►
From YouTube: 4/16/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
D
A
I
am
here,
please
mark
assemblyman,
o'neil
absent
excused.
Everybody
else
is
present.
That
means
we
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
on
the
zoom
and
good
morning
to
those
who
are
here
in
the
room,
as
well
as
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
Welcome
to
day
75
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
on
today's
agenda,
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
for
those
of
you
who
are
in
the
room
with
us.
A
If
you
could,
please
silence
your
devices.
We
would
appreciate
that,
if
you're
in
the
room-
and
you
do
intend
to
testify
today
when
you
come
to
the
table,
to
testify-
please
make
sure
to
turn
the
microphone
on
to
clearly
state
your
name
and
then,
after
you
are
done.
Providing
testimony
please
be
sure
to
turn
the
microphone
off.
A
If
you
are
on
the
zoom
with
us
this
morning,
if
you
could
please
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
audio
feedback,
and
if
you
could,
please
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
you
speak
particularly
when
you're
answering
a
question:
that'll
help
us
prepare
accurate
committee
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
and
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy.
A
That
is
perfectly
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly,
of
our
staff,
who
is
working
very
hard
to
have
these
meetings
work
for
us
and
then
finally,
many
of
the
members
are
using
multiple
devices
to
access
documents
and
exhibits.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
at
devices
or
laptops
or
phones
or
ipads,
along
the
way,
most
likely
we're
accessing
notes
or
exhibits
for
the
bills.
A
With
those
matters
behind
us
we're
going
to
move
on
to
our
agenda
and
I
will
intend
to
likely
take
the
bills
in
order
depending
on
when
presenters
arrive,
but
for
now
we'll
start
with
the
first
bill
on
the
agenda,
and
that
is
senate
bill
45
and
its
first
reprint.
So
I'll
now
open
the
hearing
on
that
bill.
A
Senate
bill,
45
reprint
one
revises
provisions
relating
to
crimes
and
we
have
miss
adair
with
us
this
morning
as
long
as
well
as
mr
george
and
miss
riley,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
have
any
furry
friends
this
morning.
I
kind
of
hope
we
do
to
be
honest,
but
welcome
to
back.
Welcome
back
to
assembly
judiciary,
to
the
three
of
you
or
perhaps
the
four
of
you.
I
see
we
have
a
fourth
person
on
the
screen
as
well.
A
E
Done,
thank
you,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
jessica
darachi,
the
staff
of
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office.
I
am
joined
by
my
colleagues,
nicole
riley,
who
serves
at
the
attorney
as
the
attorney
general's
domestic
violence,
ombudsman
and
kyle
george
first
assistant
attorney
general
to
present
senate
middle
senate
bill
45.
E
My
co-prisoners
from
yesterday
have
been
politely
excused
to
the
backyard.
Sb
is
a
bill
intended
to
enhance
the
state's
ability
to
combat
domestic
violence
in
the
state
of
nevada
in
2019
30
000
over
30
000
domestic
violence,
offenses
were
reported
to
nevada
law
enforcement
agencies.
According
to
the
department
of
public
safety's,
uniform
crime
report.
E
This
represents
one
domestic
violence,
offense
reported
every
17
minutes
and
18
seconds.
This
shocking
number
does
not
account
for
the
many
domestic
violence
offenses
that
go
unreported
every
day
at
the
attorney
general's
office.
Combating
domestic
violence
and
supporting
survivors
is
a
key
priority
that
we
achieve
in
several
ways.
Nicole
riley
has
served
as
the
office's
domestic
violence
ombudsman
for
several
years,
managing
many
statewide
programs
on
domestic
violence
and
assisting
individual
victims
by
connecting
them
with
services
and
sometimes
even
holding
their
hands
in
court
attorney.
General
ford
also
chairs
the
statewide
committee
on
domestic
violence.
E
This
committee
is
comprised
of
diverse
stakeholders
and
experts,
who
help
lead
the
way
on
domestic
violence,
awareness
and
identifying
gaps
in
legislation,
services
and
systems
that
support
families
experiencing
domestic
violence.
This
bill
helps
strengthen
both
the
services
provided
by
the
ombudsman
and
the
committee.
E
Sections
1
and
2
reflect
expanded
duties
of
the
ombudsmen
to
include
services
provided
to
victims
of
sexual
assault
and
human
trafficking.
In
addition
to
victims
of
domestic
violence,
these
expanded
duties
reflect
a
common
reality
that
many
victims
of
domestic
violence
also
experience
sexual
assault
and
trafficking
service
providers.
Law
enforcement
and
other
stakeholders
frequently
serve
these
victims
together
as
well.
It
is
critical
that
we
do
not
work
in
silos
and
support
a
more
comprehensive
approach
to
victim
services.
E
E
Section
4
makes
several
changes
to
the
committee
on
domestic
violence
to
better
serve
the
committee's
goals.
The
bill
adds
two
critical
members
of
the
committee
subsection
nine.
As
a
representative
from
the
office
of
the
court
administrator
from
protective
orders
to
sentencing,
the
courts
are
key
partner
in
the
judicial
response
to
domestic
violence
and
adding
this
member
will
facilitate
communication
and
a
better
understanding
of
domestic
violence.
E
Subsection
10
adds
a
representative
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services,
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health,
who
is
experienced
in
the
certification
of
programs
for
the
treatment
of
people
convicted
of
domestic
violence.
This
section
goes
hand
in
hand
with
subsection
2b,
which
removes
the
committee's
statutory
responsibility
of
certifying
treatment
programs.
E
Currently,
those
convicted
of
domestic
violence
offenses
must
attend
treatment
programs
as
part
of
their
sentence.
These
programs
are
recommended
by
the
committee
and
then
officially
certified
by
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
This
bureaucratic
process
is
inefficient
and
often
leads
to
a
delay
and
certification
for
certifying
treatment.
Programs
solely
with
excuse
me
because
the
committee
needs
quarterly.
E
The
bill
would
place
the
responsibility
for
certifying
treatment
programs
solely
with
the
professional
staff
at
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
By
appointing
that
staff.
Member
then,
to
the
committee
on
domestic
violence,
it
will
maintain
the
communication
and
shared
expertise
between
the
program
certification
staff
and
the
committee,
for
example.
The
committee
is
currently
conducting
a
study
on
the
efficacy
of
treatment
programs
having
the
certification
staff
on
the
committee
will
help
inform
the
study
and
the
study
results
will
help
inform
the
work
of
the
staff
who
certify
treatment.
Programs.
E
Subsection
2e
adds
a
statutory
duty
to
the
committee
to
study
and
consider
the
intersection
between
domestic
violence
and
other
issues
such
as
sexual
assault
and
human
trafficking.
The
remaining
changes
to
section
two
are
technical
changes
to
improve
the
committee's
efficiency
sections
five
and
six
make
conforming
changes.
E
Subsections
are
sorry
section,
seven
subsection,
four,
a
makes
a
correction
to
the
sentence
for
those
convicted
of
domestic
battery
against
a
pregnant
victim
in
the
2019
section,
this
legislature
passed
assembly
bill.
60.
ab60
was
sponsored
by
the
attorney
general's
office
and
made
sweeping
changes
to
the
domestic
violence
statute,
and
I
remember
working
on
this
bill
with
many
of
the
members
of
the
committee
now
and
I'm
sure
you
remember
all
of
the
changes
that
we
made
in
that
bill
for
the
betterment
of
the
state.
E
E
E
Nrs
201.481
states
that
a
first
offense
for
a
domestic
battery
against
a
pregnant
victim
is
a
gross
misdemeanor.
The
standard
sentence
for
a
gross
misdemeanor
is
incarceration
from
one
day
to
364
days,
quite
a
broad
range
in
practice.
This
is
leading
to
absurd
and
unjust
results
when
compared
to
the
mandatory
minimum
and
maximum
sentences
for
misdemeanor
domestic
battery.
If
the
victim
is
not
pregnant
under
nrs
200.485,
a
first-time
misdemeanor
domestic
battery
is
punishable
by
a
minimum
of
two
days
incarceration
and
a
maximum
of
six
months.
E
A
second
times
misdemeanor
domestic
battery
offense
is
punishable
by
a
minimum
of
20
days
incarceration
and
a
maximum
of
six
months
because,
like
I
stated
earlier,
the
standard
sentence
for
a
gross
misdemeanor
is
incarceration.
From
one
day
to
364
days,
a
person
convicted
of
the
more
severe
crime
of
domestic
battery
against
a
pregnant
victim
gross
misdemeanor
could
be
incarcerated
for
a
fewer
number
of
days
than
a
person
convicted
of
a
standard
misdemeanor
battery.
E
E
E
This
statue
also
clarifies
that
offenders
must
also
attend
the
treatment
programs
like
those
who
are
convicted
of
a
standard
domestic
violence
battery
and
the
fines
associated
with
the
statute
are
also
equal
to
fines
for
a
standard
domestic
violence
battery.
Thank
you
for
hearing
our
bill
presentation
and
we
look
forward
to
answering
your
questions.
A
F
Thank
you.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
questions.
Obviously
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
this
from
the
legislation
and
working
with
you
last
session
on
trying
to
salvage
some
of
these
bills
that
had
been
filed
by
attorney
general
ford's
predecessor.
I
am
curious
about
for
a
battery
domestic
violence.
Second
offense,
I
see
that
some
of
the
mandatory
counseling
language
seems
to
emulate
a
battery
domestic
violence.
F
Second
offense
was
that
your
intent,
or
was
there
some
sort
of
information
that
shows
that
having
the
one
year
of
counseling
as
opposed
to
the
six
months
of
counseling,
is
more
effective.
In
these
circumstances,.
E
E
We
do
believe
that
the
longer
treatment
programs
can
be
more
effective
than
the
shorter
treatment
programs,
but
if
you're
looking
for
a
study,
that
is
something
that
we
are
trying
to
to
do.
Currently.
I'll,
also
invite
my
colleague,
nicole
riley,
to
speak
to
that
particular
section,
she's,
very
familiar
with
these
programs
of
being
on
the
current
subcommittee
to
certify
those
treatment
programs
and
helping
to
direct
the
study
that
I
was
just
speaking
about.
G
Thank
you
so
much
jessica
and
vice
chair.
This
is
nicole
reilly
for
the
record.
What
we
are
doing
right
now
as
a
state
is:
we
have
contracted
with
unr
researchers
and
department
of
public
and
behavioral
health,
which
is
the
agency
responsible
for
certifying
the
programs
to
do
a
full
canvas
of
the
state
on
the
efficacy
of
all
of
the
batterers
intervention
treatment
programs
that
we
have
statewide.
G
As
of
now,
when
we're
looking
at
the
severity
of
domestic
violence,
offenders
and
those
in
particular,
who
are
battering
or
committing
violence
against
pregnant
persons.
G
We
do
from
some
of
the
feedback
that
we
already
have
been
able
to
collect,
believe
that
the
longer
treatment
is
going
to
be
much
more
beneficial
for
the
offender's
change
of
behavior
and
for
the
safety
of
the
victim
and
the
child.
That
has
always
been
the
number
one
purpose
for
any
legislation
or
service
programs
is
the
safety
of
the
victim
and,
of
course,
the
unborn
child
that
could
potentially
be
born
in
the
interim
of
this
one-year
treatment
program.
F
E
E
F
E
Thank
you
vice
chair
jessica
there
for
the
record,
I'd
like
to
speak
to
some
stakeholders
before
committing
to
that
amendment,
but
and
and
yourself
of
course,
but
I
think
that
that's
something
that
we
could
certainly
explore.
F
F
And
then
my
final
question
is:
is
the
requirement
for
the
one
year
of
counseling?
I
understand
that
we
still
are
working
on
that
data
and
I
think
that
will
be
invaluable
for
legislatures
in
the
future
to
determine
how
effective
these
programs
are
and
how
effective
this
counseling
is
at
reducing
recidivism
and
helping.
F
My
question
is,
is,
for
you
know
for
other
members,
if
you
have
a
misdemeanor,
the
case
can
actually
stay
open
for
upwards
of
three
years,
but
for
a
gross
misdemeanor,
the
probationary
period
is
so
short.
Would
they
be
able
to
even
complete
that,
like
term
of
the
requirements
within
the
allotted
time
for
probation
on
a
gross
misdemeanor,
especially
if
they
have
to
do
the
first
30
days
in
custody
as
a
minimum.
E
E
That
is
not
something
that,
when
we're
speaking
to
law
enforcement,
prosecutors,
public
defenders,
domestic
violence,
service
providers
that
we
that
we
talked
about,
so
I
need
to
do
a
little
homework
on
that
and
determine
if,
if
that
is
possible,
I
do
know
that,
frankly,
this
this
clarification
in
the
statute-
I
personally
believe
was
courts-
should
have
been
doing
this
already
in
in
the
other,
the
further
down
in
this
chapter
and
in
chapter
200,
there
is
a
statute
that
states
that
anyone
connected
convicted
of
a
domestic
violence
battery
should
also
be
ordered
as
part
of
their
sentence
to
attend
the
the
treatments
for
the
persons
convicted
of
domestic
violence.
E
However,
in
practice,
because
that,
because
this
is
a
new
sentence
or
new
crime,
some
courts
in
this
state
in
the
past
two
years
have
not
made
that
part
of
an
offender's
treatment.
Some
courts
have
so
they
some
courts
have
within
this
time
period
already
made
this
part
of
an
offender's
sentence,
but
other
courts
have
been
resistant
because
it
wasn't
specifically
in
that
section
of
the
statute.
E
So
that's
why
we
added
that
clarification
in
this
particular
bill,
but
you
make
a
good
point
in
that
if
we
are
putting
a
cap
a
maximum
cap
of
six
months,
that
might
make
this
a
little
logistically
difficult.
So
I'd
like
to
work
with
you
and
some
of
our
stakeholders
about
how
that
would
work
in
practice.
F
And
and
thank
you
for
all
those
questions
or
answer
all
those
answers
on
those
questions.
I
know
that
you
guys
have
been
working
really
hard
and
I
agree,
I
don't
think
our
intent
when
we
were
making
some
of
these
changes
anticipated
the
situation
that
we're
in
today
that
you
know
necessitates
this
bill,
but
I
would
happily
work
to
work
on
some
of
those
changes
as
well.
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
this
presentation.
My
recent
experience.
I've
learned
a
lot
about
victims
and
learned
what
they
go
through
and
so
anytime
we
can
expand
services
and
support
to
victims.
I
think
it
is,
is
most
needed
and
very
beneficial.
So
I
appreciate
this
this
bill
very
much
and
I
do
have
a
question.
So
it's
in
on
page
8
of
the
bill
at
the
top
there,
where
it
says
if
the
person
resides
in
the
state,
but
the
nearest
location
at
which
counseling
services
are
available
is
in
another
state.
H
E
This
statute
allows
the
court
the
flexibility
of
ordering
that
offender
to
attend
treatment
programs
in
person
in
another
state
so
long
as
those
programs
have
been
certified,
but
to
be
clear,
we
are
moving
forward
with
some
virtual
treatment
programs,
so
that
is
a
very
exciting
development,
though,
for
some
offenders
attending
in
person
may
be
more
beneficial
to
their
treatment,
so
we
just
want
to
give
courts
the
flexibility
to
and
the
discretion
to,
take
advantage
of
programs
and
other
seats.
H
Thank
you,
and-
and
that
was
my
next
kind
of
thought-
was:
are
these
available
virtually
too
but
we're
just
having
options?
So
that's
the
intent.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
chair
my
question.
Assemblywoman
hardy,
it
was
the
second
part
of
her
question.
A
A
A
A
I
I
D
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley,
s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y
and
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
45
and
as
a
member
of
the
committee
on
domestic
violence,
I'm
honored
to
be
serving
on
that
committee
and
thankful
for
this
bill
being
brought
to
you
today.
We
thank
this
committee
for
considering
this
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
I
C
Good
morning,
mr
chair,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jennifer
noble,
j
e
n
n,
I
f
e
r
n
o
n-o-b-l-e,
and
I
am
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
in
support
of
senate
bill
45
we'd
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
important
bill
forward,
which
will
assist
law
enforcement
prosecutors
and
advocates
in
providing
more
effective
services
to
survivors
of
domestic
violence
and
sex
trafficking
and
help
ensure
more
equity
and
effective
treatment
in
sentencing
and
treatment
of
offenders.
Thank
you.
A
J
Good
morning,
thank
you,
terry
yeager.
This
is
kendra
burchie
for
the
record
and
it's
a
pleasure
to
finally
see
all
of
you
here
in
person
I'm
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
my
office,
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
in
opposition.
J
Our
only
objection
for
this
bill
is
the
mandatory
minimum
30-day
requirement.
We
disagree
with
changing
the
gross
misdemeanor
offenses.
We
believe
this
is
what
led
to
the
issues
with
our
category
b
offenses
that
again,
you
heard
us
discuss
earlier,
but
our
main
thing
is
just
ensuring
that
we
are
providing
opportunities
for
these
clients
to
better
themselves
from
the
situation.
J
J
It's
not
saying
that
they've
already
committed
a
prior
domestic
battery
offense,
and
so
we
just
believe
that
giving
them
options
of
treatment
rather
than
incarceration,
which
costs
us,
as
you
heard,
a
minimum
of
126
dollars
per
day
in
the
washoe
county
sheriff's
office
at
our
expense,
just
doesn't
make
sense
and
can
perhaps
have
a
chilling
effect
on
victims
where
they
won't
want
to
come
forward
or
they
don't
want
to
continue
with
the
prosecution.
So
those
are
our
concerns
and
thank
you
for
letting
me
participate
today.
A
A
Anyone
else
in
the
room
who
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
this
morning.
Okay,
I
don't
see
anyone
else
in
the
room.
How
about
on
the
zoom
I'm
going
to
take
a
quick
look
over
there.
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom
indicating
they
would
like
to
speak
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
opposition.
I
I
D
Hi,
jim
hoffman,
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice,
nacj
opposes
sb,
45
and
specifically
the
part
of
section
7
that
increases
the
mandatory
jail
time,
while,
of
course,
nacj
opposes
domestic
violence,
including
against
pregnant
people.
Sb
45
will
not
actually
have
the
effect
of
stopping
domestic
violence.
D
D
Raising
the
mandatory
minimum
the
30
consecutive
days
will
make
it
so
that
the
victim's
self-interest
lies
in
keeping
their
mouth
shut
and
not
reporting
their
abuser
and
that's
counterproductive
to
our
policy
goals,
because
the
policy
goal
is
for
the
victim
to
extricate
themselves
from
their
abuser
and
from
the
abuser
to
get
into
treatment
to
stop
doing
this,
but
that
relies
on
the
person.
Reporting
abuse
in
the
first
place,
section
7
of
sb45
would
deter
reporting
of
abuse
and
ultimately
would
be
harmful
to
the
goal
of
preventing
domestic
violence.
A
A
Thank
you.
I
will
close
opposition
testimony.
I
did
want
to
ask
mr
lao:
did
I
skip
over
you?
Did
you
want
to
provide
testimony
and
support?
Please
come
forward
we'll
go
back
to
support,
I
neglected
to
canvas
the
room
on
support,
so
I
will
go
back
to
support.
Thank
you
for
your
patience,
mr
lowan.
Please
go
ahead
with
your
testimony.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
mr
lau
and
I'll
just
check
there.
Is
there
anybody
else
in
the
room
in
support
of
the
senate
bill
45?
Okay,
I
don't
see
that
so
I'll.
I
will
reclose
supportive
testimony
we'll
now
go
to
neutral
testimony.
Is
there
anybody
in
the
room
who'd
like
to
testify
neutral
on
the
bill?
A
I
A
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
would
just
respond
to
some
of
the
opposition
testimony
about
how
this
would
be
counterproductive
to
victims
coming
forward
that
currently,
this
sentence
that
is
available
to
offenders
of
this
offense
is
up
to
one
nearly
one
year
in
jail.
So
if
we
are
serious
about
not
wanting
to
discourage
victims,
I
would
encourage
folks
to
take
a
look
at
the
mandatory
maximum
of
this
senate
bill
45.
E
That
I
believe,
is
much
more
reasonable
than
the
current
statute
on
the
books.
So,
while
I
understand
they
have
strong
feelings
about
the
mandatory
minimum,
there
is
also
mandatory
maximum
proposed
in
this
bill.
That
does
not
exist
in
current
statute.
So
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you
and
members
about
your
specific
concerns
and
thank
you
again
for
hearing
this
bill.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
dair,
and
thank
you,
miss
riley
for
answering
questions
as
well.
Good
to
see
you,
mr
george,
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
We
hope
you
all
have
a
wonderful
weekend
and
I'm
sure
we
will
see
you
again
soon
here
in
assembly
judiciary,
at
this
time,
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
45
in
its
first
reprint,
and
I
think,
we'll
move
along
to
the
next
bill
on
the
agenda,
as
I
believe
we
have
our
two
presenters
available
on
zoom
for
that
bill.
A
It
looks
like
we
have
mr
chio,
and
I
think
we
have
our
senate
majority
leader
with
us
to
present
as
well.
So
welcome
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
to
both
of
you.
It's
certainly
good
to
see
you
senate
majority
leader
and
good,
to
see
you,
mr
chio.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
good
morning
and
happy
friday
good
to
see
all
of
you
in
person
in
the
committee
room
as
well
for
those
of
you
at
the
committee.
Thank
you
again
for
having
me
my
name
is
nicole
cannizzaro.
I
currently
serve
as
the
senator
from
senate
district
6
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
358,
which
proposes
to
establish
that
it
is
not
unlawful
to
intercept
a
wire
communication
in
certain
circumstances.
K
K
Telecommunications
carriers,
of
course,
maintain
facilities
that
allow
law
enforcement
to
intercept
communications
under
a
court
order,
known
as
what
we
refer
to
as
a
lawful
interception
senate
bill
358
proposes
to
expand
the
scope
of
lawful
interception
to
include
certain
emergency
situations
involving
hostages
or
an
individual
who
has
barricaded
himself
or
herself,
and
law
enforcement
does
not
have
the
ability
to
timely
obtain
a
warrant.
This
bill
expands
the
parameters
that
allow
for
the
recording
of
wire
communication
without
consent
under
existing
law.
K
The
interception
or
attempt
to
intercept
communications
is
only
allowed
in
emergency
circumstances
or
if
one
of
the
parties
involved
in
the
communication
has
consented
senate
bill.
358
adds
another
exception
to
this.
Prohibition
by
specifying
the
interception
of
communications
is
in
fact
lawful
in
two
specific
situations.
A
L
L
for
those
that
aren't
familiar
with
our
crisis
negotiation
team
pres,
the
rcnt
team
is
an
auxiliary
position
to
each
member's
full-time
assignment.
The
cnt
members
are
comprised
of
detectives
officers,
investigative
specialists
and
sergeants
from
across
our
department.
Cnt
is
on
call
24
7
to
respond
on
barricaded
sub,
barricaded
suspects,
hostage,
crisis
situations,
armed
suicidal
suspects,
jumper
situations
and
terroristic
threats.
L
We
typically
respond
to
an
average
of
50
to
70
events
a
year
this
year
since
january
2021,
we
have
already
responded
to
approximately
24
events.
In
november
2020,
I
took
over
supervision
of
the
negotiator
team.
As
a
team
leader
senate
bill,
358
was
introduced.
This
legislative
session
at
the
request
of
lvmpd
for
several
reasons,
first
and
foremost,
is
to
provide
transparency
and
accountability
for
the
lvmpd.
L
During
these
high
risk
events
recorded
conversations
can
be
reviewed
to
ensure
the
public
and
the
courts.
The
cnt
team
is
operating
appropriately
to
de-escalate
the
situation.
This
protects
not
only
the
suspect,
but
the
officers
similar
to
how
a
body-worn
camera
does
second
is
to
remove
a
roadblock
for
negotiators
to
establish
initial
communication
and
rapport
with
the
subject.
Establishing
initial
communication
and
report
is
our
most
difficult
objective
on
every
one
of
our
missions.
L
The
vast
majority
of
our
subjects
we
encounter
are
in
some
form
of
crisis,
whether
it's
from
a
traumatic
event,
mental
illness,
drug
induced
criminal
intent
or
fear
of
incarceration
notifying
an
individual
in
crisis
at
the
beginning
that
their
conversation
is
being
recorded
to
comply
with
current
nevada
law
can
be
problematic.
To
establish
report
third
is
to
improve
the
quality
and
ability
of
our
cmt
team
recorded
negotiations
are
a
valuable
tool
to
us,
as
we
continue
continuously
strive
to
get
better
at
our
craft.
L
Lvu
pd
as
a
whole
has
shown
to
be
a
learning
agency,
striving
to
always
improve
our
cnt
team
is
no
different
under
our
leadership
and,
lastly,
is
to
clarify
the
emergency
situation
in
paragraph
b.
In
nrs,
179.460
wiretap
interceptions
are
only
allowed
in
a
very
specific
set
of
crimes.
Barricaded
suspects
are
not
listed
in
those
crimes
that
are
allowed
so
as
the
emergency
situation
only
for
those
specific
crimes
or
for
any
emergency
situation.
L
A
couple
of
statistics
that
I
did
want
to
pull
out
during
iran's
study.
79
of
hostages
were
killed
during
a
rescue
operation
when
police
assault
a
hostage
taker,
75
percent
are
killed,
that
casualty
rate
and
order
is
usually
the
hostage
suspected
police
when
trade
negotiators
are
able
to
establish
contact
and
rapport
with
a
hostage
taker
and
use
as
part
of
a
team
response
during
a
police
during
a
police
assault,
less
than
five
percent
casualty
rate
and
the
casualty
rate
in
that
order
is
suspect,
hostage
in
the
police.
L
According
to
the
fbi,
the
national
fbi
database,
when
negotiators
are
used
in
conjunction
with
a
tactical
team,
there's
a
58
58
chance
of
a
peaceful
surrender
during
a
barricade
or
hostage
situation
for
lvmpd.
Our
rate
is
much
higher,
approximately
80
percent,
although
that
is
a
good
number
for
our
agency.
It's
not
good
enough.
Our
goal
is
always
to
improve.
L
Lastly,
one
of
the
things
that
I
did
want
to
point
out
is
in
2015.
There
was
a
law
already
passed,
nrs
179.463,
the
the
problem
with
that
law.
Is
that
it's
in
conflict
with
this
existing
law
and
according
to
our
da's
office
because
of
the
conflict.
We
abide
by
the
law
that
this
this
law
right
here
that
we're
trying
to
amend
other
than
that,
then
I
could
take
any
questions
from
the
committee.
A
C
K
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
for
the
question
through
you,
mr
chair
to
the
assemblywoman
woman,
currently
under
the
statute,
and
I
think
that
lieutenant
geo
can
speak
more
to
this
particular
circumstance.
There
is
an
emergency
request,
provisions
that
deal
with
specific
types
of
crimes,
but
these
barricade
and
hostage
situations
are
not
included
in
there.
K
If,
for
some
reason,
there
were
motions
made
by
the
parties
to
exclude
that
evidence,
and
so
while
the
court
is
not
involved
at
the
initial
onset
and
the
reason
for
that,
not
only
in
the
emergency
exceptions
that
are
provided,
but
also
in
this
in
this
language
is
because
of
the
nature
of
the
actual
event
in
that
going
to
obtain
a
warrant
and
then
having
to
have
that
warrant
executed.
K
Every
time
I
mean
one
of
the
examples
that
we
we
discussed
when
this
bill
was
heard
over
in
the
senate
was
in
instances
where
you
may
have
someone
involved
in
a
hostage
or
barricade
situation
who
continues
to
cut
off
the
communications
between
themselves
and
law.
Enforcement.
To
then
require
yet
another
warrant
to
be
drafted
and
approved
and
go
through
the
judicial
process.
But
because
of
the
nature
of
these
particular
situations.
K
The
idea
is
that
we
would
want
to
have
those
wire
intercepts
so
that
there
is
good
communication
between
the
tactical
teams
and
law
enforcement
and
the
negotiators
and
the
individuals
in
the
hostage
and
barricade
situation
due
to
sort
of
the
dangerousness
of
that
particular
response.
So
at
some
point
the
court
could
become
involved
if,
for
example,
they
were
charged
with
a
crime,
and
this
was
offered
as
evidence
to
be
introduced,
and
then
the
court
could
make
a
decision
about
whether
to
include
or
exclude
that
evidence.
L
Lieutenant
h,
thank
you
senator
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
the
way
the
language
is
written
is
there
is
an
emergency
exception
where
we
have
to
have
a
ratification
order
within
72
hours
for
us
as
the
largest
police
agency
in
in
the
state
it
it's
problematic
for
us.
Like
I
stated
earlier,
this
is
an
auxiliary
position.
All
of
us
that
are
part
of
the
crisis.
Negotiation
team
have
full-time
assignments,
the
72-hour
time
frame.
L
What
that
includes
is
to
have
it
an
affian
draft.
The
affidavit
for
a
wiretap
affidavit
have
a
d.a
review
it
and
a
judge
then
sign
it
within
that
72
hours
and
it's
from
72
hours
of
the
event
not
72
hour
business
days
or
anything
like
that
for
us
having
even
with
our
large
agency,
it's
problematic,
like
I
said
because
it's
a
we
all
have
full-time
jobs.
L
I
would
think
that
smaller
agencies
would
even
have
a
more
difficult
time.
I
can
think
of
one
instance
where
we
had
a
barricade
armed,
barricade,
suspect
on
christmas
eve
and
we
declared
an
emergency
and
for
we
just
were
unable
to
find
a
d.a
or
a
judge.
The
d.a
was
okay
because
we
were
able
to
find
the
d.a
to
to
get
get
it
reviewed
by,
but
trying
to
find
a
judge
that
was
available
within
that
72
hours
became
very
problematic
for
us.
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Are
there
any
examples
where
this
would
have
prevented
a
death
or
any
recent
examples
where
this
particular
non-warrant
type
of
thing
would
have
like
really
made
a
difference?.
L
This
is
hannah
nachio
in
las
vegas,
my
toronto
police
department
ma'am
recently,
like
I
said
I
just
took
over
about
six
months
ago,
but
it
happened
to
me
several
years
ago
when
I
was
a
member
of
a
crisis
negotiation
team
I
tried
to.
I
was
in
the
primary
negotiator
on
an
armed
suspect,
a
barricade
inside
a
house.
L
L
This
particular
person
was
suffering
from
some
mental
illness
issues
and
paranoia
was
one
of
the
things
that
he
was
suffering
from.
As
I
tried
to
establish
rapport
and
contact
with
him,
I
informed
him.
The
conversation
was
being
recorded
in
as
low-key
a
manner
as
possible,
and
at
that
point
he
cut
off
contact.
L
L
And
finally,
we
were
able
to
resolve
that
situation
by
using
gas
to
gas
him
out
and
we
eventually
had
to
go
in
and
take
him
into
custody
during
my
debrief
with
that
suspect,
as
a
primary
negotiator,
he
flat
out
told
me
that,
because
I
was
recording
the
conversation
that
he
wasn't
going
to
talk
to
us,
that
is
one
practical
situation
that
happened
to
me
several
years
ago.
After
that
I
never
used
the
wire
type
emergency
wiretap
provision
or
tried
to
get
consent
because
as
a
negotiator,
that
is
our
primary
goal.
L
C
Thank
you
so
much
one
more
question:
assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Would
these
recordings
be
subject
to
like
if
a
member
of
the
public
wanted
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
courting
like?
Would
they
have
to
go
through
a
public
records
request
and
would
they
be
available
or
would
it
be
more
like
confidential
to
the
case.
L
So
I
meet
you
with
the
las
vegas
work
problem
police
department-
all
these
recordings,
just
like
every
other
recording
and
similar
to
body
worn
cameras
in
my
opinion-
are
subject
to
public
records
requests.
They
are
evidence
of
the
event
anytime
that
a
recording
is
is
made.
It
is
an
evidence
of
the
event,
so
I
don't
see
why
it
would
be
an
exception
to
the
public
records
request.
B
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
chandra,
summers-armstrong
assembly,
district
6.
For
the
record.
I
hear
you
thank
you
so
much
first
of
all,
senator
cannizzaro
and
miss
and
detective
chio.
We
appreciate
your
your
presentation.
B
I
don't
see
anything
in
the
proposed
language
that
says
that
these
recordings
are
mandatory
is
am
I
missing
something?
Thank
you.
L
Lieutenant
nacho
in
las
vegas
by
palm
police
department,
you're,
absolutely
correct
man.
There
is
no
language
saying
that
it
is
mandatory.
I
know
from
as
since
I've
taken
over
from
our
cnt
team
we
if
this
bill
passes,
we
are
going
to
put
it
in
our
policy
that
all
recordings
will
be
recorded
when
possible.
Now
that
does
take
into
account
some
equipment
failures,
but
things
of
that
nature.
But
for
us
we
really
want
this
bill
to
pass,
because
we
want
this.
L
We
don't
want
any
questions
about
how
we
do
business
not
being
answered.
We
want
to
be
fully
transparent
as
a
unit
and
as
a
department
during
these
high-risk
events,
to
see
that
we
are
trying
to
escalate
and
trying
to
get
a
peaceful
surrender.
B
Chair
yeager
may
have
a
follow-up.
Please
please
thank
you.
The
reason
I
ask
about
mandatory
sir,
is
that
we
have
situations
now
where
body
barn
cameras
are
not
turned
on
or
are
turned
off
during
events,
and
so
it's
it
gives
me
pause
when
I
don't
see
that
it
is
mandatory,
and
so
that
is
a
big
concern
for
me
and
and
also
this
the
proposition
that
we
can't
get
judges
to
give
you
the
warrants
that
you
need.
That's
also
very
questionable.
It's
a
big
question
for
me.
Thank.
K
Thank
you,
senator
cannizzaro,
nicole,
senator
nicole
kennedy,
district
six.
If
I
can
get
my
words
and
tongue
untied,
I
think
that
the
assemblywoman
brings
up
an
excellent
point
and
one
of
the
reasons
when
lieutenant
chio
reached
out
to
me
about
finding
a
vehicle
for
this
was
specifically
that
purpose.
Currently.
K
So
that's
that's
kind
of
I
think
the
hang
up
on
this
as
to
why
it
is
not
mandatory
is
that
it's
currently
prohibited
unless
you
have
consent
or
unless
you've
got
that
warrant
or
unless,
for
some
other
reason
it
falls
under
those
emergency
provisions,
and
so
this
would
allow
for
those
to
be
recorded
and-
and
I
think,
to
lieutenant
chio's
point-
you
know
their
intention
is
to
ensure
that
that
happens
in
every
one
of
these.
F
Thank
you.
I
always
find
this
interesting
because
I
feel
like
it's
an
exception,
to
an
exception
already,
because
you
are
conducting
these
without
a
warrant,
and
then
you
get
the
warrant
after
the
fact,
and
this
appears
to
be
asking
to
say
we
don't
want
to
be
able
to
get
it
after
the
fact
anyway.
I
guess
my
concern
is:
is
I'm
worried
about
the
transparency
in
that
respect?
Because
if
you
have
to
file
the
warrant
after
the
fact
at
least
you
know
what
kind
of
like
the
justification
is
for
what?
F
F
If
there
was
never
anything
after
the
fact,
and
I
I
recognize
that
it
might
be
difficult
to
get
that
done
within
the
72
hours
as
it's
currently
in
statute,
so
is
it
possible?
Is
there
another
time
frame
that
would
still
allow
for
that
record
of
what
their
justification
and
reasoning
for
doing
the
warrantless
like
search
was
in
the
first
place
like
would
additional
time
be
needed
to
kind
of
ensure
that.
L
L
Should
it
be
one
week,
should
it
be
two
weeks
should
it
be
several
weeks?
L
What
I
do
know
is
that,
if
the
justification
for
the
emergency
suspect
provision
again
doesn't
include
barricaded
suspects
with
the
current
language
that
that
is
already
in
place
right
now,
if,
if
there's
already
oversight
through
like,
as
senator
canazzaro,
already
pointed
out
through
through
the
court
system,
because
it's
going
to
be
offered
as
evidence,
then
the
built-in
oversight
that
is
of
concern
has
already
been
built
into
the
judicial
system.
L
At
any
point,
if
there
is
not
a
a
barricaded,
suspect
or
a
hostage
situation
that
is
in,
for
whatever
reason
a
recording
is
made,
then
that's
violation
of
the
law
and
the
and
the
police
department
and
the
negotiator
team
is
held
liable.
I
can
assure
you
from
my
several
years
as
a
negotiator
and
as
a
current
team
leader,
we
don't
take
that
lightly.
L
The
only
time
that
we
would
be
doing
this
is
when
there
is
an
actual
hostage
or
a
barricade
situation
and
those
barricaded
situations
are
very
readily
recognizable.
As
a
barricade
situation,
we
give
them
every
opportunity
before
we
are
even
deployed
by
our
patrol
officers
to
come
out
or
to
have
a
peaceful
surrender.
F
I
I
guess
I
still
just
have
concerns
without
that,
after
the
fact
ratification,
I
don't
know
how
anyone
would
ever
know
if
the
law
was
violated,
but
I
also
recognize
that
things
are
dynamic
and
obviously
there's
you
know
from
the
testimony.
There's
current
struggles
with
being
able
to
get
that
within
that
72
hours
as
currently
in
statute.
So
I
was
just
really
curious.
F
If
there's
any
information
you
can
get
back
to
the
committee
regarding
how
much
time
would
be
necessary
to
be
able
to
get
those
reports,
I
don't
know
if
it
like,
you
said,
is
it
you
know
an
extra
day?
Is
it
an
extra
week?
Is
the
next
or
two
weeks
or
kind
of
what
those
circumstances
might
be,
but
thank.
F
M
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Lieutenant
I
wanted
to
retouch
on
the
assembly
one's
question
about
being
mandatory
and
I
don't
know
a
lot
about
the
equipment
today.
So
maybe
you
can
fill
me
in
on
this.
Wouldn't
there
be
circumstances,
for
instance,
where
a
negotiator
would
arrive
on
scene
and
need
to
immediately
contact.
M
You
know
the
suspect
or
whoever
they're
talking
to
where
the
equipment
wouldn't
be
available
and
if
it
were
mandatory,
it
may
actually
delay
that
communication.
L
Lieutenant
nature
with
the
las
vegas
special
police
department,
assemblyman
you're,
absolutely
correct.
If
there
is
becomes
a
mandatory
in
law,
there
are
times
where
we
absolutely
need
to
get
right
on
the
phone
with
that
suspect,
especially
on
a
hostage
situation.
We
have
a
very
young
police
department
in
our
patrol
force.
I
think
that
the
average
tenure
of
our
police
officers
right
now
is
about
six
years
in
patrol
hostage
crisis.
L
Situations,
as
you
can
imagine,
is
a
very
dynamic
situation
and
having
an
inexperienced
patrol
officer
who
may
have
just
gotten
out
of
field
training
or
may
have
not
dealt
with
something
like
that,
be
the
initial
contact.
We
try
to
get
there
as
soon
as
possible
on
hostage
situations
and
as
soon
as
a
negotiator
can
get
on
the
phone.
M
You
I
just
am
worried
about
saving
lives
here
more
than
anything
else,
and
making
something
mandatory
would
may
possibly
cost
a
life.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you.
A
I
believe
that
was
something
that
was
being
worked
on,
but
I
just
wanted
to
ask
in
your
experience
in
this
field,
if
you
needed
to
get
a
telephonic
warrant
approved
or
an
electronic
warrant
approved,
what
kind
of
time
would
we
be
talking
about
from
the
time
you
know
you
start
preparing
the
affidavit
for
the
warrant
to
the
time
that
a
judge
might
actually
approve
that.
L
Nature
with
a
las
vegas
spectrum
police
department,
a
typical
search
warrant,
telephonic
search
warrant,
is
rather
easily
obtained.
In
fact,
when
we,
whenever
we
do
any
of
these
missions,
we
always
get
a
telephonic
warrant
for
the
body
of
the
whatever
the
suspect
or
the
hostage
taker
or
whatever.
That's
not
the
the
issue
of
getting
an
actual
telephonic
search
warrant.
The
there's
I've
never
heard
of
a
telephonic
wiretap
warrant,
there's
no
template
and
I've
never
heard
of
it
instance
in
25
years,
where
you
could
actually
get
that
done.
L
I
have
done
several
wiretap
warrants
in
my
career
and
it
is
a
lengthy
process
on
a
traditional
sense.
During
our
ratification
of
within
the
72
hours,
the
process
doesn't
change,
so
you
have
to
have
a
detective
or
the
affian
sit
down
and
write
out.
This
affidavit,
which
may
take,
depending
on
the
length
of
the
event
the
complexity
of
the
event
and
the
characteristics
of
the
event,
takes
some
time
to
do
it's
not
an
easy
process,
not
every
detective.
L
That
knows
how
to
do
a
search
warrant
knows
how
to
do
a
a
wiretap
warrant.
It
is
a
very
specific
skill
set
and
that's
that's
the
that's
the
the
the
challenge
we
have
is
that
telephonic
search
warrants
are
easy
ratifications
and
a
wider
intercept
warrants
are
quite
difficult
to
do.
A
A
K
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair
and
lieutenant
chio
brings
up
a
good
point
from
the
approval
process
on
anything.
That's
a
wire,
intercept
and
falls
into
that
nature.
It
it
is
required
for
it
to
have
certain
documentation
that
goes
along
with
it,
and
then
all
of
those
also
have
to
be
currently
there's
a
bill
pending.
K
That,
hopefully,
will
make
this
process
a
little
smoother,
but
currently
they
are
all
wet
signature.
What
ink
signature
required
from
from
any
prosecutorial
office
that
may
be
approving
those
and
also
the
judges
who
may
approve
those
and
are
currently
limited
to
only
specific
judges?
I
believe
district
courts
are
the
are
the
one
place
where
you
can
and
would
ordinarily
go
for
those
particular
approvals,
so
these
are
a
little
different
than
just
the
regular
telephonic
search
warrant.
K
If
you
were,
you
know
looking
to
search
an
apartment,
those
those
approval
processes
are
a
little
bit
different,
but
there
are
additional
hoops
and
restrictions
on
things
like
wire,
intercepts.
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members,
I'm
going
to
look
to
my
left
I'll.
Look
to
my
right.
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so
senate
majority
leader
lieutenant
chio,
thank
you
for
presenting
unless
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
time
for
some
wrap-up
comments.
At
this
time
I
will
open
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
358..
A
I
I
D
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
mike
cathcart
c-a-t-h-c-a-r-t,
representing
the
city
of
henderson.
We
are
in
support
of
sb
358.
I
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
sponsoring
the
bill
and
I
also
want
to
thank
the
metropolitan
police
department
for
assisting
with
the
presentation.
D
I
D
Good
morning,
chairman
yeagers
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley
s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y,
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
358
and
appreciate
majority
leader
canazarro,
bringing
this
important
bill
today.
We
thank
metro
for
the
great
presentation
and
the
information
and
the
committee
for
considering
this
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
C
Good
morning,
mr
chair,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jennifer
noble
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
in
support
of
senate
bill.
358
we'd
like
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
bringing
this
bill
forward,
which
we
fully
support,
and
we
believe
it
will
assist
law
enforcement
negotiators
to
work
more
effectively,
efficiently
and
safely
in
very
limited,
narrow
and
extremely
dangerous
scenarios
where
every
second
counts.
We
urge
you
to
support
this
important
bill.
Thank
you.
A
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
committee.
I
want
to
first
start
by
apologizing
to
the
majority
leader
cannizzaro.
We
did
not
notice
this
issue
when
it
was
over
on
the
senate
side,
when
we
first
reviewed
the
bill
and
kendra
virgi
for
the
record,
with
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office,
testifying
on
for
my
office
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
When
we
first
reviewed
the
bill,
we
believed
that
the
procedural
safeguards
for
the
ratification
process
that
are
set
forth
in
section
1,
subsection
3,
would
also
apply
to
this
new
exception.
J
We
do
agree
that
there
may
be
instances
where
obtaining
a
wiretap
without
the
warrant
in
this,
for
the
barricade
and
hostage
situation
may
be
necessary,
but
we
just
want
to
ensure
that
there
is
that
procedural
safeguard.
We
did
propose
an
amendment,
that's
uploaded
on
nellis.
We
briefly
had
conversations
with
the
senate
majority
leader
and
we
want
to
continue
those
conversations.
J
I
recognize
from
the
testimony
that
there
are
some
issues
specifically
with
the
72
hours.
Our
proposed
amendment
was
was
just
copying
pasting
that
language
that
was
in
that
section
three.
But
I
would
just
note
too,
that
there's
interesting
language
in
there
regarding
who
they
can
go
to
where
it
could
only
be
the
district
court
or
the
supreme
court.
So
that's
something
that
we
could
look
into
as
well,
because
I
do
know
based
off
of
bills
that
were
passed
in
the
last
legislative
session
for
the
high-risk
behavior
tpos.
J
A
A
I
I
D
Hi,
jim
hoffman
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
Nacj
opposes
sb
358
in
one
specific
aspect,
and
our
concern
echoes
the
concerns
that
several
assembly
people
raised
as
well
as
ms
burchie's
testimony.
The
bill's
proponents
talked
about
accountability
a
lot,
but
the
warrant
is
the
accountability.
D
D
There
will
never
be
any
other
oversight
of
whether
the
constitutional
was
followed,
but
mentally
ill
people
still
have
constitutional
rights
that
need
to
be
protected.
The
after
the
fact
warrant
process
is
the
only
chance
for
accountability
and
transparency
if
we
remove
that
we're
removing
transparency
and
accountability
from
the
situation.
D
A
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
opposition
testimony
and
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
neutral
testimony.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
room
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
offer
neutral
testimony
seeing
no
one
approach
the
table?
Let's
go
to
the
zoom.
Anyone
on
the
zoom
who
would
like
to
offer
neutral
testimony.
A
I
I
A
K
Obviously,
as
ms
berkshie
mentioned
she
had
reached
out-
and
mr
piro
had
reached
out
this
morning
to
discuss
the
bill
and
I
did
advise
them
that
I'd
be
happy
to
to
talk
with
them
about
the
bill
and
see
where
we
can
get
so.
I
remain
committed
to
that
and
will
certainly
keep
the
committee
updated
as
to
those
conversations.
But
again
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
taking
the
time.
K
I
do
think
this
is
an
important
piece
of
legislation
to
better
ensure
that
law
enforcement
in
those
hostage
and
barricade
situations
not
only
have
some
accountability,
but
also
have
the
means
to
rectify
those
situations
without
further
injury
to
anyone
involved,
and
I
think
lieutenant
chio
summed
it
up
perfectly
in
his
opening
remarks
that
when
we
can
increase
those
communications
and
we
can
allow
them
that
space
to
do
that
and
to
negotiate,
we
end
up
with
safer
results.
So
I
will
of
course,
keep
the
committee
updated.
K
L
Today,
I
made
you
a
las
vegas
macro
police
department.
Again,
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
this
bill.
It
is
a
very
important
piece
of
legislation.
One
thing
that
I
did
forget
to
mention
during
my
testimony
is
during
long
missions
during
long
barricades,
long
events.
Some
of
these
events
can
last
several
hours.
I
think
the
longest
one
I
was
involved
in
on
a
hostage
situation,
went
over
28
hours
and
communication.
L
L
A
A
At
this
time,
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill,
358
that'll,
take
us
to
our
final
bill
on
the
agenda
this
morning,
which
is
senate
bill
400.
So
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
400,
which
makes
various
changes
to
certain
unlawful
acts
relating
to
consumer
protection.
Ms
matiavich
welcome
to
assembly
judiciary
committee.
It's
been
a
while,
since
we've
seen
you
here,
and
I
think
this
may
be
a
first-
that
we've
ever
had
a
bill
dealing
with
nrs
chapters,
581
582
and
590
in
assembly
judiciary.
A
N
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
cadence
matiavic
and
I
have
the
privilege
of
serving
as
administrator
for
the
division
of
consumer
equitability
at
the
nevada
department
of
agriculture.
N
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
senate
bill
400
to
you
this
morning.
One
of
the
goals
of
the
department
of
agriculture's
strategic
plan
is
to
modernize
our
statutory
and
regulatory
framework
senate
bill.
400
is
the
result
of
a
review
of
chapters
581,
582
and
590
of
nevada,
revised
statutes.
N
During
our
review,
we
identified
that
there
was
not
uniformity
in
the
criminal
penalties
for
violation
of
these
chapters,
nor
were
their
unif,
nor
was
their
uniformity
in
the
persons
that
these
penalties
applied
to,
including
somewhat
outdated
language
that
refers
to
a
person
being
a
servant
of
another
person,
and
additionally,
we
found
the
authority
for
the
state
steeler
of
consumer
equitability
to
establish
civil
penalties
for
violations
of
nrs.
Chapter
590
does
not
currently
include
all
of
the
portions
of
the
chapter.
The
department
of
agriculture
is
charged
with
enforcing.
N
N
Mr
chairman.
The
legislative
council's
digest
does
an
excellent
job
of
summarizing
the
various
sections
of
the
bill,
and,
while
I'm
prepared
to
provide
the
committee
with
a
section
by
section
overview
overview
of
the
bill
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'll
defer
to
you
as
to.
If
you
would
like
me
to
do
so
or
not
again.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
senate
bill
400
to
your
committee
today
and
I'll
await
your
instruction
on
whether
you'd,
like
a
section
by
section
presentation
or
just
have
the
committee,
ask
questions.
A
A
So
I
will
open
it
up
for
questions
at
this
time
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
while
I
had
you
here,
because
I
you
know,
I
looked
at
these
statutes
last
night
and
obviously
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
these
spending
most
of
my
time
in
in
assembly
judiciary,
but
I
just
wondered
how
frequent
violations
are
of
some
of
these.
A
Some
of
these
offenses,
I
noticed
you
know
fi,
I
think
581
and
582
are
kind
of
about
weights
and
measured
and
then
590
deals
a
little
bit
more
with
gasoline,
and
so,
if
you
could
just
maybe
share
based
on
your
time
at
the
department
of
agriculture,
do
we
do
we
see
a
lot
of
this,
or
does
it
not
really
happen?
All
that
often.
N
I
would
say
that
you
know
we
see
we
see,
certainly
unintentional
violations
of
the
statutes
and
and
the
regulations
that
are
adopted
pursuant
there
too,
fairly
regularly.
In
most
cases,
they're
they're
minor
violations,
again
they're
unintentional,
and
in
the
vast
majority
of
cases
we
are
able
to
work
with
the
business
owner
or
individual
to
have
corrective
action
taken
and
no
further
follow-up
is
needed.
In
those
cases
you
know
we,
we
really
don't
feel
like
a
gross
misdemeanor.
N
N
A
couple
cases
a
year,
perhaps
the
day-to-day
infractions.
Again,
we
always
take
the
the
perspective
of
trying
to
bring
the
violator
into
compliance
rather
than
penalizing
them
straight
away,
and
we've
been
very
successful
in
doing
that,
and
we
think
that
these
changes
in
the
bill
align
with
that
practice
more
accurately
than
what
the
statute
currently
reflects.
F
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
I
I
appreciate
the
intent.
I
think
it's
always
good
when
we
give
people
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
with
some
of
these
violations.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair
through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
the
vice
chair,
so
an
example
for
chapter
581,
which
relates
to
weights
and
measures.
N
Someone
may
be
using
a
device
which
is
outside
of
the
tolerance,
so
a
scale
may
be
outside
of
the
tolerance
it
may
be
weighing
heavy.
It
may
be
weighing
light,
and
the
owner
operator
of
that
scale
may
simply
be
unaware
of
it.
It
could
be
that
that
a
scale
gets,
gets
bumped
or
dropped
and
gets
out
of
tolerance,
and
while
there's
prudence
would
have
that
scale
inspected,
sometimes
it
doesn't
happen.
That's
an
example
there
in
chapter
582,
which
relates
to
public
waymasters.
N
N
When
we
conduct
our
audit
in
chapter
590,
it
may
be
that
an
employee
at
a
gas
station
makes
the
mistake
when
posting
their
roadside
signage
and
transposes
the
numbers
in
the
sense
you
know
if,
if
a
gallon
of
gasoline
is
3.23
cents
and
they
post
it
as
3.32
cents
and
that's
different
from
what's
at
the
pump
unintentional
violations
again,
the
the
repeat,
offender
who's,
who
is
intentionally
adjusting
their
weighing
or
measuring
device
or
intentionally
not
keeping
copies
of
way
tickets.
N
H
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
also
something
I
was
not
familiar
with
at
all,
so
it
was
kind
of
interesting
to
read
this
bill.
H
N
For
the
record
cadence
ctvh,
mr
chairman,
through
you
to
the
assemblywoman,
so
we
do
have
inspectors
and-
and
I
would
start
by
saying-
I
know
that
this
is
a
you
know.
We
we're
a
division
that
are
a
little
bit
under
the
radar,
not
a
lot
of
people.
Think
about
us,
but
you
know
the
work
that
we
do
really
involves
things
that
nevadans
use
on
their
daily
lives.
N
Grocery
store
scales,
gas
station
pumps,
so
I
would
invite
any
member
of
the
committee
who's
interested
in
learning
more
about
weights
and
measures
and
petroleum
technology.
We
would
welcome
the
opportunity
for
you
to
come
along
on
an
inspection
and
learn
a
little
bit
more,
but
we
do
have
inspectors
in
the
field
they're
out
in
the
field.
Every
workday
we
have
inspectors
stationed
all
across
the
state
for
all
of
our
licensed
weighing
and
measuring
equipment
we
endeavor
to
inspect
all
of
those
devices,
at
least
once
every
two
years,
certain
devices,
retail
motor
fuel
dispensers.
N
We
try
to
get
to
even
more
frequently
than
that
livestock
scales
we
inspect
annually
because
of
some
federal
requirements
and
so
we're
out
in
the
field
ev
every
day,
sometimes
on
the
weekends
as
well
doing
routines.
Inspections
intended
to
be
sure
that
the
the
devices
and
other
transactions
that
are
based
on
weights
and
measures
are
are
being
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
laws
and
status.
H
Thank
you
to
follow
up,
that's
very
interesting,
so
if
someone
is
in
in
violation,
then
do
you
go
back?
I
assume
you
would
go
back
more
than
once
every
two
years
and
make
sure
that
they're
in
compliance.
N
Through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
the
assembly
woman,
cadence
matijevic
for
the
record,
that
is
correct.
So
if
we
find
a
violation
depending
upon
the
nature
of
the
violation,
I'll
give
an
example
of
a
scale,
that's
out
of
tolerance
depending
how
far
out
of
tolerance
it
is
and
whether
it's
out
of
tolerance
in
favor
of
the
business
owner
or
the
consumer,
we
may
simply
tag
it
as
being
in
need
of
repairs
but
allow
it
to
continue
to
be
used
while
those
repairs
are
undertaken.
N
If,
if
the
tolerance
is,
is
so
severe
that
the
effect
to
the
business
owner
or
the
consumer
would
be
significant,
then
we
will
actually
place
it
out
of
service.
N
We
don't
have
a
set
date
per
se,
but
we
would
likely
follow
up
in
another
three
to
six
months
again
to
be
sure
that
that
that
device
is
being
properly
maintained
and
used.
If
we
weren't
going
to
get
there
on
our
reaching
schedule
more
frequently
than
that.
A
And
I'll
let
committee
members
know
as
well
the
next
time
you're
at
the
gas
pump
here
in
nevada.
Just
take
a
look
at
the
gas
pump.
You'll
see
a
sticker
from
the
department
of
ag
on
that
gas
pump
and,
if
you've
never
noticed
it
before
you're
gonna
notice
it
every
single
time.
You
go
to
the
gas
pump
now
because
you're
supposed
to
make
sure
that
that
sticker
is
not
broken
in
any
way
to
ensure
that
it
hasn't
been
tampered
with.
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
thank
you
for
your
presentations
and
thank
you
for
your
patience
this
morning,
as
we
got
through
the
other
two
bills.
We'll
have
you
sit
tight
for
just
a
minute,
we'll
see
if
there's
any
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time,
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
400.
A
Is
there
anybody
here
with
us
in
the
room
in
carson
city
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
400
again,
I
don't
see
a
mad
dash
to
the
table,
nobody's
elbowing
each
other
this
friday
morning.
So
let
me
take
a
look
at
the
zoom
and
see
if
we
have
anyone
there.
I
don't
see
anyone
turning
their
camera
on
or
unmuting
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anyone
there
in
support.
I
A
A
A
A
I
A
N
Mr
chairman
cadence
mitchell
for
the
record
in
response
to
I'm
not
quite
sure
it
was
a
question
but
I'll
share
with
the
committee
that
we
have
over
47
000
licensed
commercial
weighing
and
measuring
devices
in
the
state
of
nevada.
N
So
our
inspectors
are
indeed
busy
in
the
field
and
I
would
extend
an
invitation
to
all
of
the
committee
members
again
to
come,
see
the
work
that
our
chemists
and
metrologists
and
our
mathematicians
do
in
in
the
lab
or
the
field
at
any
time.
We'd
love
to
share
that
work,
that
they
do
on
behalf
of
nevada's,
commercial
marketplace
and
consumers,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
present
senate
bill
400
to
the
committee
today.
A
Thank
you,
miss
mativitch
thanks
for
spending
some
time
with
us
this
friday
morning.
We
hope
you
have
a
great
weekend.
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
400.
That
will
take
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
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.
A
B
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
just
wiping
everything
off
it
says
too.
Okay,
I
just
want
to
say,
welcome
back
to
the
building
I
love
being
in
the
building,
and
it's
really
nice
not
to
have
one
eye
on
my
dogs,
while
I'm
speaking
and
pointing
the
finger
yesterday
was
a
blast.
I
I
thoroughly
enjoyed
that
it
was
somebody
else's
dog
carrying
on
and
not
mine,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say
it's
nice
to
see,
see
you
and
I
hope
to
see
a
lot
of
you,
this
legislative
session
and
have
a
wonderful
day.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
miss
brown,
it's
good
to
see
you
thank
you
for
your
public
comment.
Anybody
else
here
in
the
room.
We
have
five
other
folks
with
us
any
of
our
guests
like
to
give
public
comment
this
morning.
Okay,
I
don't
see
public
comment
in
the
room
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
public
comment,
if
there's
any,
if
there
are
any
public
commenters
on
the
public
comment
line.
I
I
I
C
C
I'm
just
sitting
here
today
watching
the
fact-finding
hearing
in
the
murder
of
25
year
old,
jorge
antonio
gomez,
by
las
vegas
metro
on
june
1st
2020,
and
it
really
is
making
me
sick
to
my
stomach.
It's
just
the
typical
tactics
they
use
to
justify
an
innocent
young
man
being
gunned
down
in
my
heart
goes
out
to
his
family
today
and
always,
and.
C
Realize
that
one
of
your
assembly,
persons
actually
is
representing
the
family,
and
that
really
makes
me
happy
to
hear
that
we
have
some
people
making
laws
that
understand
and
are
fighting
for
the
rights
of
these
families,
and
I
appreciate
that
please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
Thank
you.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps.
I
will
close
public
comment
anything
else
from
our
very
hard-working
committee
members.
This
morning
I
don't
see
anything
again
committee.
Thank
you
for
getting
us
through
three
meetings
and
nine
bills.
This
week.
I
think
that's
going
to
make
things
a
little
bit
easier
for
us
down
the
stretch.
A
We
are
not
going
to
have
a
meeting
on
monday
or
tuesday.
I
anticipate
we're
going
to
have
long
floor
sessions,
and
so
the
logical
question
is
what
about
wednesday
morning
and
the
answer
is,
I
don't
know,
but
hopefully,
if
we
have
a
meeting
wednesday,
it
won't
likely
won't
be
at
eight
o'clock
because
I
think
we'll
probably
be
on
the
floor
very
late
on
tuesday
night,
but
stay
tuned
to
your
agendas
and
then
the
other
thing.
I
wanted
to
remind
committee
members
now
that
we
are
back
in
person.