►
From YouTube: 5/14/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary, Pt. 1
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
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
hardy
absent
excused.
Everybody
else
is
here.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
our
guests
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city
to
those
joining
us
on
the
zoom
into
those
who
might
be
watching
over
the
internet.
It
is
day
103
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
this
morning.
Just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters
for
anyone
in
the
room
with
us
or
if
you
could,
please
silence
your
devices
for
anyone
on
the
zoom.
A
If
you
could,
please
remain
on
mute
unless
you
were
going
to
speak
and
then
for
anyone
who
might
be
answering
questions
about
work
session
bills.
Today,
if
you
could,
please
remember
to
state
your
name
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
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
the
legislative
process
and
of
our
very
hard
working
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
up
here
are
accessing
this
meeting
using
multiple
devices.
A
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
times
so
committee
that'll
take
us
to
our
agenda
as
you
can
see
at
this
time
we
have
nine
bills
on
the
work
session
agenda,
so
we'll
take
we'll
take
the
bills
from
the
top,
and
just
so
members
know,
members
of
the
public
members
of
the
committee.
A
C
Thank
you,
chairman
diane
thornton
committee
policy,
analyst
legislative
council
bureau
for
the
record.
Our
first
bill
is
senate
bill
6..
This
bill
was
sponsored
by
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada,
supreme
court
and
herding
committee
on
april
27th.
This
bill
makes
various
changes
to
revisions
governing
orders
for
protection
against
high-risk
behavior.
C
There's
one
amendment
to
the
bill.
Senator
scheibel
proposed
an
amendment
and
the
mock-ups
on
the
following
pages.
First,
it
revises
section
1.3,
subsection
1b
by
adding
that,
upon
the
request
of
either
party
and
showing
of
good
cause
by
that
party,
the
court
may
schedule
a
hearing
in
accordance
with
section
1.5
of
the
act.
C
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton.
That
was
a
very
long
one
to
start
with.
Hopefully,
the
rest
of
them
won't
be
quite
as
long
committee
members.
I
know
we're
just
seeing
the
amendment,
probably
mostly
for
the
first
time,
either
last
night
or
tonight,
but
are
there
any
questions
on
senate
bill
6
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document,
assemblywoman
cohen,.
B
Thank
you,
chair
senator
scheibel,
and
I
had
been
discussing
sub
now.
I
sorry
I
wish
I'd
printed
it
out
eight
in
section
nine,
thank
you,
the
the
interview
portion,
so
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
the
interview
happens
if
just
at
the
courthouse
before
the
hearing,
if
there's
certain
information
that
was
redacted
from
the
application
for
the
high
risk,
protective
order.
D
Melanie
scheible
for
the
record,
and
yes
that
is
correct.
This
language
is
borrowed
from
the
criminal
statute
and
it
was
approved
by
the
public
defenders
association
as
well
as
the
8th
judicial
district
court,
as
well
as
the
aoc,
the
court,
administrative
offices
and
you're
exactly
correct.
The
idea
is
that
we
don't
want
to
be
serving
people
who
are
the
subject
of
a
high-risk,
protective
order
with
information
that
is
incendiary,
that
is
going
to
provoke
them
to
retaliate
against
the
person
who
is
seeking
the
order.
D
However,
they
are
also
entitled
to
have
that
information
before
they
have
to
respond
on
the
record
to
the
allegations,
and
so
there
may
be
a
circumstance
in
which
the
easiest
way
to
facilitate
that
transfer
of
information
is
simply
to
allow
the
attorney
for
the
person
who
is
who
the
order's
being
sought
against.
Who
just
talked
to
the
applicant
for
the
order,
and
then
the
court
would
be
able
to
set
any
parameters.
You
know
we
have
witness
rooms
in
the
8th
digital
district.
D
A
E
You
chair
for
the
time
I'll
be
a
no
on
this,
but
I
want
to
explain.
I
really
appreciate
the
work.
That's
been
done
on
it,
moving
forward
with
the
senator,
but
I
still
know-
and
I
understand
that
actually
some
of
the
amendments
that
various
firearm
groups
have
gone
to
a
neutral
position
on
it
I'll
be
a
no
because
basically
it's
the
whole
premise
that
I
still
have
problems
with
on
second
amendment
rights
in
the
process.
A
Thank
you
assemblyman
further
discussion
on
the
motion.
I
just
wanted
to
say:
chair
scheibel,
I
appreciate
you
working
on
the
amendment.
I
know
there
were
a
lot
of
interested
parties
on
this
one,
and
so
thank
you
for
bringing
what
appears
to
be
consensus
in
terms
of
those
who
are
actually
in
the
courtroom
trying
to
process
these
hearings
so
appreciate
it.
A
Okay
committee
seeing
no
further
discussion
again
the
motions
to
amend
and
do
pass
senate
bill.
Six,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed,
nay.
So
I
have
nays
from
assemblyman
o'neal
and
assemblyman
wheeler.
Were
there
any
other
nays?
Okay,
I
don't
think
so.
So
the
motion
does
carry
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
on
that.
One
to
assemblywoman,
bilbray
axelrod.
C
In
addition,
the
bill
revises
the
composition
and
duties
of
the
committee
on
domestic
violence.
The
bill
also
revises
the
punishment
imposed
upon
a
person
convicted
of
a
first
offense
of
domestic
violence
against
the
pregnant
victim
to
require
that
the
offender
be
imprisoned
in
a
county
jail
for
not
less
than
30
days,
but
not
more
than
six
months.
The
offender
may
be
further
punished
by
a
fine
of
between
500
and
a
thousand
and
must
participate
in
weekly
counseling
for
not
less
than
12
months
at
his
or
her
expense.
There's
one
amendment
proposed
by
assemblywoman
wynn.
C
He
proposed
revising
section,
6
7
subsection
4a
to
the
bill
to
do
the
falling
first.
It
revises
the
mandatory
minimum
from
30
to
20
days
and
removes
the
six-month
maximum
for
the
first
offense
of
battery,
which
constitutes
domestic
violence
against
a
victim
who
is
pregnant
and,
secondly,
it
deletes
the
proposed
increase
in
the
period
of
mandatory
counseling
for
not
less
than
12
months,
thereby
restoring
the
requirement
that
the
person
must
participate
in
weekly
counseling
sessions
for
not
less
than
six.
A
Months,
thank
you
miss
thornton
and
committee.
You
may
remember
there
was
some
discussion
when
we
heard
this
bill
about
the
mechanics
of
how
it
would
work,
and
so
I
want
to
thank
vice
chairwin
and
miss
adair,
who,
I
think,
have
figured
it
out
to
make
sure
that
this
is
going
to
work
given
the
way
folks
are
supervised
and
the
sentencing
structure.
So
that
is
what
you
see
in
the
amendment,
but
with
that
I
would
be
willing
to
take
any
questions
that
folks
would
have
on
senate
bill
45
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
vice
chairwin,
we'll
give
the
second
to
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
discussion
again
the
motions
to
amend
and
do
pass
senate
bill
45.
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay,
motion
carries
everyone
present
voted
in
favor
and
I'll
assign
the
floor
statement
on
senate
bill
45
to
assemblywoman
kasama.
C
Thank
you,
chair
senate
bill.
94
is
sponsored
by
senator
settlemyre
and
heard
in
committee
on
april.
27Th.
This
bill
provides
that
an
unlocked
gate
does
not
in
and
of
itself
constitute
a
nuisance.
There
are
two
amendments
to
this
measure.
The
first
one
was
proposed
by
senator
settlemeyer.
He
proposed
clarifying
when
an
unlocked
gate
in
and
of
itself
does
not
constitute
a
public
nuisance,
including
a
gate
in
counties
with
populations.
C
Further
senator
settlemeyer
proposed
that
it
is
not
a
public
nuisance
for
a
person
to
fence
or
otherwise
enclose
public
land,
where
fencing
is
required
or
authorized
by
the
appropriate
federal
agency
and,
lastly,
assemblyman
or
liquor
proposed
deleting
the
language
where
vagrants
resort
is
a
public
nuisance
in
section
1,
subsection
2g.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
miss
thornton
and
committee.
You
might
remember
this
was
the
bill
where
we
had
some
opposition
testimony
and
then
we
closed
opposition
and
had
to
come
back
to
opposition,
because
there
were
folks
that
were
in
neutral
but
were
who
are
not
who
were
in
opposition,
and
the
reason
I
tell
you
all
of
that
is
the
amendment
that
was
proposed
by
senator
settlemyre
did
earn
the
I
don't
want
to
say
a
support,
but
certainly
backed
off
the
opposition
to
where
they
are
in
a
place
of
neutral,
if
not
support
of
the
measure.
A
So
that
is
why
you
see
the
amendment
and
then
you
may
remember.
Assemblyman
or
laker
had
a
couple
of
suggestions
on
changing
the
vagrancy
or
the
nuisance
statute
and
in
consultation
with
senator
settlemyre.
A
We
agreed
to
take
out
where
vagrants
resort
as
a
public
nuisance,
but
leave
everything
else
in
there,
perhaps
for
a
further
discussion
another
day.
So
any
questions
we
do
have
senator
settlemyre
here
with
us.
Any
questions
from
committee
members
on
senate
bill
94
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document.
A
A
C
C
The
statute
of
limitations
is
told
during
consideration
of
any
pending
state
or
federal
administrative
charge
on
the
matter
until
93
days
after
the
conclusion
of
the
administrative
proceedings,
the
bill
also
requires
the
default
statute
of
limitation
of
four
years
to
apply
to
certain
causes
of
action
whose
statute
of
limitation
is
not
otherwise
prescribed
by
law,
regardless
of
whether
the
underlying
cause
of
actions
is
anagloss
to
any
other
cause
of
action,
with
a
statute
of
limitation
expressly
prescribed
by
law,
and
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
Thank
you.
A
A
There
was
a
belief
that
some
existing
law
in
the
nrs
was
being
deleted
by
way
of
an
amendment
which
was
was
not
the
case.
The
reason
I
tell
you
that
was,
I
think
we
heard
that
testimony
from
clark
county.
They
had
indicated
to
me
that
they
were
simply
misunderstanding.
The
way
the
bill
is
operating,
so
they
moved
into
a
neutral
position,
so
they
let
me
know
that
by
email,
so
they're
no
longer
in
opposition.
A
If
anybody
was
concerned
about
that,
so
any
questions
for
any
questions
on
senate
bill
107
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document.
All
right,
I
don't
see
questions
this
one
would
be
a
do
pass
I'll.
Take
a
motion.
A
A
Could
I
see
the
nays
please
we
have
assemblyman
o'neal
assemblyman
wheeler,
assemblywoman
hanson.
I
believe
those
we
have
three
nays.
That
means
the
motion
does
carry.
Congratulations,
senator
orrinshaw,
thank
you
for
being
here
for
any
questions
and
I'll
assign
the
floor
statement
on
senate
bill
107
to
assemblywoman
marzola
that
takes
us
to
senate
bill
166,
miss
thornton.
C
Senate
bill
166
was
sponsored
by
senator
scheibel
and
heard
in
committee
on
april
28th.
This
move
bill
removes
a
provision
from
law
which
requires
that,
in
order
for
certain
penalty
enhancement
enhancements
to
apply
to
felonies
committed
because
of
characteristics
of
the
victim,
including
color,
gender
identity
or
expression,
mental
or
physical
disability,
national
origin,
race,
religion
or
sexual
orientation,
the
perpetrator
must
not
share
those
characteristics
with
the
victim.
C
Instead,
this
bill
provides
that
the
perpetrator
may
be
punished
by
an
additional
penalty
if
the
crime
was
committed
based
solely
on
the
characteristics
of
the
victim
which
makes
the
standard
for
these
crimes
the
same
as
the
standard
that
applies
in
misdemeanor
cases.
There's
one
amendment
proposed
proposed
by
kendra
burchie
and
john
pirro.
C
The
amendment
first
amends
section
one
by
striking
the
language
by
reason
of
and
replacing
it
with,
because
of
to
clarify
that
the
actual
or
perceived
characteristic
must
be
the
primary
cause
of
the
willful
violation
of
certain
provisions
in
statute.
Secondly,
it
provides
a
definition
of
because
of
and
lastly,
it
means
section
2
to
provide
conforming
changes.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
But
I
just
wanted
to
let
committee
members
know
that
the
amendment
that
comes
back
from
legal
might
not
look
exactly
like
the
one
you
see
on
your
work
session
document
we're
just
going
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
consistent
with
how
we
characterize
things
in
terms
that
we
use
in
statute
and
then,
of
course,
you
know,
you
always
have
a
chance
to
review
that
amendment
before
there
would
be
a
potential
floor
vote
on
the
bill
as
well.
With
that
being
said,
any
questions
on
senate
bill
166
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document.
A
A
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
senator
scheibel
for
hearing
me
and
my
concerns
and
working
with
the
public
defenders
to
address
that,
and
I
really
really
appreciate
it.
So
thank
you.
E
A
Okay,
don't
see
further
discussion
again
the
motions
to
amend
and
do
pass
senate
bill
166
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
could
have
a
show
of
hands
of
the
nays.
We
have
assemblyman
o'neal
assemblywoman
kasama,
simon
wheeler
and
assemblywoman
hanson,
so
the
motion
does
carry
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
take
the
floor
statement
on
senate
bill.
166.,
okay
committee
moving
right
along
we'll
go
next
to
senate
bill
203,
miss
thornton.
C
A
person
who
is
found
liable
to
a
plaintiff
under
these
provisions
is
liable
for
treble
damages,
as
well
as
reasonable
attorney
fees.
The
bill
also
provides
that
the
mere
rental
of
a
hotel
room
and
establishment
of
having
more
than
200
room
does
not
constitute
a
proof
of
a
benefit
to
a
defendant.
There
are
two
proposed
amendments
to
the
measure.
The
first
one
was
proposed
by
senator
dondero
lupe
and
the
nevada
justice
association.
C
Next,
it
provides
in
section
one
subsection
three
that
an
action
to
recover
such
damages
must
be
commenced
within
20
years
after
the
victim
reaches
18
years
of
age.
Next,
it
revises
in
section
2
subsection
2
that
a
person
is
liable
to
a
plaintiff
for
damages
if
the
person
knowingly
benefits
financially
or
by
receiving
anything
of
tangible
value.
C
It
revises
in
section
2,
subsection,
4
the
number
of
rooms
to
175
from
200
in
a
hotel,
motel
or
other
establishment
deemed
not
to
benefit
or
to
have
gained
a
benefit
from
the
rental
of
a
room
in
relation
to
the
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
of
another
person.
And
lastly,
it
revises
in
section
2,
subsection,
5
the
definition
of
sexual
abuse
and
adds
the
definition
of
sexual
exploitation.
C
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton,
and
before
we
take
further
questions,
I
had
a
question
actually
for
illegal.
In
looking
at
the
amendment
that's
proposed
in
the
work
session
document
in
section
one,
it
adds
to
the
phrase
against
the
perpetrator,
which
was
somewhat
concerning
because
it's
a
civil
suit,
so
we
don't
usually
speak
of
perpetrators.
But
I
wanted
to
ask
mr
wilkinson
if
we
thought
that
that
language
was
necessary
in
the
amendment
or
if
it
was
already
covered
by
existing
statute.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
term
perpetrator,
as
you
mentioned,
is
not
used
elsewhere
in
the
statute.
E
More
importantly,
the
underlying
statute,
nrs
41.1396,
clearly
establishes
the
person
against
whom
one
of
these
civil
actions
may
be
brought,
which
is
a
person
who
promotes,
possesses
or
uses
the
internet
to
access
the
child
pornography,
and
it
also
establishes
that
the
person
has
to
be
18
years
of
age
or
older,
so
it
wouldn't
apply
to
a
minor
and
it
wouldn't
apply
to
any
type
of
corporation
or
non-profit
organization
or
other
business
entity.
A
Thank
you,
mr
wilkinson,
and
so
when
we
get
to
the
when
we
get
to
the
motion
section
I'll,
probably
ask
that
we
remove
those
words
just
for
clarity,
because
I
think
they're
already
included,
but
before
we
get
there.
Let
me
ask
if
there
are
any
other
questions
on
senate
bill
203
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document.
A
And
assemblywoman
krasner
is
that,
with
the
clarification
that
we'll
take
out
the
phrase
against
the
perpetrator.
E
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
david
or
liquor
assembly
district
20
for
the
record.
I
think
it's
unfortunate
that
in
section
2.4
we
have
this
carve
out
for
larger
hotels
who
won't
be
held
accountable
for
sexual
exploitation
that
they're
aware
of,
but
I
won't
let
the
perfect
be
the
enemy.
The
good
and
I'll
support.
A
C
This
bill
replaces
restrictions
on
the
use
of
restrained
chairs
by
peace
officers
and
prohibits
a
peace
officer
who's
responding
to
a
protest
or
demonstration
from
discharging
a
kinetic
energy
projectile
indiscriminately
into
a
crowd
or
targeting
the
head,
pelvis
spine
or
other
vital
areas
of
a
person
prior
to
using
a
chemical
chemical
agent.
An
officer
must
first
declare
that
the
protest
or
demonstration
constitutes
an
unlawful
assembly
and
then
provide
orders
to
disperse
an
egress
route
and
reasonable
time
for
protesters
or
demonstrators
to
disperse.
C
Law
enforcement
agencies
are
required
to
adopt
written
policies
on
the
threat
posed
by
certain
persons
to
peace
officers
and
to
others,
and
are
required
to
report
data
on
the
use
of
force
to
the
central
repository
law
enforcement
agencies
are
required
to
participate
in
the
national
use
of
force
data
collection,
program
of
the
fbi,
but
the
data
collected
may
not
be
used
against
a
peace
officer
during
any
criminal
proceeding.
There
is
one
amendment
proposed
by
senator
dallas.
C
A
B
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
about
the
the
amends
mandatory
language
in
section
3.7.
B
So
if
we're
talking
about
a
situation
where
a
family
member
calls
the
police,
because
their
their
family
member
members
having
a
mental
health
crisis
and
is
making
suicidal
threats
and
that
person
who's
ma
who
who's
making
the
suicidal
threats
has
a
has
a
gun
because
they're
that's
what
they're
going
to
use
so
they're,
maybe
held
up
in
a
room
in
the
house,
saying
I'm
going
to
use
it
on
myself,
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
do
it
and
the
officer
comes
to
deal
with
the
the
situation
says
that
the
eminent
threat
language
mean
that
the
person
who's
threatening
to
commit
suicide
has
to
actually
aim
the
gun
at
the
officer
or
just
or
we're
saying
just
the
fact
that
they
have.
D
Melanie
schaible
sent
it
district
nine
for
the
record
and
I
think
that's
more
of
a
question
for
legal,
but
I
can
represent
that
in
our
discussions
about
it.
We
we
discussed
a
case
where
somebody
does
have
a
gun
and
that
would
not
rise
to
the
level
of
an
imminent
threat
just
because
they
have
it
if
they're
making
those
threats
to
harm
themselves.
So
it's
clear
that
that's
why
they
have
the
gun
they
would
have
to
change
their
behavior
point.
It
at
an
officer
threaten
an
officer
or
something
like
that.
B
C
A
E
O'neill,
thank
you
chair
for
the
time
I
want
to
compliment
senator
harris
and
probably
senator
scheidel,
also
for
being
here
today
on
this
bill.
I
know
they've
worked
diligently
with
some
of
the
law
enforcement
groups
to
try
to
refine
it
I'll,
be
voting
no
because
I
still
think
there's
still
some
work.
That
needs
to
be
done
to
get
there
and
I'm
not
quite
in
the
yes
place,
so
I'll
be
a
no
chair.
A
B
A
Any
opposed,
nay,
let's
see
show
of
hands
for
the
nays
assembly.
Women,
krasner,
assemblyman,
o'neil,
assemblywoman,
kasama,
assemblywoman
hanson,
an
assemblyman
wheeler
motion
does
carry
on
senate
bill
212
and
I'll
sign
the
floor
statement
on
that,
one
to
assemblyman
miller,
just
a
couple
more
on
the
agenda
committee.
So
we'll
go
next
to
senate
bill
358
ms
thornton.
C
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
and
just
sort
of
a
point
of
clarification
on
the
amendment.
I
don't
know
that
it
came
out
in
the
hearing,
but
some
of
the
language
that
was
in
senate
bill
358
was
already
in
nrs
in
a
different
statute.
I
think
it
was
nrs
174
that
chapter
so
in
working
with
legal
and
working
with
the
senate
majority
leader
and
some
other
folks
who
are
interested
in
this
bill.
A
So
everything
else
in
the
statute
would
stay
the
same
with
respect
to
having
to
get
ratifications
of
warrants,
but
essentially
what
the
amendment
does.
It
says
in
this
limited
context:
it's
a
one-party
consent.
So
as
long
as
the
officer
doing
the
recording
is
consenting
to
record
the
call,
then
then
it
it
it
makes
it
okay
under
the
the
laws
of
our
state
and
I'll,
say
the
reason
I
did
that
is.
A
I
think
we
want
to
incentivize
recording
of
those
conversations,
because,
if
they're
not
recorded,
then
we
you
know
the
the
public
doesn't
have
the
benefit
of
the
transparency
of
knowing
what
those
conversations
were
between
whoever
is
in
the
hostage
situation
or
barricade
situation
and
the
officer,
and
I
think
this
will
ensure
that
those
conversations
are
recorded
and
can
later
be
reviewed.
A
E
I
just
would
like
to
thank
you
for
that
explanation,
because
I
was
a
little
bit
squishy
on
this.
I
guess
is
the
technical
term,
and
I
appreciate
that
that
explanation
and
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record
thanks.
A
Thank
you
further
discussion
on
the
motion.
Okay,
I
don't
see
further
discussion
again
the
motions
to
amend
and
do
past
senate
bill
358.
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
hi,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay,
motion
carries
everyone
present
voted
in
favor
and
I'm
going
to
give
the
floor
statement
on
that
one
to
assemblyman
o'neill.
A
C
C
Similarly,
if
a
person
unlawfully
manufactures
grows,
plants,
cultivates
harvests,
dries
or
propagates
or
processes,
marijuana
or
extracts,
concentrated
cannabis,
and
that
activity
results
in
a
fire
or
explosion.
The
person
is
also
guilty
of
a
category
c
felony.
There's
one
proposed
amendment
by
assemblyman
yeager.
C
The
second
amendment
amends
section
two
of
the
bill
to
provide
that
the
existing
penalty,
for
a
violation
of
this
section
is
reduced
from
a
category
c
felony
to
a
category
d
felony.
But
if
the
violation
causes
a
fire
or
explosion,
then
the
person
shall
be
punished
by
an
additional
equal
term
of
imprisonment
that
runs
consecutively
to
the
underlying
offense.
C
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
and
committee
members.
I
will
let
you
know.
I
worked
with
the
senate
majority
leader
as
well
as
the
public
defenders
who
I
believe
were
in
support,
but
we're
still
working
on
the
language,
so
they
have
seen
this
language.
A
A
Fantastic.
Thank
you.
Let
me
just
make
sure
no
questions
on
the
work
session
document.
Okay,
I
see
no
questions.
We
have
a
motion
to
amend
a
new
pass
from
assemblyman
wheeler.
Do
I
have
a
second
it
looks
like
assemblyman
miller
gave
me
the
gave
me
the
second
sign,
so
we
we,
we
have
a.
We
have
a
motion
and
we
have
a
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay
motion
carries
I'm
going
to
assign
that
one
to
assemblywomanhance,
I
feel
like
I
haven't,
given
you
a
floor
statement
in
a
while
so
committee
that
takes
us
through
our
agenda
that
we
have
this
morning
now
before
we
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
comes
next,
I
did
want
to
make
sure
we
remember
to
do
public
comments,
so
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
up
public
comment
just
by
way
of
a
reminder.
A
Public
comment
is
we
reserve
30
minutes
for
public
comment
and
public
commenters
will
have
up
to
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
bps.
Could
we
see
if
we
have
any
well?
Let
me
start
here
in
carson
city.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment
this
morning?
A
B
B
F
Tanya
brown
t-o-n-j-a-b-r-o-w-n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
for
the
innocent
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
on
behalf
of
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent.
We
would
like
to
thank
you
and
let
you
know
how
much
we
appreciate
your
hard
work
you've
put
into
during
this
legislative
session.
F
F
It
was
asked
to
allow
dna
testing
to
be
conducted
at
the
inmate's
own
expense.
If
the
court
denied
testing
there
was
opposition
by
the
district
attorney's
office
and
that
part
was
removed,
the
district
attorney's
office
continues
to
fight
against
dna
testing
and
the
inmates
are
losing
any
chance
of
exonerating
their
names.
That
was
not
the
intent
of
that
bill.
Also,
we
talk
about
criminal
justice
reform.
F
There
are
several
areas
of
justice
reform
that
needs
to
be
revised,
starting
from
the
ground
up
in
those
areas
deal
with
district
attorney's
office
and
their
qualified
immunity
brain
violations,
without
any
repercussions
to
them.
When
a
prosecutor,
withholds
evidence
at
the
expense
of
an
innocent
person,
they
must
be
held
accountable,
prosecuting
attorneys
must
do
their
jobs
if
it
means
going
against
one
of
their
own,
and
the
statute
of
limitations
must
be
revised.
A
And
miss
brown.
We
are
right
at
two
minutes,
so
if
you
could
please
wrap
up.
Thank
you
so
much
ms
brown.
Thank
you
I'm
done.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
appreciate
your
public
comment.
Thank
you.
Miss
brown
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
Bps
do
we
have
additional
callers
for
public
comment
this
morning.
B
G
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e-g-r-a-n-t
sister
thomas
party,
murdered
by
reno
pdm
marshall
county
sheriff's
office.
This
session,
I've
asked
you
to
hold
police
accountable,
and
some
of
the
bills
passed
out
of
this
committee
are
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
I
would
like
to
see
the
focus
next
session
remain
on
police
reform,
but
also
consider
the
next
legislative
session
on
holding
prosecutors
accountable
for
their
actions.
G
We
need
to
take
away
qualified
immunity.
I
have
listened
to
not
only
this
committee
but
other
committees
over
the
session
and
over
and
over
I've
heard
the
da's
response
that
we
have
a
policy
policy
for
that
type
for
any
type
of
legislation
that
would
provide
oversight
of
them
policy,
isn't
law
and
it's
much
easier
to
say.
We
are
following
our
policy
than
to
have
mandated
legislative
oversight
when.
A
G
Violations
were
brought
up
in
one
hearing.
The
da's
representative
acknowledged
that
there
are
no
true
consequences
when
ada
withholds
evidence.
Basically
what
the
response
was
is
well.
We
just
never
would
do
that.
We
would
never
defy
a
supreme
court
order.
The
personal
assurance
from
other
das
that
nobody
from
their
office
would
do
anything
to
jeopardize
their
good
standing,
just
isn't
sufficient
insurance
to
the
public.
That
justice
is
truly
just
and
fair.
The
resistance
is
concerning.
I
personally
know
the
case
that
the
pd
in
the
post-conviction
hearing
provided
a
poor
and
inadequate
performance
at
the
hearing.
G
The
defendant
could
not
understand
why
the
defendant
was
able
to
understand
what
he
later
found
out
that
his
public
defender
already
had
accepted
a
job
from
the
appeals
unit
at
the
washoe
da's
office.
The
very
unit
the
defendant
was
going
up
against
at
that
hearing.
This
is
unacceptable
when
someone's
freedom
is
on
the
line.
I'd
like
to
see
legislate,
mandated
wrongful
conviction
units.
The
washoe
cic
has
reviewed
one
case
since
inception
and
chose
to
only
look
at
court
orders
when
they
should
be
looking
at
the
entire
case,
including
the
defendant's
pleadings.
G
If
the
city's
lead
members
stated,
in
that
case,
the
cic
cannot
offer
a
more
thorough
assessment
of
your
claim
than
the
12
citizens
that
served
on
the
jury
as
a
jury
that
didn't
get
to
see
all
the
evidence
by
the
way.
So,
if
that's
their
position,
why
even
have
a
cic
appears
to
be
a
dog
and
pony,
show
and
further
proof
as
well
to
why
we
need
legislation
on
this?
G
If
we,
if
you
don't
hold
them
accountable
with
legislation,
nobody
can
I'd
just
like
to
mention
in
closing
that
today
is
the
fourth
year
anniversary
of
the
asphyxiation
murder
of
tashi
brown
by
lvmpd
kenneth
lopierra
brown
died
in
2016
after
being
tased
and
placed
in
a
chokehold.
Please
keep
his
mother
trinity
pharma
in
your
thoughts
today.
Thank
you.
A
B
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
public
comment
committee
members,
a
couple
of
announcements
list
last
wednesday
was
our
legal
council's
birthday,
mr
wilkinson's
birthday.
So
wishing
him
he
belated
happy
birthday.
A
He's
34
years
old,
as
far
as
I
know,
and
then
committee,
so
for
the
rest
of
today,
here's
kind
of
where
things
are
at
we've
gotten
through
the
agenda.
There
are
three
more
senate
bills
that
are
still
sitting
in
our
committee.
That
could
be
work-sessioned
today.
A
A
The
next
one
was
senate
bill
317,
that
was
the
juvenile
justice
employees
back
pay
bill
and
then
the
third
one
was
senate
bill
369,
which
was
the
bill
one
of
the
bills
relating
to
bail.
So
there's
still
some
work
being
done
on
those.
I
don't
yet
know
if
we're
going
to
work
session,
those
or
not
in
terms
of
my
best
guess,
if
we
do
do
those
if
we
do
consider
those
bills
today,
my
best
guess
is
sometime
in
the
afternoon.
A
I
don't
think
we'll
have
it
ready
before
before
we
get
to
noon,
and
then
I'm
going
to
be
in
senate
judiciary
for
a
little
while
this
afternoon
with
a
lot
of
work
session
bills
myself.
So
I
would
just
ask
members
if
you
could
just
remain
within
20
25
minutes
of
the
building,
so
in
case
I
have
to
call
you
back
if
you
could
just
make
sure
you're
in
touch
with
your
attaches.
You
have
your
phones
on
you're,
looking
at
your
emails,
and
so
those
are
that's
where
we're
at.