►
From YouTube: 4/27/2021 - 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
A
Here
please
mark
assemblyman
or
liquor
absent
excuse
for
the
moment
he
will
be
here
shortly
and
when
he
arrives,
please
mark
him
as
present.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city
good
morning
to
those
on
the
zoom
with
us
and
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet.
A
A
That
would
be
much
appreciated
and
when
you
come
to
the
table
to
testify,
please
be
sure
to
turn
the
microphone
on
to
state
your
name
before
you
speak
and
then
to
turn
the
microphone
off
when
you
were
done
speaking
for
those
who
are
on
the
zoom,
if
you
could
please
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
in
addition,
if
you
could
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
that
will
help
our
committee
secretaries
prepare
accurate
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
and
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
acceptable,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
this
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly
of
our
very
hard
working
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
are
using
multiple
devices
to
access
the
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
A
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
various
times
throughout
this
morning's
meeting
with
those
behind
us
we're
going
to
go
to
our
agenda,
I
am
going
to
take
the
bills
slightly
out
of
order,
because
we
do
have
senator
settlemyre
with
us
here
this
morning,
and
I
know
he
has
a
lot
going
on
as
do
the
rest
of
us.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
94
in
its
first
reprint.
A
D
Thank
you,
chairman,
yeager
and
committee
on
judiciary.
My
name
is
senator
settlemyer.
I
represent
senate
district
17,
all
of
douglas
all
the
lion,
all
churchill
and
all
of
story
county
in
that
respect.
This
is
not
a
new
issue
for
this
committee,
to
say
the
least.
This
started
a
long
time
ago
when
we
ran
into
some
issues
where
people
were
trespassing
on
private
property,
but
because
it
wasn't
appropriately
marked
they
felt
and
they
were
actually
getting
away
with
it.
D
D
Well,
then,
some
people
decided
they
wanted
to
stick
in
another
bill
dealing
with
locked
gates,
because
we
also
have
a
problem
on
public
roads
where
sometimes
people
will
put
a
lock
on
it
and
that's
wrong.
It's
a
public
road,
even
though
it
traverses
through
private
property.
So
we
put
a
bill
in
last
session.
That
said,
also
that
you
can't
lock
public
road
off
well,
unfortunately,
the
language
came
out
so
tight
that
it
says
you
can't
have
an
encumbrance
on
a
road
in
any
way,
shape
or
form.
D
D
D
You
can
open
the
gate
drive
through
it
on
through
somebody's
private
property,
because
again
they
do
have
a
public
road
through
their
private
property.
That's
all
it's
about
now,
of
course,
when
it
started
out,
it
had
a
much
different
rendition
because,
of
course,
I
involved
my
local
da
and
he
was
trying
to
solve
the
world,
and
then
my
d.a
got
did
not
necessarily
agree
with
another
da
who
didn't
agree
with
the
cattlemen's
association
or
didn't
agree
with
the
county
commissioners
who
didn't
agree?
D
Overall
opinion
is
bring
your
own,
I'm
just
trying
to
simply
state
that
an
individual
has
private
property,
has
the
right
to
have
the
gate
they've
always
had,
and
that
gate
does
not
constitute
a
nuisance,
because
some
of
these
counties
are
starting
to
say.
Okay,
you
need
to
take
down
that
gate.
It's
been
there
for
20
30
years,
again
kind
of
hard
to
have
animals
on
property
without
a
gate.
A
Thank
you
so
much
senator
settlemyre,
and
indeed
I
remember-
we've
been
building
on
this
concept
since
at
least
2017
when
I
started
in
this
committee-
and
it
may
have
been
before
that,
so
you
are
becoming
a
regular
fixture
here
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
after
first
house
passage
just
a
quick
question.
I
had,
and
I
don't
want
to
relitigate
what
was
done
in
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
but
I
had
a
chance
to
sort
of
look
back
and
see
how
the
bill
started
and
looked
like.
D
Correct
and
thank
you
for
that,
chairman
yeager
and
james
selmar
again
for
the
record.
What
it
started
out
is
that
the
counties
wanted
to
try
to
address
what
you're
called
sr27
public
access,
roads
and
all
other
public
roads
that
are
within
a
community,
and
they
wanted
to
try
to
delineate
that
and
get
into
the
authorization
of
who
had
the
authority
to
state
whether
there
was
a
gate,
not
a
gate
when
that
authority
occurred
and
wanting
to
retrace
the
entire
lineage
of
that
particular
piece
of
property,
going
back
to
the
deeds
or
patents
or
all
that.
D
E
Wheeler,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
senator,
as
you
know,
as
you're.
Well
aware,
our
district's,
my
district,
is
encompassed
in
yours
and
I
get
some
comments.
I
should
say
not
nice
comments,
but
some
comments
from
some
of
our
ranchers
etc.
That
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
finally
bringing
this
forward,
and
hopefully
this
will
actually
solve
the
problem.
Okay,
thanks.
F
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
morning
senator
it's
good
to
see
you,
and
I
too
am
grateful
for
this
bill.
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
sb
316
that
passed
in
2019,
but,
yes,
it
did
have
some
some
things
that
needed
to
be
clarified
and
then
just
for
the
body's
edification
and
those
listening
remind
all
of
us
what
the
rule
is
about
a
gate
in
nevada
when
you
come
across
the
gate.
What
are
you
supposed
to
do
with
that
gate?.
D
In
my
world,
the
senator
settlemyre
in
my
world,
you
leave
it
how
you
found
it
simply
put.
Sometimes
an
agriculturalist
may
have
left
that
gate
open
because
they're
going
to
be
moving
cattle
through
it,
so
they'll
come
down
to
draw
and
they
expected
that
gate
to
be
where
they
left
it
and
it
was
open
and
they
come
all
the
way
down
and
it's
shut,
and
that
can
create
some
rather
large
problems.
So
my
adage,
is
you
leave
it?
How
you
found
it
now?
D
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
in
and
giving
a
little
bit
of
context.
While
I
was
here
in
2017,
I
did
not
have
the
pleasure
of
serving
on
this
committee.
F
So
when
I
was
reading
this
bill
last
night,
I
immediately
my
mind,
went
to
an
unlock
gate
and
something
in
clark
county
like
someone
with
a
pool
perhaps
and
an
unlocked
gate,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
this
statute-
and
I
that
I
just
don't
know
enough-
would
have
any
sort
of
unintended
consequences
pop,
possibly
with
public
safety,
especially
for
children.
D
I
appreciate
that
the
center
somewhere
for
the
record
this
is
dealing
with
the
incurrence
of
what
are
called
public
roads.
So
that's
what
the
bill
is
all
about,
so
again
on
people's
private
property.
They
will
have
an
easement
on
there
or
a
right-of-way
to
have
a
public
road
through
it.
Now
in
some
of
those
instances,
though,
for
years
you've
had
a
gate
on
it,
so
people
have
the
right
to
drive
up
on
this
public
road,
get
out
open.
The
gate
drive
through
shut
the
gate
and
keep
going.
D
So
that's
what
the
intent
of
the
bill
and,
unfortunately,
even
with
the
language
we
had
last
time,
it
said
no
encumbrances,
so
I
had
people
like
well,
I
got
a
cattle
guard
and
that's
not
a
gate.
Can
I
have
the
cattle
guard
and
some
of
the
da's
were
saying?
Well,
no,
not
really
it
says
no
encumbrance
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
D
D
Where
you
don't
have
a
public,
easement
or
a
right
of
way
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
that's
what
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
just
those
unique
situations,
sometimes
those
situations
get
created
by
the
government.
I
have
one
piece
of
property
that
has
a
highway
through
the
middle
of
it
didn't
start
out
that
way,
but
you
know
a
long
time
ago
it
used
to
be
a
toll
road
where
it
was
actually
designed
to
be
on
the
edge
of
the
property
well
toll
roads
were
designed
to
go
by
houses.
D
Well,
once
you
started
having
cars
go
over
25-30
miles
an
hour.
You
really
didn't
like
the
idea
of
having
the
cars
right
by
your
house,
so
they
agreed
to
just
actually
donate
some
property
per
se
and
put
395
through
the
center
of
the
ranch.
Now
it's
also
humorous
with
that
is
no
one's
ever
done.
Any
paperwork
I
still
actually
own
all
of
it
so
but
that'd
be
the
last
thing
I
don't
want
to
try
to
do
on.
395
is
put
up
a
toll
road.
E
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
the
spill.
I
have
a
couple
questions
not
about
what
you're
trying
to
do,
but
because
we
see
all
the
statutory
language,
I
noticed
some
rather
archaic
provisions
that
would
be
nice
to
delete
as
long
as
we've
got
the
spill.
So
if
you
look
on
page
two
and
the
first
one's
on
line
13
the
subsection
g,
where
vagrants
resort
now,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
that's
intended
to
get
at,
but
I
could
see
it
being
misused
against
homeless
people.
E
D
Thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
the
question
as
a
senator
settlemeyer
for
the
record
in
that
respect,
I'm
not
familiar
why
those
particular
things
were
put
into
law
and
I
would
be
remiss
to
agree
to
take
something
out
that
may
have
been
there
for
a
particular
reason.
That
would
then,
if
I
was
to
agree
to
take
out
that
would
really
make
the
da's
happy
with
me.
D
In
that
respect,
and
as
I
indicated
earlier
to
me,
it's
always
a
situation.
Of
course.
This
bill
is
in
your
committee
and
you
guys
can
do
whatever
you
want.
You
have
the
jurisdiction.
You
have
the
power
and
authority.
I
always
suggest
so
that
people
bring
their
own
rules
and
their
own
bills
in
order
to
try
to
tamper
with
things,
because
sometimes
what
seems
like
a
real,
simple
thing.
Well,
that
shouldn't
be
there.
D
Let's
delete
that
and
then
you
find
out
that
the
reason
they
put
in
the
public
decency
thing
is:
you
had
some
unscrupulous
people
that
were
on
public
property
next
to
a
school,
doing
some
very
unpleasant
things
and
I'd
hate
to
find
out
that
that
was
in
there
for
a
particular
reason,
and
I
agreed
to
take
it
out
as
far
as
where
reagan's
resort.
I
have
no
idea
why
that
particular
one
is
in
there.
D
It
could
be
a
situation
where
potentially,
the
law
enforcement
or
the
da's
or
someone
needed
the
ability
or
they
were
having
people
congregate,
and
they
were
creating
problems
such
as
fires
or
things
of
that
nature.
It
just
gave
them
the
ability
not
that
they
rousted
them
but
or
created
a
problem.
So
I
do
not
know
I
would
be
remiss
without
having
to
actually
go
back
and
research
where
those
came
in
and
talk
to
the
da's,
and
I
can
do
that
on
those
particular
two
for
you
and
try
to
report
back
their
general
temperature.
A
Okay,
before
we
take
testimony,
I
did
want
to
tell
you
senator
settlemyre
that
last,
I
think
was
after
last
session.
I
had
the
chance
to
do
my
state
parks
tour
and
I
had
the
pleasure
of
driving
from
elko
to
garbage,
and
so
I
got
a
very
first-hand
view
of
the
bills
that
we've
been
working
on
here
in
terms
of
gates,
fences
signs
cattle
running
across
the
road,
so
it
was,
it
was
quite
an
experience
and
I
want
to
let
assemblywoman
hansen
know
I
did
not.
I
did
not
tamper
with
any
gates.
A
I
left
them
exactly
as
I
found
them.
So
if
this
guy
from
southern
nevada
can
figure
that
out,
hopefully
everyone
else
in
the
state
can
figure
that
out.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
senator.
What
we'll
do
is
ask
you
to
step
back
for
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
you
come
back
up
for
concluding
remarks
when
we're
finished
with
the
testimony.
D
I
appreciate
that
chairman
yeager.
In
that
respect,
I
think
you
bring
up
a
very
valid
point.
I
think
it's
moving
upon
all
of
us
to
travel
into
each
other's
districts
break
some
bread,
maybe
even
try
to
talk
with
other
legislators
and
get
to
know
one
another,
because,
unfortunately,
in
this
cycle
we
have
nowadays
we
don't
have
the
time
to
do.
C
A
G
G
We
appreciate
senator
settelmeier
working
with
us
on
the
senate
side.
We
were
one
of
the
groups
that
when
the
bill
first
came
out,
we
did
feel
it
was
overly
broad.
We
did
work
out
closely
with
senator
settlement,
senator
hansen
last
session
on
sb
316,
and
you
know
thought
that
was
a
very
important
bill
for
public
access
to
public
lands,
and
we
think
that
the
bill
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
today
is
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
of
that
bill,
making
sure
that
we
clarify
that.
Yes,
a
gate
is
allowed.
G
It
is
important
for
people
that
do
work
out
on
our
public
lands,
but
that
people
still
have
the
ability
to
get
through
that.
So
we
think
this
bill
is
consistent
with
that
bill
that
that
we
that
we
were
supportive
of
last
session.
We
appreciate
the
senator
working
with
us
this
session
and
we
are
in
support
of
the
bill
is
written
now.
Thank
you.
A
H
H
I
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley
s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y
and
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association,
we're
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
94
and
appreciate
senator
settlemyre,
bringing
this
important
bill
today,
as
this
proposes
to
alleviate
the
kind
of
conflicts
our
sheriff's
office
deal
with
quite
regularly
regarding
access
throughout
the
state,
we
would
ask
that
this
bill
be
considered
in
the
version
that
it
is
in.
We
thank
this
committee
for
considering
it.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
H
J
Martin,
paris,
m-a-r-t-I-n-p-a-r-I-s
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
again
this
is
martin
paris,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
cattlemen's
association,
I'm
calling
in
today
in
support
of
sb
94
and
appreciate
senator
settlemyre's
efforts
on
the
bill.
Sb
94
seeks
to
clarify
that
a
private
property
owner
can
place
an
unlocked
gate
across
a
public
road
without
it
being
considered
a
public
nuisance.
This
bill
is
in
response
to
sb
316
past
last
session,
which
made
it
a
public
nuisance
for
any
person
to
prevent
or
obstruct
free
passage
on
public
roads
that
cross
through
private
property.
J
We
believe
that
the
intent
of
three
sb
316
was
to
stop
private
landowners
from
locking
gates
and
not
allowing
access
on
public
roads
that
cross
through
private
property,
which
is
appropriate.
However,
the
way
nrs
202.450
reads,
currently
fencing
or
otherwise
enclosing
a
public
road
that
passes
through
private
property
is
a
public
nuisance.
J
H
K
Good
morning,
terry
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
e-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
This
morning,
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
my
office
as
well
as
for
john
pure
with
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
want
to
thank
senator
settlemyer
for
working
with
us
on
this
bill.
He
was
able
to
alleviate
our
concerns
with
the
current
revision
of
the
bill
that
you
see
before
you.
K
A
A
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
opposition
testimony.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
neutral
testimony.
Is
there
anybody
in
carson
city
who'd
like
to
testify
neutral
on
the
bill?
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
neutral
bps.
Could
we
go
back
to
the
phones
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there?
Please.
H
H
I
A
Yes,
mr
ortiz,
so
just
give
me
one
minute:
I'm
going
to
close
neutral
testimony
for
the
moment,
I'm
going
to
move
back
to
opposition
I'll,
reopen
opposition.
Please
go
ahead!
Mr
ortiz.
I
Chair
yeager,
I
do
apologize
for
that,
but
thank
you
also
for
giving
us
a
couple
minutes
to
speak.
Clark
county
opposes
senate
bill
94..
I
do
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
senator
senator
settlemeyer
for
taking
time
to
discuss
our
concerns
today.
I
I
It
also
conflicts
with
nrs
202.450,
subsection
5,
which
makes
it
a
public
nuisance
for
any
person
to
fence
and
close,
prevent
or
obstruct
free
passage
or
transit
over
a
road.
It
needs
to
be
narrowed
to
define
the
scope
of
the
subject
matter,
which
is
understood
to
be
certain
roads
under
certain
conditions.
I
Now
that
said,
clark
county
and
naco
and
eureka
county
actually
worked
with
the
senator
on
a
proposed
amendment
that
addressed
all
of
our
concerns
and
the
county's
concerns,
and
unfortunately
we
were
not
able
to
come
to
an
agreement
on
that
amendment,
but
we
would
like
to
continue
to
work
with
the
senator
and
see
if
he
would
consider
our
amendment
once
again.
I
do
want
to
thank
the
senator
for
meeting
with
us
yesterday
and
look
forward
to
working
with
him
on
this
bill.
Thank
you,
committee
for
your
time
today.
A
H
H
L
Hi
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name's
colby,
proud,
I'm
from
naco.
We
actually
were
looking
to
testify
in
opposition
as
well
apologize
again
for
not
getting
in.
Would
you
like
me
to
continue
in
neutral,
or
would
you
like
to
reopen,
as
you
did
with
mr
ortiz
from
from
clark.
L
Okay,
thank
you
chair
members
of
the
community.
Again,
my
name
is
colby
prout,
c-o-l-b-y
p-r-o-u-t,
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
at
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
Naco
does
appreciate
the
sponsor's
time
and
his
willingness
to
meet
with
us
and
consider
our
amendment.
However,
we
do
oppose
sb94
in
its
current
reprint.
L
The
reprint
of
sb94
does
look
to
reconcile
a
current
issue
in
existing
law,
with
a
simple
approach
that
we,
but
we
do
feel
it
may
still
result
in
undesirable
outcomes
because
of
its
over
breadth.
Specifically,
it
undermines
the
county's
ability
to
ensure
public
health
and
safety
by
allowing
gates
across
moderately
even
heavily
trafficked.
L
Roads
may
also
jeopardize
county
authority
over
title
over
roads
throughout
the
state
and
under
my
county's
ability
to
regulate
and
ensure
the
functionality
of
the
roads
they're
charged
with
maintaining
again,
we
do
thank
the
sponsor
for
his
time
and
consideration
of
the
amendment
that
we
put
forward
and
that
hope
hope
you
may
consider
it
going
forward
as
well.
Thank
you
again,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
and
apologies
for
not
getting
into
the
proper
time.
A
H
A
H
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
appreciate
that
again
within
the
bill,
we
made
it
simple
to
make
it
simple
in
that
respect.
If
you
look
at
it,
an
unlocked
gate
does
not
in
and
of
itself,
and
our
legal
on
our
side
said
in
the
drafters
we're
going
with
the
concept
that,
obviously
in
and
of
itself.
So
if
you
show
that
the
road
is
paved
well,
then
guess
what
you
better
take
down,
that
gate
that'd
be
unreasonable
in
and
of
itself.
D
If
the
road
was
such
a
nature
that
it
caused
a
problem
that
would
give
the
ability
for
the
county
to
say
no,
that's
a
nuisance,
but
if
it's
just
a
gate
in
the
middle
of
nowhere
in
and
of
itself,
not
causing
a
problem,
it
should
be
allowed.
The
amendment
that
came
forward
had
language
in
it
that
stated
that
the
property
owner
would
hereby
assume
all
liability
for
the
entire
course
of
the
road
through
their
property
period.
D
That
was
one
of
the
more
egregious
things
that
the
property
owner
said.
Wait
wait,
wait
so
you're
saying
that
on
my
private
property,
somebody's
trespassing,
no
matter
what
happens,
it's
100
my
fault
that
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
if
someone's
driving
through
my
property
going
60
miles
an
hour
and
they
flip
over
their
vehicle
and
they
get
hurt.
I
think
it's
kind
of
their
fault
for
driving,
unsafe
conditions.
Why
is
it
now?
Why
does
the
burden
go
to
me?
100
percent?
D
It's
those
type
of
languages
that
the
amendment
tend
to
lose
me.
I
rather
apologize
for
my
language
lost
more
support
than
it
gained
with
the
amendment
and
therefore
the
amendment
was
not
brought
forward
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
simple
discussion
of
a
gate
is
not
that
simple.
So
we
try
to
leave
it
at
just
that.
I
will
try
to
look
into
the
assemblyman's
concerns
to
try
to
research
why
those
things
were
put
into
law
and
try
to
get
him
the
answers
to
satisfy
him
in
that
respect.
D
A
Thank
you
so
much
senator
settlemere,
it's
good
seeing
you
here
this
morning
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
I'm
now
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
94
in
its
first
reprint
committee,
we're
going
to
take
the
other
two
bills
out
of
order
just
to
accommodate
some
scheduling
issues.
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
8
in
its
first
reprint
senate
bill
ayton's
first
reprint
revises
provisions
governing
guardianship
of
minors
and
I
believe
we
have
two
of
our
family
court
judges
here,
one
from
the
eighth
judicial
district
and
that
would
be
judge
marquis
and
one
from
the
second
judicial
district,
and
that
would
be
judge
shriner.
Hopefully
I
got
your
name
right.
I
don't
think
we've
had
a
chance
to
meet
yet
but
want
to
welcome
both
of
you
to
the
committee
this
morning.
A
We'll
give
you
a
chance
to
make
some
remarks
about
what
the
bill
does
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
so
welcome
and
whoever
would
like
to
start.
First.
Please
proceed.
M
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
yes,
and
you
did
pronounce
the
name
right.
I
am
tamitha
schreinert.
I
am
a
judge
in
the
second
judicial
district
court.
I
serve
as
a
judge
in
department,
14,
family
division.
In
addition
to
custody
and
divorce
cases.
I
oversee
all
of
the
minor
guardianships
for
washoe
county.
M
I
also
serve
as
a
member
of
the
nevada
supreme
court.
Permanent
guardianship,
commission
and
the
guardianship
commission
is
in
support
of
sv8
in
2017.
If
you
recall,
the
guardianship
statutes
were
rewritten
to
separate
out
adult
guardianships
from
minor
guardianships
when
this
occurred.
The
provisions
for
transferring
and
registration
of
minor
guardianships
was
left
out.
Although
those
provisions
are
in
the
adult
guardianship
statutes,
sb8
mirrors
the
provisions
from
the
adult
guardianship
statutes
and
places
them
into
the
minor
guardian
statutes.
M
In
addition,
sba
clarifies
the
definition
of
a
child's
home
state,
ensuring
it
conforms
with
other
child
and
family
statutes,
specifically
the
uccja,
which
is
a
law
that
all
states
follow
to
ensure
that
only
one
state
at
a
time
is
making
orders
regarding
a
child,
and
finally,
sb8
allows
for
the
appointment
of
guardianships
in
nevada
if
the
child
is
present
and
it's
in
the
child's
best
interest.
Even
if
nevada
is
not
yet
their
home
state.
M
M
For
example,
grandparents
who've
had
a
guardianship
of
children
for
years
and
they
receive
a
new
job
in
nevada
and
get
their
state's
permission
to
move
here
with
the
children.
This
amendment
will
allow
the
transfer
of
their
guardianship
to
nevada,
but
also
require
them
to
complete
a
full
petition.
So
we
have
all
of
their
current
information
and
make
best
interest
findings.
M
So,
for
example,
the
guardian
who
moves
to
nevada
may
wish
to
register
their
out-of-state
guardianship
if
the
minor
is
near
their
18th
birthday
and
they
don't
need
any
changes
to
the
guardianship
or
if
the
guardian
lives
in
california
and
the
child
goes
to
school
in
nevada.
As
you
know,
some
of
our
towns
are
split
down
the
middle
with
the
state
border
there,
the
guardian
would
only
need
to
register
the
guardianship
because
they
still
live
in
the
other
state.
M
M
M
Judge
marquis
and
I
had
divided
our
time
in
that
I
would
provide
our
statement
and
I
will
hopefully
be
available
for
some
questions,
but
I
do
have
a
court
hearing
and
then
george
marquis
is
available
for
questions
as
well.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
N
I
have
no
remarks
chair
yeaker,
but
I
am
happy
to
address
any
questions.
A
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
both
for
the
presentation.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
questions
because
I
just
want
to
clarify
some
things
and
make
sure
I'm
I'm
following
so
in
section
6
with
that
home
state
definition,
the
new
language
is
lived
with
a
parent
or
a
person
acting
as
a
parent.
N
Assembly,
woman
cohen,
do
you
mean
in
state
here,
as
in
in
the
foster
system
or
involved.
N
All
right,
generally
and
judge,
judge.
N
N
That
has
different
rules
and
that
may
be
an
option
for
guardianship
if
that's
happening.
Certainly
if
somebody
was
with
a
foster
parent
and
placed
with
the
foster
parent
for
a
period
of
time
and
the
abuse
of
neglect
courts
have
taken
emergency
jurisdiction
because
their
their
jurisdiction
is
a
little
bit
different
than
ours.
We
could
still
have
jurisdiction
over
a
159,
a
guardianship.
Arguably,
but
I
I
don't
know
that
that
would
happen
quite
often.
F
Okay,
yeah.
Thank
you.
You
know
it's
it's
it's
a
field
where
I
don't
do
a
ton
of
work,
so
it's
so.
I
did
want
to
make
sure
I
I
understood
that
so
so,
even
if
there's
like
a
placement,
even
if
it's
relative
effective,
that
type
of
thing,
it
still
would
be
considered
under
430
to
be
not
and
and
probably
wouldn't
come
into
play
here.
This
is
what
I
think.
I'm
hearing.
N
They
have
to
find
that
the
child
is
in
need
of
protection
and
then
make
a
case
plan
and
adopt
the
case
plan
so
before
they
do
that
we
could
still
have
jurisdiction
under
159a
after
they
have
that
hearing,
then
we
do
not
have
jurisdiction
and
432b
guardianship
is
appropriate.
F
The
difference
between
a
temporary
guardianship
and
a
permanent
guardianship
isn't
necessarily
an
issue
because
I,
the
language,
just
refers
to
guardianship
without
making
that
difference.
In
most
most
of
the
places
in
the
in
the
new
language
in
the
bill.
N
Sure
so
this
is
joshua
key
again.
When
we
talk
about
transferring
or
relocation
under
guardianship,
the
only
type
of
guardianship
that
may
be
transferred
or
under
which
you
maybe
locate
to
another
jurisdiction,
is
a
full
general
guardianship
and
not
a
temporary
guardianship.
N
Under
the
rules
we
can
only
give
a
temporary
guardianship
or
a
period
of
120
days,
and
we
must
have
a
status
check
every
60
days
to
see
that
family
and
that's
generally,
while
we
wait
to
have
an
evidentiary
hearing,
that's
a
temporary
order.
So
we
don't
see
under
a
temporary
order,
a
request
to
relocate.
N
You
can
only
request
to
relocate
outside
of
the
jurisdiction
when
you
have
a
general
guardianship,
and
this
resolves
some
of
the
issues
about
temporary
versus
general
because,
like
my
colleague
up
north
said,
insurance
companies
will
not
honor
a
temporary
guardianship.
N
Many
medical
providers
will
not
honor
a
temporary
guardianship,
and
many
schools
will
not
honor
a
temporary
guardianship.
They
require
that
full
general
guardianship
so
that
the
care
provider
or
guardian
may
sign
them
up
for
school,
get
dental
treatment.
Certain
types
of
medical
treatment
are
unavailable
to
children
who
are
under
a
temporary
mortgage.
A
Do
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members
this
morning?
All
right,
I'm
gonna,
look
over
this
direction.
I
don't
see
anybody
with
their
hands
up
how
about
over.
Here.
I
don't
see
anybody
either.
So
I
think
those
are
all
the
questions
that
we
had.
I
would
ask
you
both
to
hold
tight
for
a
minute
and
judge
me
know
if
you
have
to
go
for
your
hearing.
Certainly
welcome
to
do
that.
I
know.
Judge
markey
can
pinch
it
with
any
concluding
remarks.
So
again,
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
A
A
H
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
and
support.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition
anybody
here
in
carson
city
in
opposition,
everyone
looks
busy
doing
other
work
out
in
the
audience,
so
I'll.
Take
that
as
a
no.
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
on
zoom
with
us
in
opposition
judge
bell's
here,
but
I
believe
she's
in
support
of
the
bill.
So
we
won't
go
to
her
for
opposition
anybody
on
the
phone
bps
in
opposition.
Please.
H
A
Thank
you,
bps.
I
will
close
testimony
in
opposition.
I
will
now
open
testimony
in
the
neutral
position.
Anyone
here
in
carson
city
in
neutral
nobody
here
in
carson
city,
nobody
on
the
zoom
in
neutral
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
one
last
time
for
this
build
to
see
if
there's
testimony
in
the
neutral
position.
H
A
N
Thank
you,
chairman
yaker.
This
is
judge
mckee.
I
think
this
really
just
resolves
the
omission
from
the
2017
legislation
and
really
mirrors
the
language
in
the
adult
statute,
and
it
would
be
a
great
help
to
our
citizens
and
the
kids
in
clark
county
and
all
over
the
state.
Sorry.
A
Thank
you,
so
much
judge
judge
reinert
any
concluding
remarks.
M
A
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
8
moving
right
along
we're
back
to
the
first
bill
listed
on
our
agenda,
and
that
would
be
senate
bill
six
in
its
second
reprint.
So
I
now
will
open
up
senate
bill
six
in
its
second
reprint.
That
bill
revises
provisions
governing
orders
for
protection
against
high-risk
behavior.
O
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
linda
bell
and
I'm
the
chief
judge
of
the
8th
judicial
district
court
in
clark
county
last
legislative
session.
The
legislature
passed
a
bill
authorizing
high-risk
protection
orders
in
certain
situations
to
remove
firearms
from
people
who
are
engaging
in
high
risk
behaviors,
and
I'm
going
to
share
some
statistics
from
park
county
and
then
walk
walk
you
through
the
bill.
O
So
since
this
statute
passed,
I
presided
all
of
over
all
of
the
high
risk
protection
order,
applications
in
clark
county,
except
for
one
where
I
had
a
conflict
while
presiding
over
those
cases.
It
has
become
apparent
to
me
that
there
is
a
great
deal
of
confusion
for
people
applying
for
these
types
of
protection
orders.
So
the
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
simplify
and
streamline
the
process
to
make
it
simpler
and
a
little
clearer
when
people
apply
for
the
high
risk
protection
orders.
O
25
of
those
were
seeking
other
types
of
protection
orders,
for
example
people
filing
for
domestic
violence,
protective
orders
or
workplace
harassment,
protective
orders,
and
they
just
didn't
understand
that
they
were
applying
for
something
other
than
a
protective
order
for
themselves
of
the
eight
who
were
actually
applying
for
a
high-risk,
protective
order.
Three
were
granted
in
one
in
some
capacity
or
another.
O
One
was
granted
on
a
temporary
basis,
but
not
extended,
and
that
was
a
community
applicant.
The
other
two
were
extended:
orders
that
were
law
enforcement
applicants
or
the
everest
party
in
in
both
cases
were
present
at
a
noticed
hearing
and
did
not
oppose
the
the
granting
of
the
order.
O
The
other
five
applications
were
denied
for
not
meeting
the
standard
set
forth
in
the
statute.
I
also
understand
in
checking
with
washoe
county
that
they've
had
a
handful
of
of
applications
less
than
five
and
that
none
have
been
grant.
None
have
been
granted
to
date,
part
of
the
confusion
that
I've
seen
lies
with
the
different
procedures
that
someone
has
to
follow,
depending
on
what
type
of
protection
order
the
applicant
is
seeking,
so
they
can
file
an
application
for
an
ex.
O
What
is
called
the
next
party
order
in
the
law
currently
or
an
extended
order,
or
both,
and
so
the
way
that
the
form
looks,
there's
two
check
boxes
and
depending
on
which
one
the
applicant
checks
it
can
result
in
having
to
have
two
hearings
in
a
seven
day
period,
and
even
some
of
our
law
enforcement
agencies
have
struggled
a
little
bit
with
the
process,
which
has
resulted
in
some
delays
in
getting
the
applications
heard.
O
O
The
expert
in
this
case
the
temp,
the
short-term
order,
the
seven-day
order
can
be
issued
with
notice
or
without
notice,
so
that
term
doesn't
necessarily
apply
so
just
as
a
change
to
better
reflect
that
we're
granting
a
a
very
short
term,
seven
day
order
to
give
time
for
the
court
to
make
sure
that
the
parties
are
noticed
and
have
a
full
hearing
with
witnesses.
O
Section
four
adds
conforming
language
to
show
that
the
applicants
have
to
show
that
the
individual
possesses
an
imminent
risk
to
themselves
or
others.
This
is
another
area
where,
in
some
of
the
applications
that
have
been
denied,
that
there's
been
a
little
confusion
where
people
are
applying
based
on
things
that
happen
several
months
in
the
past,
so
the
it
just
mirrors.
The
judge
needs
to
make
a
finding
that
there's
an
imminent
risk,
and
so
this
mirrors
that
throughout
so
that
the
applicants
have
to
show
that
there's
an
imminent
risk
to
themselves
or
others.
O
This
created
some
safety
concerns
for
the
person
serving
the
papers
and
a
little
confusion
about
when
a
law
enforcement
agency
saw
only
an
extended
order,
but
hadn't
served
the
adverse
party
before
the
application
could
be
heard,
so
it
just
eliminates
that
to
reduce
confusion
on
that
front
under
section
for
that
the
that
requirement
is
removed.
O
I
will
note
that
the
public
defenders
reached
out
to
us
with
some
concerns
about
the
adverse
party
not
being
served
the
application,
so
we're
working
with
them.
So
if
the
emergency
order
is
granted,
then
under
section
9,
the
appropriate
law
enforcement
agency
would
serve
the
application,
along
with
the
emergency
order
and
notice
of
the
hearing,
just
to
make
sure
that
the
adverse
party
has
all
of
the
information
that
they
need
to
prepare
for
the
hearing.
If
they
are
opposing
the
application.
O
Section
eight
removes
the
ability
for
the
adverse
party
to
surrender
a
firearm
to
someone
who
does
not
reside
with
the
fire,
the
adverse
party
and
just
cause.
If
the
firearm
is
surrendered,
then
it
would
go
to
a
law
enforcement
agency
and
then
finally,
the
bill
removes
the
duty
of
the
court
to
assist
the
parties.
O
We
are
always
happy
to
work
with
community
organizations
to
educate
the
community
about
the
protection
orders
and
our
clerks
to
the
extent
they
can
try
to
help
people
to
file
papers,
but
under
the
current
law
it
puts
our
clerks
under
a
difficult
position
regarding
legal
advice,
and
we
want.
K
O
Sure
that
the
right
entities
are
doing
that
and
not
not
our
clerk's
office
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
has.
A
Thank
you
judge
bell,
appreciate
the
presentation
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things
for
the
record.
I
believed
you
indicated
that
you're
speaking
with
the
public
defenders
about
a
potential
amendment,
but
there's
not
an
amendment,
that's
being
offered
right
now
that
that's
one
that
might
come
after
some
further
discussions.
A
And
then
the
other
question
I
had,
I
think
I
got
the
numbers
you
had
said
it
sounded
like
as
far
as
you're
aware
that
only
three
of
these
have
been
granted
in
some
fashion
throughout
the
state
and
I'll
say
I
guess
at
least
when
you
consider
clark
and
washoe.
It
sounds
like
you're
aware
of
three
being
granted
and
then
it
sounds
like
a
handful
that
were
applied
for
but
ultimately
denied
it
did.
I
get
the
numbers
right
there.
O
This
is
linda
bell
and
that's
correct,
so
I
understand
that
there
what
I
believe
is
there's
10
or
11
applications
between
washoe
and
clark
county.
Three
of
those
have
been
granted
in
some
capacity.
One
was
temporary,
the
extended
denied,
and
so
just
two
extended,
and
neither
of
those
were
opposed
by
the
adverse
party.
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
your
honor
when
we're
taking
ex
parte
to
emergency.
I
understand
we
spoke
about
this
a
little
bit
offline,
but
I
have
another
question
for
you
on
that,
even
though
it
goes
to
an
emergency
instead
of
ex
parte,
it
can
still
be
one-sided
right,
which
is
what
ex-parte
means
it
can
still
be
an
ex
partaking
case,
but
just
reclassifying
it.
So
my
question
is:
would
someone
still
be
able
you
know
to
file
a
grievance
against
another
person
without
that
person's
knowledge
under
the
emergency,
as
they
would
under
ex.
O
Parte
so
this
is
linda
bell,
so
the
law
currently
provides
for
the
application
to
be
with
notice
or
without
notice,
expertise
and
and
nothing
about
these
amendments
changed
that
it
just
changes
the
terminology
to
a
more
corrupt
term,
because
it
can
be
with
or
without
notice.
So
it
would
still
allow
community
applicants
without
notice
to
the
albers
party.
P
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
for
presenting
this
bill.
I
know
we
spoke
a
little
yesterday
about
the
it
just
being
with
people
in
the
same
home,
and
I
just
can't
remember
so.
If
I
wasn't
living
with
somebody
and
I
wanted
to
report
or
get
this
order,
what
is
that
process
like
and
or
like
what
court
would
I
need
to
file
that
in
because
I
know
some
of
the
issues
is
folks
not
knowing
like
where
to
file
the
correct
petition.
O
Thank
you
for
that
question.
This
is
linda
bell,
so
the
family,
member
applica,
the
the
family
member
applicant,
I
I
believe,
was
something
that
was
very
seriously
considered
two
years
ago
and
the
policy
consideration
that
the
legislature
ultimately
decided
on
was
what
is
currently
in
the
statute
now
and
nothing
about
this
amendment
changes
that
it
allows
certain
people
with
certain
family
relationships
if
they
have
a
child
in
common.
O
So
there
are
some
circumstances
where
the
people
would
not
have
to
reside
together,
but
they
have
to
fall
within
the
definition
of
a
family
member
as
set
out
in
the
statute,
then
those
people
have
the
ability
to
file
the
application.
E
O
Thank
you.
This
is
linda
bell,
so
you
know
we
as
judges.
I
think
always
like
to
have
hearings
with
both
sides
present
and
give
everybody
the
opportunity
to
present
any
evidence
that
they
have
the
way
the
statute
is
written,
allows
for
the
order
to
be
granted.
If
there
is
some
sort
of
emergency,
but
then
requires
a
full
hearing,
so
both
sides
can
come
in
and
present
anything
that
they
want
to
present.
O
O
So
it
could
be
that
an
emergency
order
is
not
granted
the
hearing
is
set
and
then
the
extended
order
is
also
not
granted.
It
just
would
depend
on
what
information
was
provided
at
the
time
of
the
hearing.
It's
to
make
sure
there's
a
full
hearing,
and
both
sides
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
information.
E
O
Representation,
the
the
district
of
thank
you.
This
is
linda
bell.
The
district
attorney
does
not
represent
the
community
applicant.
The
cases
that
we've
had
so
far
there
have
been
law
enforcement
applicants
where
we've
had
the
extended
hearing
and
then
the
one
community
applicant
we
had
had
hired
private
council.
A
Any
additional
questions
from
committee
members-
okay-
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
Judge
bell.
Ask
you
to
hold
tight
for
a
moment,
we'll
see
if
there's
any
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
any
concluding
remarks
at
this
time,
open
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
in
its
first
reprint
or
excuse
me,
it's
second
reprint.
Is
there
anybody
here
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
testify
and
support?
A
A
Thank
you,
bps.
I
will
close
testimony
in
support.
I
will
now
open
testimony
in
opposition.
Anyone
with
us
in
carson
city
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
nobody's
coming
to
the
table.
We
don't
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
opposition?
Please.
H
K
Hello,
everybody,
I'm
sorry
for
the
delay.
My
name
is
kimberly.
Fergus,
I'm
from
las
vegas
k.I.m,
k-I-m-v-e-r-l-y,
fergus
f-e-r-g-u-s,
I'm
a
little
confused
here
on
this
sb6,
however,
from
what
I
gather,
this
has
to
do:
sort
of
with
the
red
flag
law
and
there's
pending
litigation
on
it
being
ex
parte,
isn't
exported
stripping
people
up
due
process.
K
To
me,
this
can't
make
criminals
of
law-abiding
citizens
there
should
be
the
highest
standard
to
to
deprive
someone
of
their
rights.
Instead,
this
makes
court
proceeding
secret
to
the
accused,
with
a
vindictive
relative
able
to
make
baseless
claims.
Nevada
deserves
legislators
who
protect
the
rights
of
all,
including
gun
owners.
K
A
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
opposition
testimony.
I
will
now
open
neutral
testimony.
Anybody
in
the
room
with
us
here
in
carson
city
who'd
like
to
testify
neutral,
nobody's
coming
forward.
We
don't
have
anyone
neutral
on
the
zoom
bps.
We
go
to
the
phone
lines
one
last
time
for
this
build
to
see.
If
there's
anybody
there
in
the
neutral
position.
A
O
Yes,
thank
you
to
thank
you,
sir
yeager
linda
val
again,
and
I
just
I
understand
that
there
are
in
some
of
my
conversations
that
that
there
are
those
who
have
some
fundamental
disagreements
with
the
law
itself,
and
I
want
to
just
make
clear
that
I
am
certainly
not
taking
any
kind
of
policy
position
here
that
was
determined
two
years
ago.
A
Thank
you.
So
much
judge
bell
appreciate
the
time,
and
please
do
let
us
know
if
there
are
additional
amendments
that
you're
able
to
work
on
with
the
public
defenders.
If
you
could
just
provide
that
to
us,
we'll
be
sure
to
include
those
in
any
potential
work
session.
So
again,
thanks
for
being
here
this
morning,
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
6
and
its
second
reprint.
That
takes
us
to
our
final
agenda
item
this
morning,
which
is
public
comment.
Just
by
way
of
reminder.
Public
comment
is
a
time.
Excuse
me.
We
are
up
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.
A
A
H
C
Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e
g-r-a-n-t,
my
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
murdered
by
reno
police
and
washer
county
sheriff's
office.
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
micaiah
lee
mckay,
william
lee
was
18
years
old
when
he
was
shot
and
killed
by
sparks
police
officers.
Ryan
patterson
and
eric
de
jesus
paterson
fired
five
shots.
Today.
Jesus
fired
two
shots
immediately
after
that
eric
de
jesus
also
shot
and
killed.
Jorge
mourinho,
aguero,
728,
2016.
C
and
ryan
patterson
is
also
a
two-time
community
member
killer.
He
was
one
of
three
cops
who
shot
and
killed
jose
dominguez
4
28
2019
less
than
a
year
before
he
would
kill.
Micaiah
cedius
box
police
were
called
to
take
a
suicidal
teenager.
They
knew
to
be
severely
mentally
ill
into
custody
for
his
own
safety,
but
within
minutes
of
approaching
him
shot
him
dead
city
of
sparks
officers
had
the
time
and
opportunity
to
assess
the
situation.
C
If
the
officers
had
utilized
proper
training
in
the
fundamental
principles
of
maintaining
a
covered
position
to
calmly
communicate
with
an
emotionally
disabled
person,
rather
than
hysterically
screaming
commands
loudly
cursing
and
sadistically
using
an
attack
dog
and
cruelly
rushing
the
teenager
with
lights
and
sirens
blaring,
the
incident
would
not
have
happened
at
the
time.
A
tire
drove
off.
There
were
no,
he
was
not
wanted
for
a
crime
and
there
were
no
outstanding
warrants
for
his
arrest.
C
He
was
in
the
middle
of
a
serious
health
crisis
and
his
mom
did
what
we
all
all
been
told
to
do.
She
called
911
and
she
pleaded
with
them
on
that
call
not
to
shoot
her
son.
Sadly
minutes
later
ryan
patterson
and
eric
de
jesus
would
kill
mikaya,
who
was
completely
violent
at
the
time.
No,
he
did
not
utter
a
word
charge.
The
officers
run
towards
the
officers,
make
a
threatening
gesture
or
threaten
to
harm
the
officers
or
try
to
flee
if
they
had
disabled
the
vehicle.
I
don't
want
any
more
mothers
or
families.
C
A
H
H
H
A
A
All
right,
I
don't
see
anything.
Let
me
just
give
you
a
quick
lay
of
the
land
on
where
we
go
from
here.
We
do
have
a
meeting
tomorrow.
Tomorrow's
meeting
is
going
to
be
at
eight
o'clock
because
we
have
three
bills
and
I
think
they
may
take
a
little
bit
more
time,
so
just
to
make
sure
we
have
adequate
time.
We'll
have
three
bills
tomorrow.