►
From YouTube: 4/1/2021 - 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
C
C
C
D
E
E
And
brad
and
cheryl
nice
to
see
you
all
april
fool's
day.
A
Good
to
see
you
senator,
I'm
sure,
we'll
be
seeing
you
soon
over
in
your
committee
and
we
do
have
assemblywoman
handsome
present.
That
means
everyone
is
here.
We
have
a
quorum
good
morning,
everyone.
It
is
day
60
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature,
which
means
we've
made
it
to
the
halfway
point.
A
So
pat
yourself
on
the
back
for
that
and
again
welcome
to
committee
members
to
those
joining
us
on
the
zoom
and
to
those
who
may
be
watching
over
the
internet
before
we
get
started
on
today's
agenda,
let's
just
go
over
a
quick,
a
few
quick
housekeeping
rules.
If
you're
on
the
zoom
with
us,
please
mute
if
you're,
not
speaking.
If
you
are
presenting
a
bill
today
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.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
bills
and
policy.
That's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another,
the
legislative
process
and
of
our
staff
and
finally,
keep
in
mind
that
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away.
A
So,
let's
move
on
to
our
agenda.
We
have
a
lot
on
there
this
morning
and
just
so
everybody
knows
how
we're
going
to
handle
this
we're
going
to
do
the
work
session
first
and
then,
after
that,
I
believe
we're
going
to
do
assembly
bill
403,
followed
by
407,
then
394,
so
we're
kind
of
all
over
the
place.
This
morning
we
do
have
some
members
who
I
know
have
to
step
out
at
some
point
in
the
meeting
to
present
bills
and
other
committees.
It's
just
simply
that
time
of
the
session.
A
So
if
you
see
folks
who
are
leaving
the
meeting,
that's
likely
what
is
going
on
and
they'll
be
back
when
they're
done
presenting.
So
with
that
behind
us.
Let's
go
to
the
work
session
members.
You
do
have
the
work
session
document
up
on
nellis.
It
is
there
as
a
complete
document
and
then
each
individual
bill
has
its
own.
A
A
F
F
This
bill
revises
definitions
associated
with
the
inter-casino
linked
systems,
thereby
subjecting
such
system
to
the
same
regulations
as
associated
equipment.
The
bill
also
revises
certain
provisions
related
to
the
live
entertainment
tax.
There
is
one
amendment
proposed
by
michael
morton
from
the
nevada
gaming
control
board.
F
This
amendment
adds
a
new
section
relating
to
the
applications
for
and
the
regulation
of,
approval
of
gains
or
gambling
gains
by
the
nevada
gaming
commission.
It
removes
certain
offensive
names
of
games
or
gambling
games
from
statute,
delete,
section,
22
and
delete
section
23
of
the
bill.
Thank
you,
chairman.
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton,
and
you
know
really
the
only
section.
I
think
that
only
changed
to
the
amendment
that
was
different
than
when
we
heard
the
bill
was
the
removal
of
section
22
which
which
deals
with
the
live,
entertainment
tax,
and
one
of
the
reasons
we
did,
that
is,
there
were
some
implications
for
revenue
and
potentially
for
the
state
budget.
So
I
have
committed
to
keep
working
on
that
issue,
but
I
don't
want
to
hold
up
the
policy
part
of
the
bill
due
to
the
financial
aspect
of
that.
C
I
don't
believe
that
it
does,
but
I
wanna
does
this
remove.
This
still
removes
the
cap
on
the
fees
there
used
to
be
a
thousand
dollar
cap
on
the
fees.
I
don't
think
that
anything
to
do
with
the
live
entertainment
tax
today.
A
I
think
you're
right
assemblyman
wheeler.
I
don't
think
that
had
anything
to
do
with
the
live
entertainment
tax,
section
that
had
to
do
with
tickets
and
how
tickets
are
are
listed,
so
I
think
you're
correct
that
it
still
does
remove
the
cap
on
the
fee.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I'm
going
to
have
to
go
no
on
that.
One.
Thank
you
and
let
me
just
note,
I
think,
did
we
have
mr
morton
with
us.
A
C
Provision
that
assemblyman
wheeler
is
addressing
is
a
change
in
the
way
that
we
register
those
that
are
manufacturing
is
distributing
associated
equipment.
We
are
making
their
registration
process
the
same
as
all
other
registration
processes
that
come
before
the
board
and
that
those
fees
are
set
by
the
commission,
the
fees
and
the
renewal
period
is
set
by
the
commission.
C
A
When
I
have
a
motion
from
vice
chairwin,
a
second
from
assemblyman
miller,
any
discussion
on
the
motion-
okay,
I
don't
see
discussion
so
madam
secretary,
please
conduct
a
roll
call
vote.
H
J
C
K
A
F
Thank
you,
chair
assembly,
bill
8
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
gaming
control
board
and
heard
in
committee
on
february
23rd.
This
bill
revises
certain
definitions,
including
credit
instruments,
slot
machine,
wagering,
voucher
and
gross
revenue.
The
bill
also
expands,
who
is
required
to
register
with
the
gaming
control
board.
F
There
is
one
amendment
to
this
bill
by
proposed
by
michael
morton
in
the
gaming
control
board,
and
this
amendment
revises
the
definition
of
gross
revenue
in
section
three
of
the
bill
by
deleting
references
to
contests
and
tournaments,
held
in
conjunction
with
interactive
gaming.
A
A
L
J
C
C
C
C
A
F
Next
bill
42
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
henderson
and
herman
committee
on
march
10th.
This
bill
requires
certain
batteries
which
constitute
domestic
violence
to
be
charged
with
certain
felonies
and
gross
misdemeanors
measure
also
establishes
a
right
to
a
jury
trial
under
certain
circumstances
and
prohibits
a
person
convicted
of
a
battery
which
constitutes
domestic
violence
or
the
same
or
similar
conduct
in
another
state,
from
owning
or
having
any
firearm
in
his
or
her
possession
or
under
his
or
her
custody
or
control.
F
This
amendment
provides
that
the
minimum
number
of
jurors
is
12,
but
the
parties
prior
to
juror
selection
may
stipulate
any
number
less
than
12,
but
not
less
than
6.
In
section
3
of
the
bill,
it
adds
chief
marshall
to
various
sections
of
the
bill
regarding
jury,
deliberation,
room
and
jury
summons
process.
F
A
C
I
don't
know
if
it's
really
a
question.
I
appreciate
the
work
and
the
amendments
given,
but
I'm
going
to
be
voting
no
on
this.
I
think
there's
still
room
to
do
the
first
half.
A
Thank
you.
Assemblyman
o'neil,
we'll
note
that,
for
the
record,
any
other
questions
we
will
have
a.
We
will
have
a
time
for
discussion.
So
if
there
are
questions
I
would
take
those
now
and
then
I'll
take
the
discussion
after
we
take
the
motion.
So
any
questions,
it's
perfectly
fine.
I
just
saw
others
raising
their
hand
and
I
thought
they
might
say
the
same
thing
so
we'll
give
them
a
chance
to
do
that
under
discussion,
but
questions
on
the
bill
as
detailed.
A
A
C
C
And
I
hope
the
parties
will
continue
to
work
together
to
maybe
amend
just
the
sections
that
are
not
quite
right,
but
I
will
be
voting
yes
to
get
it
out
of
committee.
With
reserving
my
right
to
change
prior
to
floor.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
any
other
discussion,
so
I
think
we
had
two
two
with
the
assemblyman
o'neil
faction
and
three
with
the
assemblywoman
krasner
faction.
So
I
think
that
covers
us
all.
Okay,
so,
and
before
I
take
the
vote,
I
will
say
I
have
encouraged
the
parties
to
continue
to
work
on
this
legislation
as
well.
I
think
it
is
time
to
move
it
out
of
assembly
judiciary,
but
of
course
it's
still
got
a
little
ways
to
go
in
the
process.
A
G
J
C
N
C
A
Yes,
motion
does
carry,
I
think
we
have
three
no's,
the
rest
were
yeses
and
just
would
advise
committee
members.
If
you
do
decide
to
change
your
mind
before
the
floor
vote.
If
you
could,
let
me
know
that
I
would
appreciate
it.
I
will
sign
the
floor
statement
on
assembly
bill
42
to
vice
chair
win.
Let's
move
to
assembly
bill
59,
ms
thornton.
F
Assemblyville
59
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
attorney
general
and
herding
committee
on
february
16th.
This
bill
prohibits
a
person
from
selling
distributing
or
offering
to
sell
cigarettes,
cigarette
paper
or
other
tobacco
products
to
a
person
under
21
years
of
age.
There's
one
amendment
to
the
bills
proposed
by
hillary
bunker
from
the
attorney
general's
office.
F
F
It
adds
that
every
person
making
sales
must
certify
annually
to
the
attorney
general
that
it
uses
an
independent
third-party
age,
verification
service.
It
establishes
penalties,
including
monetary
fines,
license
suspension
or
revocation
in
consideration
as
a
deceptive
trade
practice.
If
requirements
are
not
met,
clarifies
what
constitutes
a
sale
to
an
ultimate
consumer
provides
for
inspections
to
be
formed
on
tobacco
retailers
at
least
once
every
three
years
and
lastly,
it
repeals
nrs
370.395.
A
C
Thank
you,
yeah.
There's
a
lot
of
things
about.
M
The
bill
that
I
like
and
think
are
good
one
of
the
areas,
and
I
think
we
discussed
that
earlier
when
we
reviewed
the
the
bill
was
that
that
they
took
the
penalties
out
for
employees,
and
I
think
that
that's
important
to
keep
in
because
it's
going
to
be
hard
to
control
a
night
clerk.
Even
if
you
give
company
policies
and
if
they
disobey
those,
then
I
think
that
that
should
still
be
kept
in
there
and
that's
a
concern
that
I
have
so
we'll,
probably
be
yes
out
of
committee.
A
C
Mr
chairman,
not
sure
I
know
we
discussed
getting
rid
of
that
c
felony
in
here
and,
as
you
know,
I'm
kind
of
passionate
about
this
bill.
I
really
like
it,
but
just
can't
do
it
with
this
c
felony.
We
didn't
that
I'm
looking
at
the
amendment,
I
thought
that
maybe
that
pulled
it
out,
but
I
don't
think
it
did
could
legal.
Maybe
let
me
know.
A
J
Thank
you.
This
is
jessica,
dare
for
the
record,
and
you
have
both
hillary
bunker
and
I
I
hillary
drafted
the
limit,
and
so
she
can
correct
me
if
I
am
wrong,
but
the
removal
of
the
c
felony
is
at
the
very,
very
end
of
the
amendment.
So
we
thought
that
that
was
a
great
point
that
this
committee
made.
We
wanted
to
incorporate
that,
so
that
is
in
the
amendment
and
if
I
could
just
clarify
the
the
removal
of
the
re,
the
penalties
of
store
clerks
was
made
in
a
previous
bill.
J
It
was
the
removal
of
criminal
penalties.
There
are
still
civil
penalties
for
clerks,
so
there
are
still
penalties
for
clerks
who
sell
to
underage
they.
However,
it
is
no
longer
a
criminal
penalty,
so
they
will
not
be
subject
to.
A
We
don't
have
legal
with
us,
I'm
not
sure
it's
going
to
be
when
the
amendment
is
processed.
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
to
wait
and
see,
but
I
I
don't
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
think
some
of
the
things
that
we
took
out
might
address
that
so
we'll
have
to
see
what
it
looks
like
when
it's
amended.
J
M
B
A
A
C
Have
some
questions
still
in
regards
to
the
amendment
that
I'm
going
to
reach
out
to
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
on?
I
will
be
voting
yes
to
get
out
of
committee
with
the
right
to
reserve
and
change
my
vote
prior
to
florida.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
chair,
you
know,
and
I
apologize
I'll
be
voting
yes
to
get
it
out
with
reserving
my
right
on
the
floor,
but
you
know
we
had
a
late
night
in
commerce
and
labor.
I
haven't
had
full
time
to
really
go
into
depth
on
these
amendments.
A
Certainly,
thank
you
assemblyman
o'neil,
and
I
was
here
watching
your
committee.
You
did
indeed
have
a
late
night
and
I
think
we
all
have
a
number
of
those
in
front
of
us
in
the
next
week
or
so
so
certainly
understand
the
need
to
want
to
review
the
amendment
and
I
think,
obviously,
it'll
be
a
little
clearer
once
we
get
the
amendment
and
actually
amend
the
bill
so
appreciate
that
I
think
assemblywoman
hardy
has
her
hand
up.
Please.
D
Yes,
just
to
be
quick
I'll
vote,
yes
out
of
committee
and.
A
J
C
K
A
J
A
Yeah
no
problem
and
just
as
a
reminder
to
committee
members,
you
certainly
always
have
the
right
to
change
your
vote
on
the
floor.
Just
if
you
let
me
know,
that's
helpful,
so
we
can
have
an
idea
how
things
are
going
to
happen
on
the
floor.
I
think
that's
all
the
discussion,
madam
secretary,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
could
you
please
conduct
a
roll
call
vote.
B
B
C
I
C
A
A
F
Assembly
bill
125
was
sponsored
by
assemblywoman,
duran
and
herding
committee
on
february
24th.
This
bill
deletes
the
restriction
for
an
offender
who
has
been
convicted
of
a
category
b,
felony
to
earn
credits
to
reduce
his
or
her
sentence
of
imprisonment,
which
must
be
deducted
from
the
maximum
term
or
the
maximum
aggregate
term
imposed
by
a
sentence.
F
These
changes
are
retroactive
for
offenders
who
are
committed
fences
before
october
1st
2021.
There
is
one
amendment
proposed
by
assemblywoman
duran
and
this
amendment
does.
The
following:
first
provides
that
the
bill
applies
to
offenders
who
committed
an
offense
after
july
1st
2007
and
have
not
been
convicted
of
an
attempt
of
sexual
offense,
vehicular,
homicide,
residential
burglary
or
habitual
criminal
adjudication.
F
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
I've
been
wrestling
with
this
one.
I
I
I
support
this.
The
intent
and
the
concept
I'm
not
quite
there
yet,
and
so
I
tend
to
do
the
opposite.
I'm
going
to
be
no
and
then
get
me
to
yes.
So,
but
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
the
intent
appreciate
the
work
that's
been
done
and
hoping
we
can
do
more
before
it
goes
to
the
floor,
but
no
for
now.
N
Thank
you,
chair
yanker.
I
just
I'm
reading
the
proposed
amendment
that
is
from
on
the
assemblywoman
duran's
letterhead,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I'm
I
saw
this
last
night.
Am
I
missing
something
her
amendment
says
july
1,
2007
offenses
after
july
1
2007,
but
on
the
letterhead
it
says,
1997.
C
H
Thank
you,
part
of
that
amendment
came
into
play
when
we
met
with
the
attorney
general's
office
as
well
as
ndoc.
I
think
our
intent
was
to
just
include
language
that
had
occurred.
I
believe
in
2007
to
allow
this
same
type
of
credit
on
non-violent
c
d
and
e
felonies,
and
so
we
thought
we'll
just
put
b
in
there.
H
Well,
it
turns
out
that
the
attorney
general's
office
there
was
unclarity
and
we've
never
corrected
or
clarified
the
law
as
to
when
the
applicable
date
happened,
and
so
they
deal
with
hundreds
of
what
are
called
post-conviction
writ
of
habeas
corpus
like
petitions
that
are
like
a
pseudo
civil
criminal
thing
and
so
putting
clarity
on
that
date
allowed
it
clarified
in
law,
something
that
probably
should
have
been
done
in
2007
and
it's
never
been
brought
to
the
attention.
So
we
were
able
to
make
it
in
there.
H
So
it's
very
clear
that
if
you
are
in
custody
on
a
non-violent
b
felony
that
you
qualify
for
that
good
time,
credit
from
that
date
forward,
because
the
people
before
that
date
actually
are
under
a
a
different
structure
where
they
actually
get
way
more
credit.
So
they
didn't
want
to
go
back
and
take
away
credit
from
people
pre
1997.
M
N
So
vice
chair,
when
so,
is
the
1997
date
going
to
stay
to
capture
those
folks,
and
then
there
is
a
specification
that
this
particular
change
and
the
and
the
enumeration
of
the
number
of
hours
that
people
can
accumulate
to
go
against.
Their
sentence
only
applies
to
people
post
july.
1
2007.
Is
that
what
you're
saying
man.
H
If
you,
if
you
were
sentenced
before
that
date
of
1997.,
it's
1997,
yes,
then
you're
under
a
completely
different
credit
structure.
In
fact,
they
get.
H
They
get
way
more
credit,
so
they're
under
a
completely
different
credit
structure.
This
is
like
moving
forward
after
like
cases
from
that
date
forward,
and
we
did
that
just
to
give
clarity
to
the
attorney
general's
office.
They
apparently
have
been
under
this
horrible,
like
gray
area,
and
this
gives
them,
and
it
will
give
the
courts
a
lot
of
clarity.
Unfortunately,
it
sounds
like
it's
never
been
brought
up
until
we
opened
it
up
with
this
potential
bill.
C
H
There
there's
two
dates
so
there's
like
dates
from
this
time
to
this
time
that
are
under
like
a
previous,
like
sentence
structure,
and
then
there
are
people
after
that
2007
date
forward.
So.
H
It's
a
very,
very
technical
thing
that
I'll
be
honest
with
you.
I
did
not
realize
it
was
a
problem
when
we
got
in
there
and
we
realized.
I
know
that
the
attorney
general's
office
they
have
like
three
people
that
are
super
dedicated
and
receive
probably
hundreds,
if
not
thousands
a
year,
petitions
from
people
that
are
incarcerated
for
various
things,
a
lot
of
them
having
to
do
with
their
sentences
and
credit
determinations
at
ndoc.
H
Unfortunately,
I
think
people
are
going
to
continue
to
file
these
petitions,
but
this
does
make
it
so
much
easier
for
them
to
kind
of
address
and
concretely
say
this
doesn't
apply
to
you,
or
this
does
apply
to
you,
and
I
see
attorney
general
ford
on
here,
and
I
think
he
could
probably
confirm
that
as
well.
Although
I
know
he
wasn't,
he
has
a
whole
team
that
does
this.
K
Thank
report
so
much.
I
cannot
answer
the
question
directly,
but
what
I
can
offer
is
an
immediate
reach
out
to
a
head
of
the
proctor
who
runs
this
division
in
my
office,
and
I
can
have
her
jump
on
if
I
can
catch
up
with
her.
I
might
advise
sheriff
that's
okay.
If
you
need
additional
answers
to
these
questions,.
H
If
she
does-
and
I
I
will
tell
you
that
I
know
that
assemblywoman
duran
is
continuing
to
have
conversations
about
assembly
bill
125,
to
see
if
we
can
tighten
it
up
even
further.
But
the
amendment
was
meant
to
aid
the
attorney
general's
office
in
honestly.
Sometimes
what
are
frivolous
like
petitions
that
are
being
filed
on
a
pro
per
basis
by
people
that
are
incarcerated
and
it's
because
it's
unclear
in
the
law,
and
so
it
does
take
up
a
lot
of
their
time.
H
But
it
it's
up
to
you
chair
whether
or
not
the
members
that
that
answered
their
questions
or.
A
I
guess.
Maybe
let
me
ask
it
this
way
if
you'd
like
to
hear
from
miss
proctor
before
taking
the
vote
on
the
bill,
just
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
camera,
so
I
can
see
that
okay,
we
do
have
a
couple
of
them.
So
maybe
what
I'll
do
is
you
know?
I
don't
know
attorney
general
ford
if
she's
able
to
jump
on,
but
for
now
maybe
I'll
just
ask
that
we
she's.
A
A
Oh
perfect,
are
we
able
to
get
bps?
Are
we
able
to
get
ms
proctor
do
we
do
we
know
what
number
she
may
be
calling
in
on.
I
A
H
K
L
A
Hi,
miss
proctor,
I'm
not
sure
if
you've
been
following
the
discussions,
but
there
were
just
some
questions
from
committee
members
about
the
amendment
on
assembly,
bill
125
and
the
reference
to
that
date
of
I
think
it
was
july,
1
2007
and
we're
hoping
you
could
give
some
clarity
in
what
the
issue
was.
There.
C
Pursuant
to
ab510
back
in
2007.
and
therefore
the
restrictions
that
apply
through
subsection
eight
only
apply
to
inmates
who
committed
their
crimes
on
or
after
july,
first,
two
thousand
seven.
Unfortunately,
there
has
been
some
confusion
on
that,
because
that
enactment
date
only
appears
in
the
actual
bill.
It
does
not
appear
in
the
statute
itself,
and
so
who
it
applies
to
has
been
extremely
confusing
for
the
courts
for
the
inmates
and
for
council
alike.
So
that
is
why
we
have
added
that
date.
C
The
amendment
and
the
changes
to
that
would
only
apply
for
attractive
to
2007,
rather
than
1997.
Regarding
category
b
felonies.
A
Thank
you,
miss
proctor,
and
so
I
could
just
perhaps
make
sure
I
understand
there
was
a
prior
bill
passed
in
the
legislature
and
it
only
it
only
applied
to
offenders
who
were
sentenced
after
july
first
of
2007,
but
it
seems
like
that.
Reference
to
the
date
was
not
included
in
statute,
so
there's
been
a
lot
of
litigation,
and
what
this
amendment
does
is
pretty
clearly
puts
that
in
statute.
So
hopefully
you
won't
have
to
respond
to
all
this
litigation
about
whether
or
not
people
get
credit
relating
to
a
prior
bill
that
the
legislature
passed.
C
That
is
correct,
one
small
change:
it
is
for
inmates
who
committed
their
crimes
on
or
after
july
2007,
rather
than
when
they
were
sentenced.
A
C
A
Well,
something
when
krasner,
I
think
that
was
discussed
in
the
hearing
on
the
bill.
I
don't
think
the
amendment
the
amendment
really
just
limits
who
gets
the
credit,
so
I
I'd
have
to
just
ask
you
to
sort
of
rely
on
your
memory
of
the
actual
presentation
of
the
bill,
because
that's
what
the
original
bill
did
was
expanded
it
to
certain
non-violent
category
bees.
So
I
don't
want
to
relitigate
the
merits
of
the
policy
discussion
in
the
work
session.
So
we'll
just
ask
you
to
vote
accordingly.
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
think
so.
Ms
proctor,
thank
you
for
joining
us
by
telephone.
We
appreciate
that
clarification
before
we
take
a
vote
any
further
discussion
on
the
bill.
A
Okay,
I
think
it
is
assemblyman
o'neill,
you
wanna,
you
wanna,
say
something.
Please
yeah.
K
C
C
H
C
H
M
C
C
A
A
Okay,
she
has
indicated
she
is
a
no.
So
the
motion
does
carry.
We
had
five
no's,
I'm
going
to
assign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
duran,
but
we'll
list
vice
chair
win
as
a
backup
in
case
there
are
questions
on
the
measure.
Once
it
gets
amended
and
reaches
the
floor,
miss
thornton.
Could
we
go
to
assembly
bill
219?
Please.
F
Assembly
bill
219
was
sponsored
by
assemblyman
yeager
and
heard
this
committee
on
march
12th.
This
bill
revises
provisions
governing
the
ceiling
of
criminal
records.
There
are
two
amendments
to
the
spill.
The
first
amendment
amends
the
bill
to
clarify
that
nothing
in
the
bill
prohibits
prosecuting
attorneys
from
stipulating
to
the
ceiling
of
records
by
doing
the
following.
F
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton,
and
want
to
thank
bailey
bortland
who's
on
the
zoom
with
us,
as
well
for
all
of
her
work
and
getting
everyone
to
what
I
think
is
a
good
place
on
this
bill.
Any
questions
about
assembly
bill
219
as
detailed
on
the
work
session
document.
A
M
B
H
C
C
F
A
F
Assembly
bill
230
sponsored
by
assemblyman
miller
and
herding
committee
on
march
18th.
This
bill
provides
that
the
juvenile
court
has
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
a
child
who's
alleged
to
have
committed
an
act
designated
as
a
delinquent
by
removing
certain
exclusions
from
the
jurisdiction
of
the
juvenile
court.
F
It
also
requires
the
legislative
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
to
conduct
a
study
during
the
2021
and
2022
interim
concerning
infrastructure
needs
and
costs
associated
with
housing,
youth
awaiting
a
juvenile
certification
proceeding
in
the
state,
and
the
second
amendment
adds
additional
sponsors
to
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
miss
thornton,
and
I
will
note
I
wanted
to
be
added
as
a
sponsor
as
well,
and
I
neglected
to
convey
that
to
assemblyman
miller.
So
when
we
get
to
emotion,
I
would
just
ask
that
we
include
that
as
well
any
questions
on
assembly
bill
230
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document
assembly,
one
billboard
axelrod,
do
you
have
a
question.
G
A
I
Actually
chair,
assemblywoman,
billbury
axelrod
is
was
already
a
sponsor
from
the
beginning.
N
I
would
also
like
to
be
added.
Thank
you.
K
I
Already
a
sponsor
at
this
point,
I
believe
every
member
of
the
committee
is
a
sponsor
if
someone
is
not
a
sponsor.
Well,
I
guess
that's
what
we're
doing
right
now.
People
are
like
I'm
not
sure,
but
I.
I
Just
thank
you
all
for
jumping
on
board.
With
this.
A
H
As
well,
you
amend
a
new
path
with
that
amendment,
that
game.
A
J
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
just
want
to
congratulate
assemblyman
miller
on.
I
think
this
is
to
move
through
and
so
appreciative
of
the
work
he's
done
as
a
member
of
the
interim
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
committee,
and
this
has
been
an
issue
and
so
so
happy
to
be
able
to
support
this
legislation
and
for
the
work
that
he
has
done
as
a
freshman
working
this
through
and
working
with
stakeholders.
G
H
C
H
K
C
C
A
Oh
okay,
thank
you.
I
did
not
hear
it,
but
I'm
getting
older,
so
my
hearing
is
not
as
good
as
it
used
to
be,
so
that
is
unanimous.
The
the
bill
the
motion
does
carry.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement,
of
course,
to
assemblyman
miller
and
congratulations.
F
Assembly
bill
284
was
sponsored
by
assembly,
one
martinez
and
herding
committee
on
march
22nd.
This
bill
establishes
a
procedure
for
a
person
to
contest
the
validity
of
a
lien
on
a
motor
vehicle.
There
are
two
amendments
to
the
bill.
The
first
amendment
was
sponsored
by
by
the
nevada,
trucking
association
and
tow
operators
of
northern
nevada,
and
this
bill
excludes
tow
cars,
holding
a
certificate
of
public
convenience
and
necessity
issued
pursuant
to
nrs
706.4463
and
secondly,
assemblywoman
cohen,
proposed
an
amendment
to
clarify
the
days
in
the
in
the
bill
as
calendar
days.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
G
C
C
C
A
F
Assembly
bill
318
was
sponsored
by
a
suddenly
woman,
marzola
and
heard
in
committee
on
march
23rd.
This
bill
clarifies
various
provisions
related
to
trust
and
estates.
There
are
two
amendments
to
this
measure.
The
first
one
was
sponsored
by
mark
noble
and
alan
freer
from
the
legislative
committee
of
the
probate
and
trust
section
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada.
F
F
It
adds
a
new
section
amending
nrs
139.100,
to
provide
notice
provisions
on
the
initial
hearing
petitions
to
the
public
administrator
in
situations
where
the
petitioner
seeking
appointment
is
neither
a
spouse
or
heir
nor
nominee
of
the
spouse
or
air.
In
order
to
prevent
potential
abuse,
it
adds
a
new
section
to
nrs
143.350
to
permit
the
probate
court
discretion
when
granting
independent
administration
of
estates.
F
It
amends
a
new
section
of
nrs
143.380
to
afford
heirs
or
beneficiaries
of
the
estate
additional
safeguard
by
requiring
their
express
written
consent,
or
a
personal
representative
seeks
a
non-court
sale
of
property
for
less
than
90
percent
of
the
value
of
its
price
value.
The
second
amendment
is
sponsored
by
assemblywoman
cohen,
and
this
replaces
the
business
days
with
calendar
days
throughout
the
amendment.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
I
was
wondering
if
anyone
wanted
to
re-hear
this
one
remember
it
was
a
long,
complex
hearing,
so
seeing
no
discussion
I'll
take
a
motion
to
amend
it.
Do
pass
we'll.
A
B
E
C
C
L
A
F
F
This
amendment
revises
provisions
governing
a
sex
offender's
petition
for
release
from
lifetime
supervision
to
provide
that
a
licensed
clinical
professional
who
has
received
training
and
a
treatment
of
sex
offenders
may
perform
the
evaluation
and
it
strikes
the
language
court
or
in
section
21,
as
revocations
will
be
heard
only
by
the
state
board
of
pardons
commissioners
and
not
the
court.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
C
C
C
C
F
A
F
There
is
one
amendment
to
this
bill,
a
sponsored
by
assemblywoman
win,
and
this
amendment
rises
the
bill
by
directing
the
legislative
commission
to
appoint
an
interim
committee
to
study
the
ceiling
or
expungement
of
criminal
records
instead
of
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice
of
funding
a
subcommittee.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
H
C
E
C
C
L
A
Yes,
motion
does
carry
unanimously
and
I
will
sign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
krasner
on
assembly
bill
401,
okay
committee.
Thank
you
that
takes
us
through
the
work
session,
we're
now
going
to
move
on
to
our
agenda
the
rest
of
our
agenda.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
three
bills
and
I
think
we'll
be
able
to
get
through
these,
hopefully
a
timely
fashion.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
403
assembly
bill
403
revises
provisions
governing
certain
crimes.
A
I
believe
we
have
our
own
assemblywoman
brown
may
with
us
on
the
zoom
and
mr
pirro
is
joining
her
as
well.
So
welcome
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
this
morning,
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you.
So
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
K
K
K
K
This
bill
as
presented
decriminalizes
certain
violations
by
pedestrians,
most
commonly
referred
to
as
jaywalking
while
crossing
the
street
outside
of
a
marked
crosswalk,
may
be
a
safety
hazard
and
should
be
deterred
when
safety
is
at
risk.
A
criminal
charge
for
violating
the
statute
is
unnecessary
and
excessive.
K
This
bill
would
decriminalize
jaywalking.
So
it's
important
to
note
that
this
bill
does
not
eliminate
penalties
or
citations
for
jaywalking.
It
does
instead
direct
the
courts
to
consider
this
citation
as
a
civil,
infraction
not
a
criminal
infraction
there.
With
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
introduce
my
co-presenter
john
pirro,
the
chief
deputy
public
defender
with
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
and
mr
pearl
will
walk
us
through
the
sections
of
this
bill
and
then
be
available
to
answer
questions.
A
I
I
Jaywalking
was
listed
in
section
one
in
a
pedestrian
safety
zone,
which
is
weird
because
that's
where
people
would
walk
anyways,
so
we
are
eliminating
it
there
and
then,
if
you
go
to
section
two,
it
just
clearly
states
at
the
very
bottom
that
it's
making
it
a
civil
infraction
punishable
punishable
by
a
hundred
dollar
fine
and
not
a
misdemeanor
criminal
offense
that
doctors
would
have
to
report
on
their
applications
when
they're
trying
to
get
residency
places
or
get
into
medical
school.
There
are
some
things
I
did
want
to.
I
That
comes
out
to
about
fifty
six
thousand
seven
hundred
and
fifteen
dollars
that
we
have
paid
to
jail.
Somebody
on
just
a
jaywalking
offense,
however,
just
the
las
vegas
municipal
court
alone,
because
we
can't
find
out
the
county's
numbers
has
4515
outstanding
warrants
for
pedestrian
offenses
alone.
I
If
all
of
those
people
get
arrested
and
jailed
for
just
one
day
to
deal
with
this
jaywalking
offense,
that
will
amount
to
898
485
dollars
and
that's
just
freeze
framing
jaywalking
arrests
and
jailing
just
till
march
31st.
That's
not
talking
about
any
other
arrests
that
will
happen
the
rest
of
the
year.
That's
how
much
we
as
taxpayers
will
pay.
So
this
is
a
short
bill
that
has
a
big
impact
that
is
both
smart
criminal
justice
policy
wise
as
well
as
fiscally
responsible.
Thank
you
chair.
A
K
We
would
prefer
to
entertain
questions
at
this
point.
We
do
have
attorney
general,
I
believe,
on
the
phone
who
is
here
to
offer
his
support
when
we
get
to
that
part
of
the
meeting,
but
right
now,
mr
pirro
and
I
are
the
presentation,
thank
you.
H
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
think
this
is
a
long
long
long
time
coming
and
I
know
that
it
has
been
used
for
decades
to
stop
people
to
investigate
other
crimes
when
you're
talking
about
these
hundred
and
nineties,
I
believe
you
said
199
people
is
that
correct.
Mr
pira,.
I
H
J
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
being
here
today,
assemblywoman
brownmay
and
appreciate
the
bill
on
the
surface
it.
It
does
seem,
like
mr
pirro
said
weird,
and
I'm
all
for
getting
rid
of
weird
in
the
statutes,
but
I
just
follow
up
to
what
vice
chair
when
just
go
the
the
the
data,
the
199
just
for
jaywalking,
two
things
I'm
assuming
a
lot
of
that
is
probably
along
the
las
vegas
strip.
Do
we
have
kind
of
an
idea
of
where
the
majority
of
that
199
were.
I
I
I
John
pirro
for
the
record
4415
just
in
the
las
vegas
municipal
court
alone,
assemblywoman
hanson,
that's
not
counting
north
las
vegas,
municipal
court,
henderson,
municipal
court,
las
vegas,
justice,
court,
north
las
vegas,
justice,
court
or
henderson
justice
court.
That's
just
las
vegas
municipal
court
alone.
So
that
number
that
I
cited
to
you
that
if
they
all
went
to
jail
for
just
one
day,
which
does
not
happen
in
las
vegas
municipal
court,
because
if
you
get
arrested
on
a
thursday
assembly,
woman
hanson
you're
not
going
to
see
a
judge
till
monday.
I
So
I'm
just
giving
you
a
baseline
one
day,
giving
to
the
most
generous
number
possible
that,
for
one
municipality,
is
going
to
cost
us
108
898
485
dollars
for
the
year.
If
we
just
freeze
frame
it
right
now,
wow.
J
I
Jump
hero
for
the
record
they're,
not
giving
the
okay,
it's
just
a
civil
penalty,
so
we're
not
going
to
criminalize
them
for
we're
not
going
to
make
them
a
misdemeanor
for
it.
So
it's
still
not
okay,
you
can
still
be
cited
for
it
still
a
civil
infraction,
but
instead
of
a
potential
one
thousand
dollar
fine
and
time
in
jail.
It's
just
that
and
then
that
would
be
an
issue
litigated
in
the
civil
realm
which
probably
the
nja
could
speak
to
better
than
I
could.
A
Just
so
I
could
jump
in
there
too.
I
think
mr
piro
is
right
about
that.
It
would
still
be
a
violation
of
our
laws,
so
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
taken
into
account
if
there
was
a
litigation
about
who
was
at
fault
for
the
traffic
accident,
and
so
then
I
wanted
to
just
clarify,
probably
for
you,
mr
pirro,
we're
saying
it's
not
a
criminal
offense,
but
an
officer
would
still
be
able
to.
A
You
know,
stop
somebody
and
sort
of
get
them
to
a
safe
position
if
they
happen
to
be
out
in
the
road
and
that
kind
of
thing
we're
just
saying
the
person
can't
be
arrested
for
jaywalking
unless
there's
some
other
circumstance
to
a
have
that
correct
in
terms
of
what
the
bill
is
trying
to
do.
John
pirro,
yes,
thank
you,
mr
pirro.
Are
there
additional
questions
for
our
presenters?
Okay,
I
see
a
couple:
let's
go
to
assemblyman
orient
liquor
and
then
assemblywoman
hardy.
C
Thank
you,
cherry
jaeger,
I'm
interested
in
well.
Thank
you
for
doing
this
bill.
First,
it's
a
very
important
step.
Second,
on
at
the
end
of
section
two,
where
subsection
two
b,
where
it
says,
is
punishable
by
the
imposition
of
a
civil
penalty
of
a
hundred
dollars,
as
opposed
to
it
could
say,
is
punishable
by
the
imposition
of
a
civil
penalty
of
up
to
a
hundred
dollars.
Does
this
mean
automatically
if
the
jaywalker
is
cited,
whether
they're,
poor
or
wealthy?
It's
going
to
be
a
hundred
dollar
fine.
C
I
John
piero
for
the
record,
obviously
it
would
be
the
assemblywoman's
call
to
make
it
up
to
one
hundred
dollars.
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
request
to
save
women
warren
liquor.
I
also
would
say
that
people
are
always
available
to
do
community
service
that
they
couldn't
afford
to
find.
K
Thank
you
assembly.
Women
brought
me
for
the
record.
We're
certainly
happy
to
discuss
that
with
you
assemblyman
or
liquor
as
we.
We
look
to
move
this
bill
forward.
Thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
D
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
this
bill.
I
think
it
is
goes
a
little
far
charging
someone
with
a
misdemeanor
for.
D
I
John
piero
for
the
record,
perhaps
we
could
work
with
the
court
system
as
it
is
and
see
what
we
could
do
there,
but
that
would
probably
be
a
question
that
they
can
answer.
But
that
is
an
excellent
suggestion
and
we
have
the
criminal
justice
coordinating
council
down
south
and
so
perhaps
that's
a
topic.
I
could
bring
up
with
them
and
hopefully
get
the
court
administrators
on
board
to
do
that.
N
I
don't
have
a
question
chair
and
thank
you
for
acknowledging
me.
Chandra
summers:
armstrong
assembly
district,
six
for
their
record.
I'm
really
happy
to
see
this.
We
see
a
lot
of
jaywalking
tickets
and
arrests
in
our
community
and
we
are
just
grateful
to
see
this
brought
forward.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
brownmay
and
thank
you,
mr
piro.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
so
assemblywoman
brown.
May
mr
rapiro,
thank
you
for
presenting
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment.
While
we
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
at
this
time,
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
403,
we
do
have
attorney
general
ford
joining
us
on
the
zoom
this
morning.
Welcome
back
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
and
please
go
ahead.
K
Thank
you
so
much
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
aaron
ford
and
I
am
your
attorney
general.
It's
a
privilege
to
testify
today
here
in
support
of
ap
403.
K
I
don't
intend
to
duplicate
the
testimony
of
the
presenters
who
have
spoken
before
me
today,
but
I
do
want
to
emphasize
how
regressive
current
laws
criminalizing
jaywalking
really
are.
Although
jaywalking
is
the
misdemeanor
crime
on
par
with
a
traffic
citation,
it
is
on
occasion
the
starting
point
of
a
more
prolonged
series
of
interactions
with
the
criminal
justice
system,
because
jaywalking
is
a
criminal
offense.
Failure
to
pay
its
associated
fine
can
eventually
lead
to
a
warrant
for
arrest
or
even
incarceration.
K
Let
me
be
clear:
I'm
fully
aware
of
the
safety
concerns
that
necessitate
deeming
jaywalking
and
prohibited
act
for
the
reasons
that
underpin
this
policy
that
underpin
this
policy.
I
agree
that
it
should
continue
to
be
a
prohibited
act,
but
the
appropriate
penalty
for
improperly
crossing
the
street
should
not
be
the
possibility
of
incarceration.
K
The
deterrent
effect
of
citations
lies
more
in
the
impact
on
the
wallet
than
possible
in
prison.
At
the
time
of
a
citation
being
issued,
the
possibility
of
incarceration
is
so
remote
that
it
fails
to
even
have
a
deterrent
effect.
It's
also
those
least
able
to
afford
the
fine
who
we've
heard
from
silverman
orton
liker
to
say
who
run
the
risk
of
incarceration.
K
In
other
words,
the
criminalization
of
jaywalking,
with
the
associated
possibility
of
incarceration,
creates
a
de
facto
debtor's
prison.
In
my
estimation,
it's
time
for
nevada
to
move
past
this
regressive
policy,
so
that
this
book
that
disproportionately
affects
the
poor.
For
this
reason,
I
support
ab403.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
attorney
general
ford
and
thank
you
for
your
patience.
As
we
worked
through
the
work
session
before
we
got
to
the
bill,
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
else
on
the
zoom
in
support.
If
I'm
wrong
about
that,
if
you
could
just
turn
your
camera
on
and
unmute,
let
me
know
you'd
like
to
testify
and
support.
A
L
C
C
The
criminalization
of
jaywalking
in
nevada
directly
affects
vulnerable
populations.
Those
experiencing
poverty
and
homelessness
are
inherently
less
likely
to
have
access
to
their
own
transportation
and
often
rely
on
walking
or
city
buses.
We
have
all
experienced
they're,
seeing
someone
rushing
to
make
it
to
their
best
on
time
as
it
approaches
or
have
had
to
run
quickly
from
one
side
of
the
street
to
another,
to
get
somewhere
important
on
time
for
people
who
rely
heavily
on
walking
or
public
transportation
to
take
them
to
one
place
to
another.
C
Sometimes
the
only
option
to
make
it
from
to
make
it
on
time
is
to
jaywalk
or
bolt
across
the
street
when
no
cars
are
approaching
them
as
a
misdemeanor
that
currently
carries
a
hefty
fine.
The
criminalization
of
jaywalking
creates
added
financial
hardship
for
people
who
already
cannot
afford
the
luxury
of
their
own
vehicle
and
heavily
rely
on
their
ability
to
get
to
work.
In
a
timely
manner,
jaywalking
is
also
typically
not
something
that
people
do
with
the
intention
of
harming
themselves
or
others
or
to
break
the
law.
C
C
As
the
aclu
of
nevada,
one
of
our
goals
is
to
reduce
police
interactions
as
much
as
possible
and
ab403
supports
its
cause.
Police
interactions
can
be
an
extremely
uncomfortable
experience
for
many
groups
of
people.
If
jaywalking
remains
a
misdemeanor,
vulnerable
populations
could
be
put
in
uncomfortable
situations
that
could
raise
their
anxiety
for
days
and
weeks
to
come,
as
well
as
take
important
time
away
from
other
activities
that
police
officers
could
be
doing.
We
urge
you
to
support
and
pass
ab403
and
to
decriminalize
jaywalking.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
L
C
C
As
you
know,
there's
a
bill
to
decriminalize
that
before
the
legislature
criminalizing
this
sort
of
thing
doesn't
prevent
it
from
happening
or
improve
our
ability
to
collect
fines,
and
it
doesn't
protect
public
safety.
It
simply
imposes
an
extra
burden
on
the
poorest
nevadans,
leaving
them
subject
to
arrest
warrants
that.
A
L
C
Morning,
terry
again,
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee-
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
b-e-r-t-s-d-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
want
to
thank
the
assemblywoman
for
bringing
this
important
bill
forward
and
we
appreciate
these
efforts
to
decriminalize
infractions
and
including
jaywalking.
Specifically.
We
do
believe
that
this
will
help
prevent
people
from
becoming
part
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
we
appreciate
this
effort.
Thank
you.
A
Bps,
could
we
just
maybe
take
one
more
moment.
I
believe
we
had
mr
farr
on
the
phone
who
wanted
to
testify.
I
think
his
last
three
digits
are
three
seven.
Seven,
I'm
not
sure
if
he's
there,
but
I
might
indicate
that
he's
registered
and
perhaps
might
be
on
the
phone.
So
if
we
could
maybe
give
him
a
minute
to
enter
the
queue.
L
A
Thank
you,
bps.
Well,
we'll
we'll
move
on
and
perhaps
we'll
try
to
come
back
to
that
and
if
we
can't
get
to
mr
farr
in
this
hearing,
then
we'll
invite
him
to
submit
some
written
comments,
but
for
now
let's
go
ahead
and
suspend
testimony
and
support
I'll
now
open
up
testimony
in
opposition.
A
A
L
E
E
We
don't
care
if
the
penalty
is
civil
on
the
court
side
after
the
fact,
but
we
want
officers
actions
in
the
field
to
remain
the
same.
For
example,
if
an
officer
sees
someone
violating
the
law,
the
officer
could
take
action
the
same
way
as
always,
and
the
courts
would
treat
it
as
a
civil
matter
on
the
backside.
E
Although
I'm
neutral
on
the
bill,
I
did
want
to
make
a
few
comments
number
one
to
dispute
the
notion
that
jaywalking
is
just
a
very
minor
thing
and
it's
often
used
by
officers
to
harass
people
jaywalking,
as
you
know,
often
leads
to
fatalities,
and
this
year
we've
had
27
fatalities
in
our
jurisdiction.
As
of
this
morning,
often
those
those
fatalities
involve
pedestrians
as
part
of
the
overall
factor.
Speeding
and
of
course,
impairment
are
other
factors,
but
we
often
see
pedestrians
as
a
factor.
E
E
I
repeat:
zero
arrests
in
march
for
jaywalking,
I'm
not
sure
where
the
data
that
mr
pirro
presented
comes
from,
but
again,
according
to
our
records
section,
zero,
jaywalking
arrests
in
march
of
this
year,
so
we
are
neutral
on
the
offense
being
a
civil
matter
and
we
hope
the
committee
takes
into
account
that
an
officer
in
the
field
needs
to
be
able
to
remain
and
have
the
ability
to
enforce
people
in
our
roadways.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
A
L
C
C
C
So
for
those
tens
of
thousands
of
people
who
are
facing
warrants
for
pedestrian
offenses
and
the
potential
for
a
thousand
more
that
would
surely
face
jail
this
year.
If
we
stay
at
the
rate
that
we've
been
jailing,
people
for
pedestrian
offenses,
I
urge
you
to
support
this
bill
and
decriminalize
jaywalking.
A
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
It
was
our
pleasure
to
present
this
assembly
bill
403
for
your
consideration
today.
As
you
can
hear
from
the
comments,
there
is
a
number
of
data
and
opinion
around
the
severity
of
this
issue.
We
agree
that
crossing
in
an
unsafe
manner
is
something
that
people
need
to
still
be
aware
of.
However,
criminalizing
this
penalty,
I
think,
is
something
that
we
certainly
can
move
away
from,
so
that
we're
looking
at
it
as
a
civil
offence.
K
We
look
forward
to
working
with
you,
mr
oren
litter,
to
identify
the
amount
of
the
fine,
because
really
that's
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
address
with
this
bill.
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
your
consideration
today,
and
we
urge
your
support
for
this
bill.
A
Great
thank
you
so
much
to
both
of
you
for
being
here
and
presenting
the
bill
this
morning.
We
certainly
appreciate
it
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
403
we'll
take
the
next
bill
on
the
agenda,
which
is
assembly
bill
407.
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
that
bill.
A
Assembly
bill
407
authorizes
the
issuance
of
an
order
for
protection
of
a
vulnerable
adult
and
before
I
turn
it
over
for
the
hearing,
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
for
members
of
the
committee
members
of
the
public.
There
are
a
couple
of
amendments
to
the
bill
that
are
included
on
nellis.
I
believe
both
of
those
are
considered
friendly
amendments,
but
we'll
get
confirmation
from
our
sponsor.
We
have
our
own
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
to
present
the
bill,
and
I
think
she
has
some
backup
with
her
as
well.
A
G
G
Considering
assembly
bill
407,
which
seeks
to
present
protect
vulnerable
adults
against
abuse,
exploitation
and
neglect
with
me
this
morning
is
jennifer
m
richards,
esquire,
chief
elder
and
disabilities
rights
attorney
and
tammy
seaver
social
services
chief,
both
from
the
aging
and
disabilities
division
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
assembly
bill
407,
was
recommended
from
the
legislative
committee
on
senior
citizens
veterans
and
adult
adults
with
special
needs
during
the
2019-2020
interim.
G
According
to
ms
richard's
presentation
on
september,
1st
2020
vulnerable
patients
are
particularly
susceptible
to
mental
and
emotional
abuse,
abandonment,
neglect,
isolation,
financial
control
and
other
types
of
control.
These
are
all
among
the
concerns.
All
of
these
facts.
Factors
are
known
to
be
associated
with
increased
risk
of
abuse.
G
Existing
law
in
nevada
does
provide
several
types
of
protection
orders
under
chapter
33
of
nrs,
however,
as
mitch,
miss
richards
and
miss
sivers
will
further
explain.
The
behavior
and
specific
relationship
are
required
to
seek
the
existing
protection
order
is
not
typically,
president
present.
In
cases
of
abuse
and
neglect
and
exploitation
of
vulnerable
adults,
as
a
chair
indicated,
we
do
have
two
friendly
amendments
that
are
listed
on
nellis.
In
addition,
there
are
a
few
fact
sheets
about
abuse
in
these
vulnerable
populations.
G
I
encourage
you
to
look
at
these
staggering
and
heartbreaking
numbers.
I
failed
to
mention
that
I
actually
served
as
vice
chair
on
that
interim
committee,
and
this
was
probably
some
of
the
most
heartbreaking
testimony
information
that
we
heard
during
the
interim.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
over
the
presentation
to
miss
richards
and
miss
severs,
who
will
discuss
further
than
for
the
need
for
ab407
and
present
the
sections
of
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
and
thank
you
members
of
the
committee
for
allowing
us
to
appear
this
morning.
I
would
also
like
to
know
we
have
with
us
this
morning:
carrie
embry,
who
is
the
governor's
consumer
health
advocate
and
the
former
chief
of
adult
protective
services.
M
Morning
for
the
record
and
tammy
saber
social
services
chief
for
adult
protective
services.
Last
session,
we
came
before
this
body
to
expand
our
program
to
include
all
vulnerable
adults
in
nevada.
As
a
result
of
that
legislative
change,
we
saw
an
immediate
increase
in
our
caseload
that
continues
to
rise.
M
Elder
abuse
has
been
referred
to
as
a
hidden
epidemic
in
the
united
states,
with
an
estimate
that
one
out
of
every
10
people,
age,
60
and
over
are
victims
of
caregiver
neglect,
financial
fraud
and
exploitation
and
or
psychological,
physical
and
sexual
abuse.
Every
year,
persons
with
cognitive
deficits
such
as
dementia
are
substantially
more
likely
to
be
victimized.
M
To
learn
more,
we
filed
exhibits
from
the
national
center
of
health
on
elder
abuse
aps
continues
to
see
an
increase
in
cases
so
far
for
fiscal
year,
2021
open
cases
through
february
28
2021,
adult
protective
services,
has
opened
5188
cases.
We
are
projected
for
fiscal
year
2021
of
7782.
M
As
of
this
morning
I
found
out
for
march
we
opened
752
cases
statewide
fiscal
year,
2020
aps
opened
7
421
cases
which
showed
an
increase
of
14
percent
after
our
expansion
to
a
full
aps
or
adult
protective
service
program.
M
In
addition
to
empowering
an
individual
to
seek
an
order
on
their
own
behalf,
this
bill
will
allow
adult
protective
services
to
act
as
petitioner
for
those
that
have
significant
physical,
mental
or
cognitive
limitations.
Having
the
adult
protective
service
worker,
assisting
the
client
will
remove
barriers
to
getting
help.
M
M
Her
husband
had
previously
taken
care
of
all
the
bills
and
shopping
for
the
three
of
them
after
her
husband's
death,
two
neighbors
befriended,
mrs
smith
and
john
buying
groceries
and
assisting
with
bill
payne
other
neighbors
became
concerned
with
the
couple
started,
isolating
both
joy
and
john
from
the
community
and
an
adult
protective
services
report
was
filed
during
the
investigation.
It
was
discovered
that
one
of
the
neighbors
convinced,
mrs
smith,
to
add
her
name
on
the
deed
to
the
home.
M
Access
to
both
the
mother
and
son's
bank
accounts
were
also
granted
during
this
time.
The
neighbor
also
diverted
funds
to
have
plastic
surgery.
Mrs
smith
was
further
preyed
upon
when
a
neighbor's
friend
moved
in
red
free,
while
she
paid
for
weekly
caregiving
services
when
no
care
was
provided,
he
was
also
using
illicit
drugs
in
the
home.
M
M
M
M
M
He
did
not
clearly
fall
within
existing
legal
protective
orders
and
because
of
his
cognitive
limitations,
it
was
difficult
to
get
help.
Months
later,
the
caregiver
was
finally
evicted
and
subsequently
a
guardianship
proceeding
commenced.
If
adult
protective
services
had
the
ability
to
obtain
a
protective
order.
M
Elder
abuse
and
more
broadly,
the
abuse
of
vulnerable
adults
is
a
serious
public
and
human
rights
issue
that
erodes
an
individual's
safety
and
dignity
for
vulnerable
adults.
Abuse
is
not
limited
to
physical
threats
of
violence
and
harm.
It
also
includes
mental
and
emotional
abuse,
abandonment,
neglect,
isolation,
financial
control
document,
control,
property
control
and
other
types
of
control
that
make
a
victim
more
likely
to
return
to
an
abuser
due
to
fear
of
retaliation
or
inability
to
meet
basic
needs.
D
Thank
you,
jennifer
richards,
for
the
record,
as
illustrated
by
receiver.
Existing
state
law
can
be
strengthened
to
fully
address
the
unique
needs
of
our
vulnerable
adult
population
throughout
the
state.
Currently,
28
states
and
territories
have
some
form
of
specialized
protective
order
that
provides
relief
to
this
population.
D
D
D
And
when
we
looked
at
the
50-state
survey,
we
felt
that
was
very
important
to
include,
because
for
some
of
these
individuals
their
pets
are
their
life
and
that
that
can
often
be
used
for
abuse
and
control.
D
A
H
I
I
will
try
to
do
that.
I
know
that
we
have
guardianship
already
so
one
what
type
of
due
process
rights
do
these
vulnerable
people
get
like
what
if
they
want
to
associate
with
someone
and
like
what,
what
kind
of
due
process
rights
do
they
get
I'll
start
there.
D
H
So
like,
under
current,
under
a
current
situation
under
a
current
guardianship,
you
have
to
have
a
licensed
physician
statement
in
this
case.
How
would
a
petitioner
establish
that
medical
need?
Would
it
just
be
hearsay?
H
Like
I
mean
it
seems
like
it
would
just
be
hearsay
or
a
lack
of
expertise
in
that
area
like
how
would
under
this
procedure?
How
would
you
establish
a
diagnosis
that
a
vulnerable
person
needs
like
assistance
with
activities
of
daily
living?
I
mean
we
have
those
kind
of
like
guidelines
and
protections
in
a
guardianship.
I
just
don't
see
how
that
works.
In
this
circumstances,.
D
Jennifer
richards
for
the
record,
I'm
happy
to
provide
some
of
the
other
state
statutes
for
you
to
review
and
discuss
with
me
for
ap
if
apf
was
to
act
as
petitioner
in
a
guardianship
proceeding
under
159.
Just
having
the
law
enforcement
report
from
aps
is
enough
to
petition
a
province
of
them
being
that
agency.
D
If
an
individual
individual's
over
60,
they
would
automatically
be
eligible
for
the
protective
order
just
by
basis
of
age
and
then
there's
some
other
criteria
in
section
3,
based
on
where
they're
living.
If
they
receive
personal
care,
that
would
also
qualify
them
for
the
order
and
that's
modeled
after
language,
in
our
sister
jurisdictions
of
california
and
washington
state,
as
well
as
oregon.
H
D
D
Our
setup
is
different.
When
we
consulted
with
the
national
adult
protective
services
agency,
they
actually
have
a
different
setup,
and
these
types
of
orders
are
built
into
a
different
mechanism,
so
we
did
adjust
this
to
be
nevada
specific
to
work
with
them
work
within
our
existing
statutory
framework.
But
there
are
individuals
that
would
be
eligible
for
the
protective
order
who
would
not
also
meet
the
criteria
for
guardianship.
J
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
I
also
have
a
few
questions.
If
that's
okay,
I
I
really
appreciate
this
bill
and
I'm
glad
that
that
it
was
brought
forward
from
the
interim
committee.
But
I
do
have
some
questions
and-
and
I
guess
procedural
concerns
so
first
I'll
start
off
in
six
sub.
Seven,
no
sorry
sub
eight
there's
the
term
personal,
and
I
would
just
ask
if
that's
not
a
statute.
If
we
were
for
ask
that
if
it
even
if
it
is
defined
instead
a
definition
of
personal
aid,
there.
G
J
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I
thank
you.
I
was
asking
about
at
the
end
at
section
sub,
eight
there's
the
term
personal
aid
and
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
defined
in
stat,
but
if
we
could
get
a
definition
for
that,
I
would
appreciate
it
at
least
for
the
in
the
in
the
stash
in
the
bill.
G
Yes,
that's
a
great
question:
shannon
bilbray
asks
rod
for
the
record
and
I
don't
believe
we
have
legal
with
us
correct
there.
So
I
can,
let
me
just
say
for
the
record:
we
this
bill
is
by
no
means
the
final
product.
I
literally
just
it
got
delivered
to
me
a
couple
days
ago,
and
so
there
have
been
a
number,
as
you
see,
there's
two
friendly
amendments,
I'm
also
in
talks
with
the
pd
and
nja
about
certain
sections
as
well.
G
So
anything
that
you
see
sort
of-
and
you
want
definitions-
we
can
definitely
do
that,
but
obviously
we
are
at
a
little
bit
of
a
time
crunch.
You
know,
but
we
have
a
week
so
so,
but
we
will
definitely
get
that
for
you.
If
that
is
okay
assembly
women
come.
J
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
then
also
in
section
7
sub
10,
it's
at
the
bottom
of
page
five.
I
would
just
ask
that
also
supportive
decision
making
be
considered.
J
Certainly
this
is
a
and
and
and
possibly
in
other
places
throughout
the
bill,
because
certainly
you
know,
we've
legalized
supported
decision
making,
and
I
think
for
that,
for
this
population
it
it
might
be
very
helpful
to
make
sure
that
if
they
do
trust
and
have
have
taken
advantage
of
our
supportive
decision
making
statutes
that
that's
included
in
this
I
mean
I'm
sorry,
I'm
just
trying
to
go
fast
to
make
sure
that
everyone
gets
a
chance,
and
I
know
we
have
another
bill
then.
J
My
my
next
question
is
is
also
a
big
concern
in
section
eight
there's
automatic
attorneys
fees
or
costs
and
costs
and
fees,
and
I
I
I
was
just
a
little
concerned
because
other
temporary
protective
orders
don't
come
with
automatic
fees.
J
G
Assemblyman
bill
react
squad
for
the
record.
I
I
think
I
the
dhhs,
wanted
to
speak
with
this.
I
am,
will
happily
work
with
you
assemblywoman
cone,
and
we
can
go
over
this
bill
a
little
bit
more
with
a
fine
tooth
comb,
if
that's
all
right
with
you,
but
dhhs
go
ahead
and
speak,
but
assemblywoman
cone
is
that
does
that
work?
For
you.
D
Jennifer
richards
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
that
was
not
that
provision
was
not
in
our
interim
presentation,
so
that
was
added
during
the
drafting
process.
So
we
don't
have
a
vested
interest
in
that
that
provision
and
are
willing
to
collaborate
to
get
the
bulk
of
the
bill
passed.
J
If
that's
an
issue,
thank
you
and
then
my
other
issue
that
I
just
addressed
that
we
don't
have
to
solve
today,
but
I
I
would
like
to
discuss
is
the
length
of
the
protective
orders
since
other
protective
orders
aren't
necessarily
you
know,
you
can't
get
a
five-year
tpo
from
your
spouse
or
former
spouse,
and
so
I
would
also
like
to
just
maybe
discuss
that
offline
so
and
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you,
chair
and,
and
again,
thank
you.
M
F
M
J
And
it
relates
to
the
immunity.
D
D
We
do
not
have
the
same
procedure
and
an
authority
that
an
agency
such
as
dcfs,
which
is
division
of
child
and
family
services,
has
so
that
provision
is
just
providing
that
aps
has
discretion
to
pursue
or
not
pursue
protective
orders
as
they
deem
appropriate
for
the
clients
that
they
serve,
and
that
will
be
on
a
case-by-case
basis
developed
by
the
staff
in
aps,
who
have
the
expertise
to
make
that
determination.
D
It's
to
prevent
someone
from
coming
and
saying
why
didn't
aps
file
a
protective
order
on
my
behalf,
because
it
should
be
within
the
sole
discretion
of
the
department,
whether
or
not
they
would
act
as
petitioner.
I
can
also
speak
to
the
bill.
Intent
is
to,
of
course,
work
with
our
legal
aid
providers
throughout
the
state.
D
D
C
N
Thank
you
cherryjager
and
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
for
bringing
this
bill.
N
I
do
have
a
question
about
how
this
works
as
far
as
reporting,
often
folks
with
physical
disabilities
and-
and
I
hear
a
lot
about
this
in
my
community-
have
in-home
health
care
workers
who
might
be
the
first
people
to
notice
if
there
is
abuse
or
suspicious
behavior
going
on
that
could
be
detrimental
to
this
vulnerable
population.
M
Hi,
this
is
tammy
seaver
for
the
record
and
yes,
home
homemade
health
health
personnel
are
mandated.
Reporters.
N
M
So
as
at
this
time,
for
the
record,
so
as
a
mandated
reporter
they're
reported
to
you,
know,
contact
our
office
and
make
the
report
a
case
would
be
open
and
a
social
aps,
worker
would
go
out
and
do
the
investigation,
and
that
would
be
the
termination
of
you
know
what
steps
the
in
the
investigation.
We
were,
what
we
were
going
to
proceed
with
and
that,
and
that
does
involve
talking
with
the
client
themselves,
and
you
know
what
what
their,
what
their
wishes
are.
M
N
Thank
you,
so
does
this
change
in
the
legislation
help
that
process
at
all.
M
Well,
this
this
is
tammy
seiber
for
the
record,
and
it
it
does
help
in
the
sense
where
time
we're
able
to
perhaps
alleviate
the
the
abusive
situation
sooner
and
assist
the
client
on
being
able
to
the
person's
living
with
them
is
to
be
able
to
get
them
out
of
that
home.
Quicker.
A
If
you
have
a
question,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand,
let
me
know
I'm
not
seeing
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
our
representatives
from
dhhs,
appreciate
you
presenting
the
bill.
We'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment.
While
we
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you
for
concluding
remarks.
A
M
We're
in
support
with
the
proposed
amendment
that
we
have
provided-
and
I
just
wanted
to
to
provide
some
information
on
that.
A
M
Absolutely
good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
be
here.
My
name
is
karen
kelly
and
I
am
the
clark
county
public
guardian.
As
mentioned
before.
This
amendment
has
been
uploaded
to
nellis
for
review
and
discussed
with
the
department.
This
amendment
specifically
modifies
section
two
of
section
seven,
to
b
by
providing
that
it
only
applies
to
counties
less
than
a
hundred
thousand.
Just
that
particular
section.
M
M
Gaining
access
to
such
documents
and
information,
which
is
incredibly
private
in
nature,
should
not
be
allowed
without
judicial
oversight,
as
a
person
has
not
yet
been
deemed
incompetent.
The
public
guardian's
office
as
a
governmental
agency
should
not
have
access
to
such
information
until
the
office
has
been
appointed
as
the
guardian.
In
order
for
us
to
develop
an
effective
case
plan.
M
If
the
public
guardian's
office
is
investigating
and
then
subsequently
petitioning
for
guardianship,
we
find
that
this
is
an
inherent
conflict.
The
public,
guardian's
role
is
really
not
to
determine
who
in
the
community
specifically
needs
a
guardian.
The
burden
of
that
proof
on
whether
or
not
a
guardianship
is
required
falls
on
the
petitioner
and
the
court,
not
our
office.
M
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
kelly,
and
it
did
look
like
you
were
reading
from
something.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
submitting
those
remarks
to
our
committee
manager
that
will
help
them
transcribe
the
minutes.
A
L
C
The
first
thing
I
want
to
say
is:
I
am
not
an
attorney,
please
do
not
ask
me
any
of
the
technical
questions
that
have
been
discussed
right
now,
but
I
want
to
talk
about.
Is
the
need
for
this
and
what
this
does?
These
are
our
moms
and
dads,
our
grandmas
and
grandpas,
who
have
lived
their
whole
lives.
C
They
have
worked
hard,
they
have
raised
their
kids,
they
have
paid
taxes,
we
had
senior
issues
day
last
week
and,
as
I'm
speaker,
fryerson
said,
these
are
people
who
have
paid
their
dues
and
they
truly
have
now
they
find
themselves
in
the
position
where
they
need
a
little
more
help.
How
about?
If
I
say
they
need
a
little
more
protection,
they
need
a
little
more
protection
and
that's
exactly
what
this
bill
is
intended
to
do
is
to
allow
that
to
happen
and
allow
that
protection
to
them.
C
So
they
can
protect
their
assets,
their
lives
and
everything
else.
That's
important
to
them.
So
aarp
strongly
is
in
favor
of
the
concept
of
this
bill.
You've
heard
how
it's
spreading
across
the
country
more
and
more
states
every
year
are
passing
something
like
this.
So
please
consider
that
these
are
the
people
who
have
paid
their
dues
and
they
really
need
this
help
and
this
protection
so
aarp
on
behalf
of
our
345
000
members
across
the
state,
strongly
support
this
bill
and
urge
you
to
pass
it.
Thank
you.
A
L
C
Good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
marlene
lockard,
l
l-o-c-k-a-r-d,
representing
the
retired
public
employees
of
nevada.
We
are
in
strong
support
of
this
measure.
We
think
it
is
a
continuing
piece
of
legislation
to
add
to
the
protections
of
our
seniors
and
many
of
our
nearly
8
000
members
of
our
pen.
We
appreciate
the
bill
sponsor
and
bringing
this
bill
forward,
and
we
thank
you
for
your
continued
oversight
and
protection
of
this
vulnerable
population.
A
A
L
I
Mr
chairman,
this
is
matthew
sharp
for
the
nevada
justice
association
and
I
am
speaking
in
limited
opposition
to
the
bill
and
specifically
as
to
section
7,
subpart
4,
which
provides
for
absolute
immunity
to
the
state
for
any
wrongful
act.
That
is
committed
by
the
state
in
the
in
the
enforcement
of
this
particular
bill.
And
our
position
would
be
that
that's
excessive.
I
A
A
A
I
John
pirro
for
the
record.
Thank
you
chairman
yeager.
We
are
in
neutral.
We
spoke
with
the
bill's
sponsor
and
we
are
grateful
for
speaking
with
their
our
we're
neutral,
because
we
would
have
to
move
to
opposition
if
the
amendment
wasn't
accepted,
but
we
are
in
discussions
with
assemblywoman
bill,
gray,
axelrod
and
she's
going
to
accept
the
amendment.
Our
issue
with
the
bill
lies
in
section
7,
77,
subsection
9c,
that
creates
a
new
tpo
penalty
structure.
I
Last
session,
we
worked
on
ab19
with
the
ag's
office
and
the
da's
office
that
outlined
the
penalty
structure
for
tpos
and
epos
in
nrs
33.100,
and
so
we're
just
asking
to
keep
the
same
penalty
structure
that
we
worked
on
from
last
session.
We
fully
agree
and
support
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
protecting
vulnerable
people
are
issues
only
with
the
penalty
structure
and
that's
it
and
we
believe
that
we're
going
to
get
it
worked
out.
A
L
H
C
H
Add
for
the
record
that
we
are
proposing
for
the
tpo.
C
And
the
epo
the
extended
order
penalties
to
mirror
what
is
currently
an
nrs
33
point
100..
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention.
L
C
C
Given
the
fact
that
clark
county
has
submitted
a
friendly
amendment
to
this
bill,
we
would
like
to
just
state
that
we
are
in
support
of
that
friendly
amendment
that
clark
county
has
submitted
and,
for
the
sake
of
time,
just
echo
the
comments
that
miss
karen
kelly
gave
to
the
committee
this
morning.
C
C
While
I
think
that
there
is
an
interest
in
expanding
the
current
definition
by
law,
because
the
aps
does
serve
individuals
from
18
to
60.
Now
we
are
interested
in
looking
at
if
that
definition
is
too
broad
a
definition,
and
we
would
be
happy
to
work
with
members
that
are
working
on
this
bill
to
get
this
where
it
needs
to
be.
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
and
before
we
go
back
to
our
presenters,
I
did
just
want
to
say
we
obviously
had
some
neutral
testimony
where
there
were
some
concerns
expressed.
Normally.
I
think
I
would
recategorize
that
as
opposition,
but
I
do
realize
the
bills
are
coming
out
pretty
fast
and
furious
and
they're
getting
heard
very
quickly.
So
I
believe
that
neutral
testimony
was
in
the
spirit
of
we
believe
we're
going
to
get
there,
but
we'll
just
continue
to
ask
everyone
involved
in
the
bill
to
try
to
work
on
those
issues.
A
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
I
know
we
have
another
bill
to
listen
to,
but
I
just
I
I
will
say
in
the
spirit
of
of
the
neutral
folks.
We
will
do
everything
possible
to
get
there.
So
so
thank
you
for
your
time,
committee
and
and
hopefully
well
I'll,
see
you
soon.
A
D
Thank
you,
terry
yeager.
This
is
jennifer
richards
for
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
respond
that
we're
trying
to
cast
a
wide
net,
so
no
one
gets
left
behind
that
needs
this
help
and
we're
willing
to
work
on
the
fine
points
of
the
bill,
because
the
intent
and
the
goal
is
what
matters
and
there's
a
huge
need
in
our
community
for
this
protection
order.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
richards,
your
colleagues
there
and
assembly
member
bilbray
axelrod
appreciate
your
time
this
morning.
Hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
I
will
close
the
hearing
now
on
assembly
bill
407
and
I
will
be
presenting
the
first
bill
on
the
agenda,
which
I
hopefully
will
not
take
us
very
long.
So
I'm
going
to
hand
the
virtual
gavel
over
to
vice
chairwin,
and
I
will
take
the
virtual
presentation
table.
H
A
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
hardest
working
committee.
In
the
building
for
the
record,
I
am
steve
yeager
representing
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas.
I
am
honored
to
present
assembly
bill
394
to
you
this
morning,
as
some
of
you
may
recall,
at
least
those
of
you
who
were
in
the
building
last
session.
A
The
purpose
of
that
provision
was
to
improve
responses
to
people
in
crisis
by
allowing
behavioral
health
professionals,
either
by
telephone
or
video,
to
assist
law
enforcement
to
de-escalate
stabilize
and
resolve
crisis
situations
that
are
happening
out
in
the
field.
In
other
words,
the
program
allows
for
mobile
crisis
teams
to
operate
via
video
or
phone.
That's
particularly
important
in
our
more
rural
areas
of
the
state
where
sometimes
the
nearest
mental
health
provider
could
be
very
far
away,
sometimes
even
hundreds
of
miles
away.
A
So
this
bill
in
front
of
you
well
before
I
get
there,
I
guess
I'll
say
as
noted,
we
didn't
fund
that
program.
We
established
it
in
assembly
bill
236,
but
it
was
subject
to
available
funds.
So
I
have
some
good
news.
We
have
identified
and
located
a
grant
funder
interested
in
investing
in
a
program
like
a
mobile
crisis
response
in
the
state
of
nevada
through
a
multi-year
grant
to
prepare
for
the
likelihood
of
securing
this
funding.
A
In
this
case
and
as
the
bill
states,
immunity
only
extends
to
those
situations
in
which
the
mobile
crisis
response
team
member
is
acting
in
good
faith
and
their
actions
are
not
considered
to
constitute
gross
negligence
or
willful
wanton
or
intentional
misconduct.
So
this
is
not
blanket
immunity
and,
in
the
other
section
of
the
bill,
there's
currently
no
statutory
definition
for
mobile
crisis
intervention
services
in
our
state,
so
assembly
bill
394
on
the
I
guess
on
page
two.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
It
was
so
quick
and
so
thorough
that
I
haven't
received
any
messages
from
people,
so
I
am
just
going
to
be
looking
at
the
screen.
I
see
assemblywoman
krasner
waving
that
she
has
a
question,
so
I
will
go
to
her
first.
C
H
Well,
I
thank
you
for
that.
I
will
keep
that
in
mind
and
if
we
have
some
follow-up
questions
after
testimony
and
support
opposition
in
neutral,
we
will
go
back
to
you
at
that
time.
Are
there
any?
Are
there
any
people
that
you
would
like
me
to
ask
to
stay
on
the
line?
To
answer
any
of
those
questions?
Do
you
anticipate.
A
H
Okay
broadcast
services,
this
time,
if
we
can
start
begin
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
394,
I
remind
callers
to
please
clearly
state
your
name
for
the
record
before
speaking,
and
please
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes
and
with
that
we
can
begin
testimony
and
support.
L
C
H
L
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
They
should
be
trained
to
deal
with
people
who
are
customers
who
may
or
may
not
have
mental
disorders,
but
they
shouldn't
be
given
immunity
for
their
negligent
acts.
So
I
think
that
in
some
I
mean
nobody
is
against
the
concept
of
of
a
mobile
crisis
intervention
service
to
provide
service
to
our
community,
but
it
should
be
done
so
and
responsible
and
fair
manner,
and
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I'll
answer,
any
questions.
L
E
Hello,
this
is
chuck
callaway,
c-a-l-l-a-w-a-y
p-number,
I'm
sorry
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
I'm
so
used
to
saying
my
badge
number
after
my
name,
so
I
apologize
for
that.
I'm
here
neutral
today
on
the
bill.
E
H
Thank
you,
mr
callaway
broadcast
services.
Do
we
have
anyone
else
on
the
line
in
neutral
to.
H
Thank
you.
I
will
turn
this
back
over
to
the
committee
to
see
if
we
have
any
follow-up
questions,
especially
based
on
that
potential.
Opposite,
that's
my
potential,
the
opposition
testimony
I'm
kind
of
looking
around.
N
Thank
you
vice
chairwin
and
chair
yeager
for
the
presentation.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
we
are
speaking
of
as
officer
calloway.
I
mentioned
those
folks
who
are
going
out
in
the
capacity
of
helping
to
respond,
which
is
why
I'm
reading
in
the
bill
two
crisis
situations
involving
the
police.
You
mentioned
post
behavioral
health
bill
236
from
last
time,
where
you
wanted
the
escalation
so
we're
speaking
specifically
about
those
folks
and
that
they're,
I
think
they're
called
them
most
teams.
N
We
have
them
in
in
west
las
vegas
to
help
us
with
issues
when
we
have
homeless
or
folks
with
having
mental
health
crises
and
to
help
get
them
help.
Is
that
correct.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record
that
that
is
correct.
It
is
a
focus
on
trying
to
help
law
enforcement
deal
with
some
of
the
more
difficult
calls
that
they
respond
to
which
typically
involve
people
who
are
experiencing
a
mental
health
crisis.
So
the
idea
is
that
there
would
be
a
behavioral
health
professional
available
likely
by
phone
or
by
ipad,
to
be
able
to
sort
of
virtually
step
in
and
help
on
that.
A
That
call
so
we're
talking
about
those
individuals
who
are
providing
that
you
know
sort
of
in
the
field,
but
through
virtual
means,
crisis
intervention.
That's
who
the
bill
is
intended
to
encapsulate.
N
Madame
vice
chair,
if
I
may
follow
up
go
ahead,
would
this
also
apply
if
there
was
a
person,
a
it
and
a
person
to
assist
in
person?
I
know
at
originally.
This
is
new
to
me
that
there
would
be
a
virtual,
but
I
know
that
some
I
was
hearing
through
my
community
that
they
actually
had
people
in
person
going
in
on
the
most
team.
Would
that
also
apply
to
them.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
It
indeed
would,
I
think,
maybe
the
confusion
is
we
call
it
a
mobile
crisis
unit,
so
you
know
the
idea
just
being
that
the
behavioral
health
professional
is
being
transported
to
the
scene,
whether
it
be
the
actual
person's
being
transported
or
it's
through
audio
visual
technology.
So
it
would
include
those
individuals
well
who
are
interfacing
face-to-face
with
those
who
are
experiencing
a
mental
health
issue.
N
H
A
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee,
steve
yeager,
for
the
record.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
opposition,
and
I
think
everyone
who
knows
me
knows
that
I'm
generally
not
in
favor
of
immunity.
I
believe
our
civil
justice
system
requires
people
to
pay
for
their
acts
of
negligence.
Generally
agree
with
that.
A
I
I
think
here
maybe
a
situation
where
we
want
to
provide
some
limited
immunity
and
and
really
here's
why
these
are
really
difficult
calls
for
law
enforcement
to
have
to
respond
to,
and
certainly
not
a
knock
on,
law
enforcement,
because
we
we
expect
them
to
do
a
lot
out
in
the
field,
but
you
know
over
the
course
of
the
last
couple
of
decades.
A
I
think
not
just
here
in
nevada
but
nationwide,
there
really
been
some
very
public
events
of
situations
just
escalating
in
a
way
that
I
think
everyone
would
agree
they
didn't
have
to
escalate
and
a
lot
of
those
are
due
to
folks
who
are
experiencing
a
mental
health
crisis
experiencing
results
of
illicit
drug
use,
and
so
the
concern
here
is,
you
know
we.
A
And
that
is
usually
not
the
most
effective
means
for
treatment.
It
is
the
most
expensive
means
for
treatment
and
in
the
rural
communities.
It's
a
big
problem,
because
if
you
have
to
take
someone
to
a
mental
health
facility,
you
might
be
driving
for
three
hours,
and
that
is
an
officer
that
we
are
taking
off
of
the
streets
to
do
a
mental
health
transport.
A
So
we
all,
I
think,
have
an
interest
in
making
sure
that
if
we
can
get
the
person
immediate
help,
if
we
can
get
them
to
agree
to
take
medications
to
be
with
family
members,
that's
a
service,
that's
very,
very
valuable,
and
so
I
bring
this
bill.
Although,
contrary
to
my
normal
belief
on
these
issues,
because
I
think
it's
going
to
be
important
for
us
to
have
this
provision
to
ensure
that
we
can
actually
find
providers
that
want
to
provide
these
services
and
again,
we
are
looking
at
potentially
receiving
grant
money
no
strings
attached.
A
That
will
provide
for
funding
for
us
to
be
able
to
do
this.
So
hopefully
that
answers
the
questions.
You
know
I'll
continue
to
work
with
the
opposition
to
see
if
there's
some
kind
of
compromise
that
can
be
reached,
but
I
would
really
hate
for
nevada
to
lose
out
on
what
is
a
very
exciting
opportunity
in
the
next
year
or
two,
and
I
simply
don't
believe
we
can
wait
until
next
session,
because
that
opportunity
will
be
lost.
So
with
that.
Madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee.
A
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
for
handling
that
hearing
for
us
committee
members.
This
means
we've
gotten
through
our
agenda
items.
As
far
as
bills
are
concerned.
We
do
have
one
more
item,
which
is
public
comment.
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
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
bps.
L
C
My
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
killed
by
reno
police
officers,
jorge
parisio,
christopher
goode,
mac
david
tallman,
and
so
I
wanted
to
read
something
that
I
received
from
somebody
who
actually
had
an
encounter
in
january
with
officer
maxwell,
who
was
one
of
the
four
reno
police
who
hogtied
my
non-aggressive
mentally
ill
brother,
who
was
in
a
mental
health
crisis,
and
what
it
says
is
this
is
about
reno,
pd
and
officer
maxwell,
reno
pd
tried
to
kill
me
officers,
lupe
and
maxwell.
They
tried
setting
me
up
with
drugs
that
had
that
had
no
idea.
C
I
knew
what
was
going
on.
I
saw
what
they
were
doing.
They
surrounded
me,
seven
of
them.
Those
two
maxwell
and
lupe
were
the
main
ones
trying
to
do
the
setup.
I
didn't
let
myself
get
set
up.
I
told
him
to
stop
harassing
me.
They
started
beating
me
up
a
witness
jumped
in
she
was
beaten
up
too
it's
in
a
statement
after
me
surrendering
and
saying
please
stop
maxwell
stood
up
in
front
of
me
and
lupe
still
behind
me.
I
felt
a
gun
barrel.
C
Realizing
that
I
remembered
everything
they
asked
immigration
to
deport
me,
knowing
that
there
were
cameras
in
walgreens
on
kiskee
near
atlantis.
They
erased
all
the
evidence,
so
that
same
officer
was
one
who
hogged
had
my
brother.
I
am
going
to
put
in
a
public
records
request
to
that
body.
Cam
footage
of
this
incident
with
that
man
and
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
share
the
results
that
I
get
with
you.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
L
C
C
A
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything.
One
thing
I
did
want
to
say
before
we
talk
about
the
schedule
is
I
wanted
to
wish
a
very
happy
11th
birthday
to
henry
who
is
the
son
of
our
vice
chair
wynn?
It
is
henry's
birthday
today
and
he
is
up
here
in
northern
nevada
spending
time
with
his
family
and
with
his
mother.
So
henry,
if
you're
out
there-
and
you
hear
us-
we
hope
you
have
a
really
great
birthday
today.
Hopefully
you
get
a
big
helping
of
cake,
donuts
pie,
whatever
you
want
happy
birthday
so
committee.
A
Thank
you
for
this
morning.
I
know
we
took
a
little
while
to
get
through
everything.
While
we
were
in
committee,
we
had
agendas
posted
so
as
of
right
now
we
have
agendas
posted
for
friday
and
then
monday,
through
thursday
of
next
week.
We
are
going
to
have
a
meeting
next
friday,
then
probably
be
a
large
work
session,
but
we
don't
have
the
agenda
yet
because
we're
figuring
out
what
we're
going
to
work
session.
A
So
far,
all
the
agendas
list,
an
8
o'clock
start
and,
as
you
saw
from
today,
we're
probably
going
to
need
that
extra
time.
So
I
would
love
to
give
you
a
little
bit
more
time
in
the
morning,
but
hopefully
we
can
do
that
after
next
week,
when
we
get
through
our
deadline.
Tomorrow
morning,
I'm
going
to
be
presenting
the
consumption
lounge
bill,
so
that
should
be
a
pretty
fun
hearing
for
a
friday
morning
and
just
just
by
way
of
preview.
A
There
are
some
amendments,
we're
working
on
on
that
bill
and
I'll
make
sure
to
get
those
out
to
you
all
of
you
sometime
later
today.
So
you
have
a
chance
to
look
at
those.
It
is
not
a
complete
rewrite
of
the
bill,
though,
so
it
shouldn't
be
too
difficult
to
get
through
so
8
o'clock
tomorrow,
8
o'clock,
the
rest
of
next
week.
Until
then,
I
hope
you
all
have
a
great
day
and
again,
pat
yourself
on
the
back.
A
We
are
through
halfway
60
of
120
and
if
you
haven't
yet,
you
should
all
be
receiving
a
small
treat
from
myself
and
assemblywoman
hansen
who
she
is
holding
it
up
in
front
of
the
screen.
So
congratulations
on
getting
halfway
through
we'll
see
you
tomorrow
morning,
back
in
this
committee
at
8
a.m.
This
meeting
is.