
that's
good
policy
to
allow
persons
to
steal
or
destroy
over
a
thousand
dollars
worth
of
property
without
fear
of
arrest
we
submit.
This
is
just
not
wise
policy.
A
E
M
M
He
could
be
arrested
for
that
crime,
but,
to
the
extent
that
he
was
also
trespassing
and
perhaps
had
drug
paraphernalia,
he
would
still
need
to
be
issued
a
citation
for
those
crimes.
There
should
be
a
consolidation
option,
available
elimination
of
an
officer's
discretion
to
an
arrest
in
an
individual,
particularly
when
the
crime
is
committed
in
their
presence
will
have
significant
public
safety
and
quality
of
life.
Implications
simply
put
a
citation,
can
be
ineffective
in
curing
ongoing
criminal
behavior.
We
therefore
oppose
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
miss.
I
wanted
to
note
for
the
record
before
we
take
the
next
caller
that
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
is
here.
She
joins
us
a
little
while
ago.
So,
mr
secretary,
if
you
could
mark
her
as
present
please
and
for
those
who
are
still
on
the
phone
in
opposition,
please
feel
free
to
say
ditto.
It
sounds
like
we're
getting
a
lot
of
repetitive
opposition
testimony.
At
this
point,
I
want
to
give
everyone
a
chance
to
make
their
comments,
but
please
don't
feel
compelled
to
repeat
everything.
You've
heard
is
perfectly
fine
to
just.
A
E
A
Thank
you
bps.
Maybe
I
scared
them
away
with
them
with
that
request
that
they
say
ditto,
so
we'll
close
out
position.
Testimony
I'll
now
go
to
neutral
testimony.
Is
there
anybody
on
the
zoom
who's
in
the
neutral
position?
A
E
K
K
So
we
just
want
to
be
able
to
have
the
ability
for
a
small
business
to
protect
themselves.
On
a
personal
note,
my
husband
and
I
own
a
small
business,
and
we
have
nothing
but
female
employees,
and
you
would
think
it's
a
prenatal
imaging
center.
Where
people
get
to
come,
look
at
their
babies.
You
would
think
it's
a
happiest
place
in
the
world,
but
people
are
emotional
and
more
times
than
I
care
to
think
of.
K
K
So
from
a
personal
note,
as
well
as
from
the
state
director
for
looking
out
for
small
business,
we
really
hope
that
that
is
one
issue
that
is
addressed
in
this
bill,
but
we
do
thank
senator
harris
for
reaching
out
to
us
with
the
conceptual
amendment.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
E
H
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
nick
vanderpool,
nick
v-a-n-d-e-r-p-o-e-l
with
capital
partners
today
representing
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce.
As
the
chair
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
recalls,
the
reno
sparks
chamber
has
been
on
the
front
lines
for
criminal
justice
reform.
Having
a
strong
dialogue
and
conversation,
we're
always
always.
H
As
it
relates
to
ab440,
we
do
have
concerns
but
know
about
language
and
amendment
that
will
hopefully
fix
the
concerns
of
many.
So
in
this
case
we
are
neutral
and
look
forward
to
working
with
senator
harris,
assemblywoman,
win,
assemblyman
floors
and
and
look
forward
to
their
up
forthcoming
amendment
we'll
be
working
closely
with
the
washoe
county
district
attorney's
office.
In
this
conversation.
So,
mr
chair,
thank
you
to
you
and
the
committee.
E
To
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
assembly
bill,
440
press
the
star
line
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
and
we
will
go
on
to
our
next
caller
with
the
caller
with
the
last
two
digits
of
114,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin
good
morning,
chair.
K
A
E
K
Unfortunately
I
didn't
get
to
hear
the
entirety
of
the
bill,
so
I
don't
fully
understand
ramifications,
but
I
do
feel
my
brother
might
possibly
be
alive
today
since
trespassing
wouldn't
be
an
arrestable
offense
but,
like
I
said
I
don't
vote
didn't
have
time
to
fully
digest
the
bill,
so
I
can't
say
one
way
or
the
other.
Thank
you.
E
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
john
pirro.
I
think,
as
assemblyman
flores
has
said,
and
senator
harris
is
open,
this
bill
is
kind
of
a
work
in
progress
and
it
needs
some
things
worked
out.
A
couple
of
things
I
will
say,
though,
is
the
the
fear
tactic,
is
a
common
usage
to
identify
those
people,
the
other
that
we
want
to
say
so
that
if
you
pass
this
bill,
oh
my
god,
there
will
be
so
much
more
crime.
There
won't
the
reason.
C
Clark,
county
detention
center
is
so
low,
as
director
callery
put
it
at
2800
is
because
officers
during
the
time
of
cobit
actually
pretty
much
implemented.
What
this
bill
is
asking
it
to
do,
which
was
use
discretion
more,
to
cite
more,
instead
of
a
rest
more
when
you
only
have
a
hammer,
everything
looks
like
a
nail.
This
bill
seeks
to
change
some
of
that,
but
some
of
the
opposition
testimony
is
well
taken
as
far
as
miss
noble's,
defining
aggregate
and
subsequent
to
move
people
off
of
confusion
in
legal
terms.
C
However,
I
do
want
to
point
out
the
city
of
henderson's.
Testimony
was
wholly
inaccurate.
Walking
into
somebody's
house
is
a
residential
burglary.
Frequently
charged
there
nobody's
going
to
be
sided
with
the
trespass
and
that
person
can't
say:
oh
I'm
going
to
stay
there
that
would
be
irrestable
walking
into
a
shop
and
stealing
things
and
then
walking
into
another
shop
and
stealing
things
aggregate
offense
under
this
bill
that
person
would
be
arrested.
C
Tpos
extended
protection
orders
prowling
anything
like
that.
I
think
can
easily
be
added
into
this,
because
nobody
wants
to
put
anybody
at
risk
here
in
our
community
by
issuing
a
citation
and
leaving
a
dangerous
situation
there.
So
I
think
that
could
be
changed
so
some
of
those
content.
Some
of
those
comments
are
well
taken,
but
some
are
fairly
inaccurate
when
addressing
this
bill.
But
thank
you
for
letting
me
present
and
hearing
this
bill
out.
A
Thank
you,
mr
pirro
and
mr
piro.
I
don't
want
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
I
did
want
to
ask
this
question.
If
you're
able
to
answer
it,
there
is
a
proposed
amendment.
That's
been
referenced
from
some
of
the
testimony,
and
that
is
a
proposed
conceptual
amendment
from
senator
harris
and
all
that
members
of
the
committee
members
of
the
public
know
that
is
available
on
nellis
under
exhibits.
A
It's
it's
not
long,
but
I
just
wanted
to
check
with
you,
mr
pirro,
if
you
knew
whether
that
amendment
was
considered
friendly,
if
it's
something
that's
acceptable,
obviously
we
don't
have
chairman
flores
here,
but
if
you
could
address
that
just
so,
we
have
a
clear
record
on
where
things
might
stand
with
the
amendment.
C
A
Great,
thank
you,
mr
piro.
I
think
that
helps
supplement
the
record
and
thank
you
for
being
here
and
for
assisting
chairman
flores
and
presenting
the
bill,
appreciate
it
and
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
your
day,
although
I
suspect
we'll
hear
from
you
probably
on
the
next
bill
as
well.
So
with
that
behind
us,
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
440.
A
moving
right
along
committee,
we're
going
to
go
to
our
second
bill
listed
on
the
agenda,
and
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
424
assembly
bill
424
revises
provisions
relating
to
pre-trial
release
and
we
have
our
own
vice
chair
win
to
present
this
bill
today
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
afterwards.
So
welcome
to
the
virtual
presentation
table
vice
chairwin.
Please
go
ahead.
F
F
As
you
heard
before,
our
chair
was
senator
harris.
I
also
served
as
vice
chair
in
addition
to
the
two
of
us,
assemblyman
flores
assemblyman
roberts
and
senator
hammond,
also
served
on
that
committee,
along
with
senator
scheible.
So
we
did
have.
It
was
a
traditional
makeup
of
these
interim
legislative
studies
that
occur
and
we
did
have
the
ability
and
we
did
a
meet
multiple
times
during
the
interim,
and
this
is
one
of
the
recommendations
that
came
out
of
it.
F
F
F
F
So
there
is
a
final
report
to
the
committee
that
is
available
on
nellis,
and
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
read
that,
because
it
does
kind
of
go
through
some
of
the
details.
I'm
just
going
to
highlight
some
of
the
decision
on
the
valdez
menace
case.
F
So
I
will
note
that
this
case
was
kind
of
a
result
of
a
combination
of
two
familia,
similar
cases
that
were
actually
presented
by
the
public
defender's
office
now
judge
christie
craig,
as
well
as
a
public
defender
at
the
time,
nancy
lemke
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
and
they
provided
some
of
their
insight.
F
It
was
a
situation
where
two
individuals
had
their
bail
set
and
the
central
issue
of
the
case
was
whether
or
not
the
process
is
constitutionally
required.
When
the
court
sets
a
cash
bail
amount
that
the
defendant
cannot
afford,
and
so
the
court
considered
whether
the
petitioners
claims
were
moved,
whether
or
not
they
had
already
been
convicted
and
they
decided
that
it
was
a
matter
of
public
importance
because
of
the
repetition.
F
Specifically,
the
supreme
court
examined
article
1,
section
7
of
the
nevada
constitution
and
held
that
the
petitioners
of
the
defendants
in
this
case
have
the
right
to
bail
in
a
reasonable
amount.
F
That
is
kind
of
one
of
the
things
that
we
looked
at
on
here
is
what
that
reasonable
time
meant
what
that
meant,
how
the
hearings
that
the
court
were
hearing
on
these
individualized,
bail
and
pre-trial
custody
determinations
were
going
to
be
evaluated
and
assessed.
In
light
of
this
new
nevada
supreme
court
decision,
luckily
there
is
a
lot
of
guidance
in
this
area,
because
a
lot
of
states
already
do
this.
Our
federal
system
essentially
has
this
pre-trial
process
in
place,
so
that
is
kind
of
what
we
looked
at
in
going
to
it.
I.
G
F
Tell
you
that,
because
of
the
last
minute
introduction
of
this
bill,
like
many
other
bills,
we
are,
it
is
still
a
work
in
process.
So
I
imagine
there
will
be
lots
of
opposition
kind
of
weird
neutral,
like
hey,
I'm
going
to
continue
to
work
with
the
parties
kind
of,
like
you
heard
in
the
previous
bill
presentation
in
440,
and
that
is
the
same
by
me.
I
will
tell
you
that,
since
this
bail
this
bill
was
introduced
about
two
weeks
ago.
F
The
public
defender's
office,
as
well
as
the
district
attorney's
office,
have
reached
out
to
kind
of
explain
some
of
their
interests.
I
think
we're
very
close,
and
it's
just
going
to
be
the
difference
on
a
couple
of
things.
I
will
just
kind
of
highlight
some
of
the
recommendations
and
what
the
votes
were
coming
out
of
the
interim
committee,
because
they
think
that
is
big.
So
one
of
the
first
recommendations
that
we
had
was
the
timing
of
bail
hearings
like
how
fast
does
reasonable
mean.
F
I
will
tell
you
that
when
you
look
at
case
law
across
the
country,
it's
somewhere
between
24
hours
and
48
hours
of
arrest,
you
know
there
are
certain
things.
I
will
tell
you
that
the
motion
did
pass
unanimously
for
the
committee
recommendation
to
look
at
these
different
standards
of
what
reasonable
and
prompt
meant
within
the
terms
of
that
in
the
bill,
as
cited,
it
just
says
reasonable
time.
It
is
my
intention
to
propose
a
conceptual
amendment
going
forward
and,
like
I
said,
inflexible
to
actually
turn
that
into
a
24-hour
time
period.
F
I
will
tell
you
that
when
we
go
down
to
the
recommendation,
number
two
that
had
to
do
with
standardized
bail-
and
I
will
tell
you
that
members
and
individuals
from
the
community
and
stakeholders
that
are
involved
in
our
cash
fail
system
have
reached
out
to
me
with
some
proposed
recommendations.
F
In
particular,
we
have
in
practice
standard
bail,
so
certain
crimes
have
certain
monetary
amounts
like
associated
with
them,
and
I
know
in
part
of
the
recommendation
and
part
of
the
unanimous
recommendation
I
think,
coming
out
of
that
pre-trial
study
was
the
fact
that
our
law
enforcement-
or,
I
should
say
our
prosecutorial
agencies-
were
concerned
that
if
you
were
both
two
people
came
in
charged
with
like
a
battery
domestic
violence
or
a
violent
charge,
a
stalking
charge,
something
like
that
and
they
were
arrested,
standard
bail
would
be
set,
and
if
someone
had
resources
and
money
they
would
just
post
the
bail
and
get
out
and
there
would
be
no
conditions.
F
There
would
be
no
oversight.
There
would
no
like
stay
away
from
the
victim.
There
would
be
like
no,
we
want
additional
alcohol
or
drug
monitoring.
No,
we
want
this
person
on
house
rest.
They
just
got
out
because
they
had
money.
On
the
flip
side,
an
individual
who
did
not
have
financial
resources
to
pass
are
to
post
that
standard
bail
would
go
before
a
judge
and
some
of
those
added
safety
conditions
that
would
protect
our
community
and
protect.
F
F
F
There
are
so
many
potential
amendments
like
floating
around
right
now.
Like
I
said,
I
received
a
lot
of
these
documents
in
the
last
like
day.
In
fact,
some
of
the
proposals
I
received
less
than
23
hours
ago,
so
I
am
continuing
to
work
with
stakeholders
in
order
to
get
it
right.
But
I
think
that's
the
general
intent
of
this,
and
I
know
that
one
of
the
stakeholders
that
has
not
really
been
at
the
table
is
on
some
of
the
courts
and
how
they
will
like
actually
implement.
F
I
know
that
this
is
particularly
of
concern
of
some
of
our
rural
jurisdictions,
where
they
don't
have
a
24-hour
court,
like
we
do
in
clark
county
like
clark,
county
has
a
24
hour
or
20
like
seven
day
a
week
holidays.
Everything
situation
where
they
are.
You
know
it's
honestly
kind
of
the
gold
standard
for
our
state,
where
they're
able
to
process
people
very
quickly
and
have
them
appear
before
a
judge
to
address
like
custody
standards,
and
I
know
that
is
not
like
an
availability
like
to
have
a
courtroom
and
to
have
that.
F
But
we've
looked
at
rural
jurisdictions
like
in
georgia,
and
they
are
doing
this
within
24
hours
because
they
allow
for,
like
kind
of
like
the
same
method,
police
officers
use
now
to
get
like
search
warrants.
F
They
can
do
it
telephonically,
and
so
there
are
judges
that
are
available
24
hours
a
day,
seven
days
a
week
in
order
to
answer
those
kind
of
calls,
and
so
I
would
like
to
have
an
amendment
proposed
because
it
was
a
recommendation
also
out
of
the
interim
study
to
kind
of
look
at
some
of
these
non-traditional
like
or
well.
They
become
more
traditional
during
covet
for
to
allow
flexibility
for
our
rural
or
smaller
jurisdictions
to
be
able
to
hear
these
cases
quicker.
F
A
Thank
you
vice
chairwin,
and
thank
you
for
your
service
on
that
interim
committee.
You
know
it
was
a
very
strange
interim
to
try
to
manage
all
these
interim
committees
in
the
virtual
platform
so
appreciate
you
serving
as
vice
chair.
Are
there
questions
from
committee
members?
If
so,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand,
I
see
assemblyman,
wheeler
and
I'll
make
a
note
of
others.
So
we'll
start
with
assemblyman
wheeler.
N
N
So
you
know
you've
got
all
the
people
that
would
have
been
bailed
out
now
added
to
the
people
that
need
prosecuting,
and
it's
just
I'm
wondering
you
know
what
what's
what
kind
of
fiscal
impact
we're
going
to
have,
but,
more
importantly,
what
kind
of
impact
is
it
going
to
have
in
you
know,
people
coming
before
the
judge
over
you
know
quickly
quickly
quickly.
N
F
Well,
there's
a
couple
of
things:
one,
the
reasonable
time,
I'm
sure
isn't.
I
know
it
is
in
the
process
of
being
litigated.
It's
been
litigated
across
the
country.
You
will
see
most
places
I
think
have
landed
on
somewhere
under
48
hours.
I
think,
but
but
we
do
have
discrepancies
even
how
the
nevada
supreme
court,
you
know
they
issued
the
decision
and
it
said
reasonable
and
in
some
jurisdictions
they
think
it
is
reasonable
to
bring
someone
within
7
to
14
days.
F
So
before
they
are
hearing
from
a
judge.
They
are
sitting
in
custody
for
seven
to
14
days
in
our
own
state
right
now
and
for
some
people
they
think
that
is
reasonable.
Obviously,
there
are
some
jurisdictions
that
are
getting
people
there
within
12
to
24
hours.
F
I
I
would
like
there
to
still
be
the
discretion,
because
a
lot
of
these
jails
are
doing
administrative
orders
where
they're
just
releasing
people
without
bail
on
certain
charges,
and
they
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
able
to
continue
to
do
that
or
without
bail.
So
some
people
are
being
released
in
in
those
circumstances
automatically
there
potentially
is
some
like
cost.
F
I'm
not
going
to
like
deny
that
there
would
not
be
cost
in
bringing
people
to
prompt
due
process,
but
I
think
that's
where
we
are
heading
and
I
think
we
will
either
have
to
be
a
part
of
the
conversation
in
determining
what
that
looks
like
for
our
state.
Otherwise,
we
are
eventually
going
to
be
told
by
either
the
nevada
supreme
court
or
the
federal
court
on
what
that
looks
like,
and
we
will
end
up
in
a
situation
like
you
have
seen
so
many
times.
F
Assemblyman
wheeler,
like
with
the
anderson
decision,
where
you
know
right
at
the
conclusion
of
a
legislative
life
session.
There
was
a
huge
decision
that
came
down
that
needed
to
be
implemented
by
all
these
courts
and
counties
and
municipalities,
and
they
were
not
a
part
of
how
that
was,
and
so
they
had
to
wait
literally
two
years
before
they
could
come
back
before.
F
You
know
this
legislative
body
and
ask
for
some
of
those
permission.
So
I
see
I
think
it's
important
to
do
it.
I
think
we
can
allow
flexibility.
Like
I
said
law.
Patients
are
already
doing
this
because
of
that
the
nevada
supreme
court
decision
and
this
just
kind
of
gives
more
guidance
to
those
courts.
Those
jurisdictions,
those
practitioners,
whether
it's
defense,
attorneys
public
defenders
and
law
enforcement
prosecutors
on
how
to
implement
this
decision
more
efficiently.
N
Thank
you,
quick
follow-up.
Mr
chair,
please
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
I
just
I
believe
that
sometimes
being
told
by
the
judicial
branch,
how
it's
going
to
happen
is
exactly
what
their
job
is.
That's,
why
they're
the
judicial
branch
you
know,
but
also,
more
importantly,
maybe
seven
days
is
reasonable
in
a
certain
jurisdiction,
especially
given
like
coveted
restrictions
right
now,
where
you
know
you
can't
have
so
many
people
in
a
courtroom,
for
instance,
and
they
don't
have
the
zoom
capabilities
whatever,
but
you
know
that's
why.
F
And
rochelle
went
for
the
record.
That
is
why
it
is
my
intention
to
allow
for
telephonic
hearings
as
well
as
zoom.
I
realize
not.
Everyone
has
like
even
virtual,
like
zoom
kind
of
like
capabilities,
but
when
you
look
at
like
some
of
these
rural
jurisdictions
in
georgia
that
were
implementing
it,
they're
doing
it
via
phone,
and
I
think
that
allows
for
some
of
that
flexibility.
Given
some
of
the
changes
in
time,
you
know
constraints.
G
Thank
you,
chair
jaeger,
and
thank
you
vice
chairwin,
so
my
question
is:
does
this
bill
intend
to
do
away
with
bail
schedules
and
someone's
ability
to
either
post.
F
Their
own
bail
or
use
a
bondsman.
Thank
you.
It
does
not.
It
does
not
eliminate
cash
bail.
The
nevada
supreme
court
decision
did
not
eliminate
cash
bail.
Cash
bail
is
still
an
option
for
the
judges
it
is
just
has
to
the
court.
What
this
decision
told
the
courts
to
do
is
they
have
to
make
sure
that
cash
bail
is
the
least
restrictive
and,
to
be
quite
honest,
sometimes
you
know,
cash
doesn't
ensure
safety
to
the
victim.
F
So
if
the
courts
want
to
add
additional
conditions
like
stay
away
from
the
victim
in
a
case,
if
they
want
to
put
them
on
a
house
arrest
monitor
if
they
want
to
give
them
intensive
supervision
or
have
other
other
layers
of
you
know,
protections
for
the
community,
those
are
items
that
they
need
to
look
at.
First.
If
the
court
determines
that
cash
bail
is
one
of
those
tools,
they
can
still
institute
this.
It
does
eliminate
standard
cash
bail,
so
every
individual
that
is
charged
with
a
crime
has
to
undergo
that
same
individualized
assessment.
F
So
you
can't
just
buy
your
way
out
because
you
can
post
that
bail
quickly
without
going
before
a
judge.
So
this
is
something
that
I
know
that
the
prosecutors
feel
bring
equity
in
fairness,
and
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
them.
If
you
know
you
shouldn't
be
able
to
purchase
your
way
out
of
like
any
of
those
added
conditions
for
our
community
or
for
victims.
A
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation
vice
chair.
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
that
kind
of
follow
up
in
some
things
that
my
colleagues
just
asked
about.
So
so
sticking
with
the
cash
bail
in
let's
see
section
eight
sub
four.
G
I
just
want
to
make
sure
so,
if
someone's
got
the
ability
to
pay
to
pay
for
bail,
judges
can
still
just
let
them
choose
to
be
put
on
bail
and
pay
for
the.
G
F
Sorry
I
was
just
getting
to
that
section,
so
you're
asking
about
that
section,
subsection
four.
Yes,
it
is
still
released
without
bail,
with
no
additional
conditions
other
than
the
promise
of
good
behavior
and
the
promise
to
appear
in
court
as
required,
two
release
without
bail
with
additional
conditions
of
release
or
release
with
jail.
F
So
it
still
clearly
states
in
there
that
the
judge
just
has
to
look
at
all
of
those
circumstances
which
I
think
most
of
them
do
to
be
quite
honest
and
because
their
interest
is
obviously
in
protecting
like
our
community
and
protecting.
F
You
know
potential
victims
in
our
community
and
they're.
Looking
at
that,
so
this
just
gives
them
a
priority
on
what
they
want
to
do.
But,
yes,
cash
bail
is
definitely
still
an
option
and
I'm
sure
every
single
person
that
practices
knows
that
cash
bill
is
very
much
a
part
of
one
of
those
options
for
the
court.
J
G
Okay,
thanks
for
that,
okay
and
then,
following
up
with
my
other
colleagues,
question
just
confirming
what
some
language
means
if
we've
got
a
definition
of
that
on
in
section
one
sub,
four
there's
the
use
of
the
word
forth
with,
as
in
when
a
quote
when
a
person
is
arrested
without
a
warrant
is
brought
before
a
magistrate,
a
complaint
must
be
filed
forth.
With
do
we
have
any
do
we
have?
A
definition
of
that
is
that
in
case
law?
Is
that
in
statute,
somewhere
of
what
forthwith.
F
F
I
would
ask
any
of
the
people
present
our
testimony
in
support
or
opposition
or
even
neutral
of
the
bill
if
they
are
able
to
answer
that,
I
would
ask
them
to
do
so.
You
know
that's
a
little
bit
different
than
the
complaint,
and
when
that
is
filed,
they
have
a
little
bit
more
leniency
on
that,
but
they
do
have
to
file
that
complaint
within
that
time
period
and
it
kind
of
varies
across
the
state.
To
be
quite
honest,.
G
Thank
you
and
yeah.
I
will
ask
the
presenters
if
they
do
have
a
if
they
know
if
we've
got
that
in
statute
or
in
case
law
anywhere.
So
thank
you.
A
I
think
there
was
an
effort
to
define
forthwith
and
the
bill
ultimately
was
vetoed,
I
believe
by
governor
sandoval.
So
I
don't
think
there's
a
definition,
but
maybe
folks
could
folks
testifying
on
the
bill.
If
you
could
maybe
talk
and
practice
what
courts
are
doing.
With
that
phrase,
I
think
it
might
be
helpful
to
understand
the
context
might
be
helpful
to
answer
that
question.
A
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
I'm
laughing
vocabulary
as
a
judiciary
in
perpetuity
and
other
words.
I
appreciate
expanding
my
vocabulary.
My
question
is
when
you
mentioned,
madam
vice
chair,
that
serving
on
the
interim
committee
and
some
of
the
recommendations
are
were
unanimous.
G
G
F
Oh
for
sure,
I
can
tell
you
right
now
that
the,
for
example,
the
two
major
stakeholders-
I
I
would
say
in
this-
like
public
defenders
and
district
attorneys,
they
all
have
issues
with
the
bill
so
and
they've
all
submitted.
Like
various
recommendations.
F
I
I
and
I
honestly
don't
think
it's
on
the
policy,
though
I
think
it
is
on
the
wordsmithing
of
what
this
bill
looks
like.
I
see
our
legal
counsel
bradley
kind
of
turning
his
head
away,
because
he
knows
that
I'm
going
to
be
reaching
out
to
him
shortly
to
find
a
way
to
incorporate
what
these
are.
But
having
now
seen
both
some
of
the
proposed
amendments-
and
I
think
the
district
attorney's
proposed
amendment
is
actually
up
on
nellis.
I
asked
them
to
go
ahead
and
put
that
up
on
nellis
for
the
committee.
F
I
know
that
the
public
defender's
office
also
provided
me
with
potential
proposed
amendments,
and
I
received
those
pretty
late
last
night,
but
I
did
have
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
view
both
of
those
and
you
know,
obviously,
I'm
privileged
to
see
both
of
them
and
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
difference
between
them.
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
sticking
points
that
were
left
vague,
even
out
of
the
recommendations
like
what
does
prompt
mean?
Does
that
mean
24
hours?
Does
that
mean
seven
days
like?
What
does
that
mean?
F
There
is
one
sticking
point
with
full
discretion
that
is
in
section.
I
will
tell
you
right
now
that
is
in
section
8
of
the
proposed
bill.
It's
section
8.
It
is
says
that
if
someone
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
is
taken
into
custody,
that
that
is
where
the
reasonable
time
is,
but
there
is
also
another
section
that
talks
about
that
parole
and
probation.
I
think
we
unintendedly
included
some
provisions
that
would
not
allow
them
to
arrest
a
probationer
that
had
picked
up
new
like
criminal
charges,
while
they
were
on
probation.
F
So
it's
my
intention
to
correct
that
section
as
well,
and
so
they
did
reach
out.
There
is
a
section
about
how,
if
you
are
not
released
from
the
judge
on
your
let's
say,
bail
is
set
and
or
a
condition
is
set
like
house
arrest,
and
you
are
not
released
on
house
arrest
or
you
are
not
able
to
make
that
cash
bail
amount.
F
You
are
to
be
brought
back
within
24
hours,
I
think
that's,
probably
pretty
unreasonable
and
the
jails,
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
fiscal
notes
are
based
on
that,
like
provision
alone,
because
it
makes
it
sound
like
you
have
to
come,
they
have
to
come
back
for
court
like
the
very
next
day
if
they're
not
released,
and
so
those
are
some
of
the
things
that
we're
working
on.
What
that
time
limit
looks
like
how
we
can
make
this
easier
for
like
implementation.
F
A
If
so,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screen,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so
vice
chairwin.
Thank
you
for
presenting
the
bill,
realizing
that
it
is
still
a
work
in
progress,
we're
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
and
at
least
hear
how
folks
perceive
the
bill
as
currently
drafted.
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
424.
C
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager
john
pearl,
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
want
to
state
that
we
support
the
intent
of
the
bill.
We
do
understand,
as
assemblywoman
nguyen
has
said,
that
the
language
does
need
some
adjustment,
but
I
want
to
be
clear
on
a
few
things
we
tried
to
get
bail
done
in
2017,
didn't
get
it
done.
We
tried
to
get
bail
done
in
2019
and
the
da's
whittled
it
down
so
much
that
it
was
not
bail
reform
and
the
bill
had
to
be
killed.
C
So
then
we
took
our
case
to
the
nevada
supreme
court,
where
lawyers
from
my
office
litigated
the
case
in
front
of
the
nevada
supreme
court.
A
representative
from
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
called
bail
reform,
a
pet
project
by
a
few
lawyers
in
front
of
the
supreme
court.
Well,
the
supreme
court
did
not
feel
the
same
way
and
decided
seven
to
one
the
following
things:
that
a
person
must
be
brought
before
the
court
and
have
an
adversarial
hearing
in
front
of
the
judge.
C
At
that
hearing.
The
defense
must
be
presented
with
the
evidence
that
is
against
the
person.
That's
included
in
this
bill
at
that
hearing.
The
state
needs
to
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
the
second
highest
standard
under
the
law.
The
standard
that
we
use
before
we
remove
a
child
from
their
parents
that
there
is
no
reasonable
way
to
detain
a
person
I.e.
The
ruling
that
the
judge
is
making
is
the
least
restrictive
means
that
does
not
mean
that
a
judge
cannot
detain
somebody.
C
They
just
have
to
make
findings
of
fact
as
to
why
they
are
doing
it.
What
valdes,
jimin
has
cleared
up
is
that
prosecutors
can
no
longer
use
a
high
amount
of
money
as
a
clandestine
way
to
detain
somebody
because
they
are
too
poor
to
afford
bill.
I
also
wanted
to
talk
about
two
words
that
were
used.
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
assemblywoman
cohen
that
asked
about
the
word
forthwith.
C
We
have
been
litigating
that
word
for
years,
but
I
can
tell
you
if
you
take
a
textualist
approach,
as
my
more
conservative
members
would
recognize.
This
is
justice,
scalia's
approach,
a
textualist
approach,
looking
at
the
words
plain
meaning
when
you
look
in
the
dictionary
forthwith
means
immediate
and
without
delay
and
prompt
means,
immediate
and
without
delay,
and
what
we
have
found
throughout
the
state
of
nevada
is
that
judges
are
defining
prompt
in
wildly
different
ways
in
sparks
justice.
C
A
E
L
Hi,
jim
hoffman
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
I
want
to
stress
that
this
testimony
is
just
about
the
bill
is
currently
written.
We
don't
have
these
conceptual
amendments
in
front
of
us,
so
that
might
change
this
analysis,
but
we
support
the
bill.
The
bills
that's
currently
written
is
a
pretty
simple
bill.
It's
almost
exclusively
things
that
are
already
part
of
nevada
law
under
valdez
jimenez.
L
In
addition,
the
amendment
that
vice
chair
does
win
discussed
to
define
reasonable
would
be
clarification
of
the
existing
law
and
obviously
other
amendments
might
also
be
substantive
changes,
but
in
the
bill
as
it
stands
right
now,
every
single
provision,
except
section
5,
is
already
the
law.
L
L
The
bill
again
as
it's
currently
written
represents
the
bare
minimum
that
we
can
do
on
bail
and
acj
believes
that
we
ought
to
go
beyond
the
bare
minimum
that
there
is
still
a
lot
of
work
that
can
and
should
be
done
to
make
pre-trial
detention
a
fairer
and
more
efficient
process,
but
the
this
bill
again
is
currently
written
is
not
a
policy
change.
This
is
just
bringing
our
statutes
into
compliance
with
the
constitution.
L
E
G
E
H
Good
morning
my
name
is
ronald
najaro,
r-o-n-a-l-d
n-a-j-a-r-r-o
and
I'm
the
state
director
for
americans
for
prosperity,
nevada.
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
on
judiciary,
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
here
today
on
behalf
of
our
activists
all
across
nevada.
I
urge
you
to
support
assembly
bill
424,
which
would
create
a
more
just
pre-trial
system
for
all
nevadans
and
make
our
communities
safer.
H
The
bill
continues
to
increase
judicial
discretion
and
removes
the
one-size-fits-all
approaches
that
we
know
fail.
Many
nevada
every
case
is
different
and
every
individual
unique.
For
that
reason,
we
believe
each
pre-trial
detention
and
bail
decision
should
be
individualized,
based
on
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
rather
than
an
arbitrary
rule,
applying
to
all
cases
for
certain
types
of
crime
forcing
someone
to
post
jail
or
stay
in
jail
before
trial,
even
when
they
pose
little
flight
risk
or
danger.
Others
is
impractical,
expensive
and
unjust.
Making
bail
is
a
huge
financial
barrier
for
many
low-income
families.
H
People
stuck
in
jail
for
financial
reasons
before
trial,
for
as
little
as
two
or
three
days
can
lose
their
jobs
and
have
their
world
turned
upside
down.
Research
in
several
states
tells
us
greater
exposure
to
pre-trial
detention,
is
associated
with
increased
flight
risk
and
recidivism
making
law
enforcement's
job
difficult
and
our
communities
less
safe.
It
is
both
right
and
smart
to
avoid
disrupting
the
lives
lines
absent.
A
compelling
risk-related
reasons.
Ab-424
focuses
these
consequences
on
higher
risk
defendants
through
pre-trials
hearings
designed
to
allow
judges
to
weigh
a
variety
of
evidence
to
inform
their
decisions.
H
E
G
E
D
Good
morning,
cherry
jaeger,
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
birchy
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
first
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
nguyen
for
bringing
forward
this
extremely
important
bill
through
the
interim
committee.
As
you
heard,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
that
interim
committee
vetting
the
different
issues
and
luckily
the
valdez
minis
decision
came
out
in
the
middle
of
it.
D
I
want
to
focus
my
testimony
on
that
issue
regarding
prompt
or
reasonable
time
for
when
someone
should
be
brought
for
a
bail
hearing,
as
you
heard,
unfortunately,
even
in
washoe
county-
that
time
really
changes
depending
on
what
court
that
person
is
in
in
reno.
Justice
court
is
currently
within
24
hours
after
arrest.
D
As
of
right
now,
sparks
justice
court
is
holding
their
bail
hearings
within
three
days,
but
that's
not
how
it
started
out
after
the
valdez
jimenez
hearing-
and
I
do
have
to
thank
the
district
attorney's
office
because
in
part
due
to
them
as
well,
that's
why
we
were
able
to
get
to
the
three
days
instead
of
the
original
over
five
days
that
had
been
requested
in
reno
municipal
court.
It
really
just
depends
to
protect
her
privacy
I'll
call
this
individual.
Sarah
she's,
given
me
permission
to
tell
her
story.
D
D
A
valid
phone
number
valid
address
everything
to
assure
her
safety
and
the
ability
and
that
she
would
return
to
court,
but
based
on
the
probable
cause
sheet,
which
wasn't
a
crime
of
violence,
the
court
decided
that
she
should
be
held
in
custody
on
a
no
bail
hold.
That
means
that
this
college
student,
with
a
zero
on
her
pre-trial
risk
assessment,
could
not
get
out
of
custody
until
she
appeared
before
court.
Well,
on
that
monday,
the
judge
decided
that
she
didn't
want
to
hear
that
case
that
day
and
continued
it
to
tuesday.
D
We
are
concerned
with
some
of
the
language
in
the
bill
that
would
keep
individuals
in
custody
longer,
so
we
appreciate
after
they've,
already
been
released,
so
we
do
appreciate
assembly
william
nguyen
for
continuing
the
discussion,
and
we
are
interested
in
continuing
the
discussion
with
all
stakeholders
to
ensure
that
we
do
comply
with
the
provisions
of
val
de
taminas
and
don't
interject
portions
that
were
not
adopted
or
specifically
rejected
from
and
by
the
interim
committee.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention,
and
I
appreciate
your
support
on
this
extremely
important
bill.
A
O
Thank
you
chair
vice
chair
and
committee
members.
I
am
aaron
evans,
a
lieutenant
with
the
division
of
parole
probation.
Currently,
the
division
is
opposed
to
ab424.
As
written
after
the
vice
chair's
comments.
In
her
presentation,
it
sounds
like
she's
willing
to
fix
the
issue
that
we've
identified,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
lay
it
out
just
so.
It's
on
record
section.
Seven
of
this
bill
amends
nrs,
178
484.
O
O
O
Have
them
report
to
us.
We'll
apply
graduated
sanctions
and
we'll
continue
to
supervise
them
and
help
them.
You
know
integrate
into
society
if
it's
a
new
offense.
If
sorry,
if
the
new
offense
is
serious
like
a
felony,
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
a
misdemeanor
crime
of
violence,
this
no
bail
hold
that
we
have
will
remain
in
place
until
that
parolee
or
probationers
brought
back
to
the
sentencing
court
or
the
parole
board,
where
they'll
have
to
answer
for
their
behavior.
O
O
A
A
E
E
H
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
john
jones:
j,
o
h,
n
j,
o
n
e
s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorneys
association.
We
are
in
opposition
to
ab424
as
it's
currently
drafted,
but
I
want
to
thank
vice
chairwin
for
listening
to
our
concerns
regarding
this
bill.
We
have
proposed
an
amendment
to
the
bill
that
is
on
nellis,
and
we
pledge
to
continue
working
with
the
vice
chair
to
get
to
a
position
of
support.
Although
I
do
have.
E
M
J-A-M-I-E-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county.
I
want
to
be
clear.
I
am
testifying
in
opposition
to
the
bill,
not
regarding
the
policy
in
any
way,
but
regarding
the
fiscal
impact
for
the
legislation.
M
Our
fiscal
note
is
posted,
but
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
some
of
our
courts
were
having
a
difficult
time
and
in
putting
together
some
costs,
and
so
the
change
or
the
impact
to
us
is
having
to
have
the
courts
open
seven
days
a
week.
So
for
the
sparks
justice
court
they
were
looking
at
about
125
000
a
year
to
have
their
courts
open.
M
We
do
have
four
justice
courts,
so
that
would
be
times
four
as
well
as
additional
staffing
for
the
district
attorney's
office,
which
was
about
a
million
dollars
so
realistically
we're
looking
at
a
little
over
a
million
and
a
half
a
year
impact
of
the
county
to
have
our
courts
open
seven
days
a
week
and
so
again,
not
here
testifying
against
the
policy,
but
the
concern
of
that
impact
on
our
budget
at
this
point
in
time.
M
So
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record,
appreciating
that
this
is
not
a
money
committee,
but
fiscal
impacts
to
counties
and
local
governments.
Unfortunately,
this
is
the
only
avenue
that
we
can
get
that
on
the
record,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record.
I
appreciate
the
bill
sponsor
working
on
some
of
the
clarifications
in
the
bill.
However,
if
the
bill
remains
with
the
seven
day
a
week
requirement,
those
fiscal
impacts
would
still
stand
so.
G
A
Thank
you,
ms
rodriguez
and
committee
members.
As
ms
rodriguez
noted,
we
are
a
policy
committee,
so
we
are
not
to
be
concerned
with
the
fiscal
aspects
of
the
bill.
If
the
bill
moves
on
beyond
this
committee,
it
would
be
up
to
the
ways
and
means
committee
to
decide
whether
to
pull
this
bill
in
to
address
any
potential
fiscal
note
bps.
Let's
take
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
Please.
E
M
Good
morning,
my
name
is
elizabeth
anderlick
e
l,
I
z
a
b
e
t,
h,
a
n
d
e
r
l,
I
k
and
I'm
providing
testimony
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
henderson.
Thank
you
to
the
chair
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
your
consideration
of
our
testimony.
We
oppose
ab424
as
it
is
currently
written.
However,
we
have
worked
together
with
the
da's
association
to
draft
the
amendment
that
they
have
proposed,
which
is
posted
on
nellis.
That
amendment
would
address
the
concerns
that
we
have
with
the
bill
as
it
is
currently
drafted.
M
Our
main
concern
with
section
5
is
that
it
is
redundant
and
unnecessary,
because
ab424
already
requires
a
hearing
at
which
the
judge
would
set
conditions
of
release
and
or
bail
at
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary
to
assure
the
safety
of
the
community
and
that
the
person
would
return
for
future
court
dates.
It
doesn't
make
sense
for
the
court
to
bring
that
person
back
the
very
next
day
to
readdress
the
same
factors.
M
The
court
would
have
already
determined
and
ordered
the
least
restrictive
means,
so
there
would
be
no
need
to
address
bail
again
automatically
to
change
the
bail
and
or
conditions
of
release.
The
very
next
day
would
contradict
the
court's
findings
that
the
prior
day's
order
was
for
the
least
restrictive
means.
M
Removing
section
5
would
still
allow
a
person's
attorney
to
bring
the
matter
before
the
court
again
by
motion.
If
any
circumstances
changed
that
would
warrant
reconsideration
holding
the
section
5
hearing
would
unnecessarily
tax
an
already
overburdened
system
requiring
an
additional
step,
a
process
that
is
not
meaningfully
different
from
the
initial
prompt
bail
hearing.
M
E
H
Thank
you,
chairy
anger,
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
This
is
jon
jones,
again
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
and
I'll.
Just
pick
off
pick
up
where
I
left
off.
When
considering
the
time
frames
that
you
placed
in
the
bail
statute,
we
must
fully
consider
all
of
the
jurisdiction
in
nevada
and
their
ability
to
comply
with
the
new
time
frames.
H
Our
amendment
also
seeks
to
retain
the
portion
of
section
seven
that
parole
probation
is
requesting
that
you
retain
one
of
the
most
important
aspects
of
this
bill.
Is
the
elimination
of
standard
veil
and
da's
do
support
the
elimination
of
standard
bail?
In
other
words,
no
person
should
have
a
bail
amount
assigned
to
them
before
seeing
a
judge,
a
person
who
is
otherwise
a
danger
to
the
community
should
not
avoid
potential
detention
or
other
release
conditions
by
buying
their
way
out
of
jail
prior
to
seeing
a
judge.
H
Finally,
there
is
a
companion
bill
to
this
ab-424
in
the
senate
and
that's
fb,
369.
and
sb.
369
requires
that
prosecutors
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
any
release
condition
imposed
is
the
least
restrictive
means
to
both
protect
the
public
and
ensure
the
defendant's
appearance
in
court
in
reviewing
both
of
these
bills.
H
Ab424
before
you
today
in
sb
369,
we
feel
it
might
be
better
to
merge
these
two
builds,
so
we
can
get
a
complete
picture
of
what
the
bail
framework
in
nevada
will
be,
and
I
do
want
to
take
an
opportunity
to
address
something.
One
cohen's
question
with
respect
to
the
definition
of
forced
with
the
definition
of
force
with
is
case
and
fact
specific,
for
example,
the
more
serious
and
complex
the
case,
the
more
latitude
prosecutors
get
from
courts
with
respect
to
the
filing
of
a
criminal
complaint.
H
A
E
H
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley
s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y
for
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
here
opposed
to
ab2,
I'm
sorry
424,
and
this
affects
all
of
our
sheriff's
offices
and
jails
in
nevada,
so
data
to
all
the
aforementioned
testimony.
Thank.
E
E
H
Good
morning
terry
yeager,
members
of
the
assembly
trajectory
committee,
my
name
is
alex
ortiz
a-l-e-x-o-r-t-I-z,
representing
clark
county.
Even
though
this
is
not
a
policy
committee,
it
is
our
only
opportunity
to
express
our
concerns
about
the
fiscal
impact
of
clark
county.
Therefore,
clark
county
opposes
8424
as
written
due
to
the
fiscal
impact.
Only
my
opposition
is
only
based
on
the
fiscal
impact
to
the
county
and
not
the
policy
issues
discussed
today.
We
did
submit
a
fiscal
note
based
on
the
original
bill,
which
is
on
nellis.
H
However,
that
fiscal
note
may
change
based
on
the
acceptance
of
the
da
association's
amendment,
also
on
nellis
and
any
future
amendments
to
the
bill.
Section
five
would
require
the
court
to
hold
bu
hearings
within
24
hours
of
evidentiary,
pre-trial
release,
hearing
and
bail
setting
for
any
defendant
who
are
unable
to
post
bail.
Section
8
requires
evidentiary
pre-trial
release
hearings,
including
witness
testimony.
H
We
estimate
that
our
justice
courts
will
need
to
hold
numerous
evidentiary
pre-trial
release,
hearings
and
bill
review
hearings
per
day
seven
days
per
week.
That
seems
the
court
would
need
additional
judges,
hearing
masters,
related
marshals
and
clerks
support
staff
to
oversee
these
hearings
during
the
pre-trial
release
and
presentation
of
evidence.
Both
the
public
defenders
office
and
district
attorney's
office
will
need
to
increase
staff
to
include
additional
deputy
public
defenders,
deputy
district
attorneys
to
provide
representation
at
the
evidentiary
pre-release
hearings,
as
well
as
administrative
support
staff
clark.
H
County
detention
would
also
need
additional
field
services,
correction
officers,
transport
inmates
to
the
additional
hearings.
However,
that
amount
cannot
be
determined.
I
want
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
continuing
the
conversation
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
the
sponsor
to
address
our
physical
concerns.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Today.
A
A
A
E
G
Every
case
of
intimate
partner
violence
is
unique
and
requires
a
unique
response
to
keep
that
victim
survivor,
their
children
and
their
families
safe.
We
know
that
in
some
cases
there
is
little
time
for
victims
to
be
heard
by
a
prosecutor,
and
we
also
know
that
interpersonal
violence
isn't
black
and
white,
and
many
of
these
relationships
are
complex.
Victims
are
dependent
on
their
abusive
partners
and
that
it's
only
with
time
and
support
many
victims
feel
safe
to
move
forward
with
the
prosecution.
G
I
would
also
be
remissed
if
I
don't
acknowledge
that
true
victim
survivors
are
often
the
ones
who
are
arrested,
and
so
we
approach
this
topic
with
the
understanding
of
needing
to
balance
that
dynamic
as
well.
We
know
it's
possible
to
end
cash
fail,
while
also
centering
the
safety
of
victim
survivors,
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
all
the
stakeholders
to
ensure
that
victim
safety
is
paramount.
Thank
you.
A
F
Thank
you
rochelle
for
the
record.
I
will
keep
this
brief,
I'm
I
will
continue
to
work
with
stakeholders
and
take
into
consideration
some
of
the
concerns
and
clarity
moving
forward
with
this
bill
and
if
any
of
the
other
members
have
any
additional
questions,
please
feel
free
to
reach
out.
I
am
taking
input
from
everyone
at
this
point,
so
thank
you
and
hopefully,
when
this
comes
back
before
work
session,
it
will
be
in
a
much
more
coherent
place.
Thank
you.
A
N
Or
question
yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
it
just
a
a
point
here.
More
than
anything
when
we're
talking
about.
I
understand
we
are
a
policy
committee,
not
a
fiscal
committee,
as
is
everything
except
revenue
and
ways
and
means,
but
when
we're
talking
about
unfunded
mandates,
sometimes
that
is
part
of
the
policy,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
wheeler.
I
was
going
to
note
that
for
those
of
you
on
the
committee
last
session,
we
we
did
hear
a
bail
bill
and
I
think
it
took
us
about
three
and
a
half
or
four
hours
to
get
through
that
hearing.
So
I
think
we've
at
least
made
some
progress
in
refining
what
some
of
the
issues
are.
So
I
appreciate
you
vice
chairwin
and
all
the
members
of
that
interim
committee,
because
I
think
it
helped
move
us
forward
to
where
we
are
today.
A
And
that
takes
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda
this
morning,
which
is
public
comment
just
by
way
of
a
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
committee
vps.
Could
we
go
to
the
public
comment
line
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment
this
morning.
E
K
I
spoke
about
the
pepper
mill
yesterday
and
urged
the
members
to
go
check
out
the
videos,
because
it's
quite
disturbing
that
it
just
seems
to
be
that
was
actually
a
man
involved
in
the
video
andrew
miller
was
the
manager
that
night
of
security
and
it's
just
it's
clear
that
it's
condoned
and
that
the
security
that
night
and
probably
every
night
are
looking
to
start
with
patrons
and,
as
I
mentioned,
my
brother
was
a
guest
at
the
hotel.
K
The
police,
narrative
claims,
junior,
picked
up
a
gun
and
pointed
it
at
the
officers
which
prompted
them
to
shoot,
but
the
video
is
highly
pixelated
and
unclear
and
at
no
point
does
junior
pick
the
gun
up
and
pointed
at
the
officers.
The
police
narrative
directly
contradicts
the
two
eyewitnesses
that
were
present,
who
claim
that
he
never
picked
up.
The
gun
junior
was
hoping
to
become
a
police
officer
with
las
vegas
metro
and
had
been
scheduled
for
testing
for
may
30th.
2020.
K
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
committee.
Thank
you.
I
know
it's
been
a
long
couple
of
weeks
and
a
long
morning
appreciate
your
thoughtfulness
and
attention
and
questions.
So
where
do
we
go
from
here?
As
previously
stated
we're
going
to
be
meeting
at
eight
o'clock
tomorrow?
We
did
add
a
third
event,
a
third
bill
to
the
agenda,
so
we
have
three
bills.
We'll
also
have
a
work
session
with
a
handful
of
bills
tomorrow
and
then
thursday
we
have
an
eight
o'clock
meeting
with
three
bills:
friday.
A
We
don't
yet
have
to
have
an
agenda,
but
I
do
anticipate
an
8
a.m
start
and
we're
likely
going
to
reserve
that
meeting
for
work
session.
So
I'll,
let
you
know
if
anything
changes.
I
know
we
all
have
a
long
few
days
ahead
of
us
with
committee's
meeting
canadian
is
going
very,
very
long,
but
please
don't
hesitate
to
reach
out
and
ask
questions
if
you
have
any
about
judiciary.
So
I
will
see
you
all
tomorrow
morning,
at
8am
back
in
this
committee.
Until
then,
I
hope
you
have
a
great
day.
This
meeting
is.