►
From YouTube: 5/6/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
A
Here
I
think
everyone
is
present.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
here
in
carson
city
good
morning
to
our
guests
on
the
zoom
and
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet.
Welcome
to
day
95
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature,
which
means
we
just
have
25
more
days
to
get
our
work
done
here.
It
is
time
is
going
fast
before
we
get
started
on
this
morning's
agenda,
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
for
those
in
the
room
with
us.
A
If
you
could,
please
silence
your
devices
for
those
on
the
zoom.
If
you
could,
please
remain
on
mute
unless
you
are
speaking,
that
would
be
helpful
and
for
everybody
who
is
here
if
you
could
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
that
will
help
our
committee
secretaries
prepare
accurate
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
do
not
always
agree
on
policy.
That
is
perfectly
acceptable.
A
We
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
this
legislative
process
and,
most
importantly
of
our
legislative
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
up
here
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
morning's
meeting
to
access
exhibits.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
times
with
those
matters
behind
us,
we're
going
to
move
to
our
agenda
and
we're
going
to
take
the
bills
slightly
out
of
order
committee,
so
we're
going
to
start
with
senate
bill
168
in
its
first
reprint.
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
168
in
its
first
reprint.
That
measure
revises
provisions
relating
to
cannabis.
We
have
senator
lang
here
for
the
first
time
in
assembly,
judiciary
committee,
this
session
welcome,
and
I
think
she
has
mr
walker
and
miss
martin
with
her
on
the
zoom
as
well.
So
we'll
give
all
of
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
so
again.
Welcome
and
please
proceed.
D
Thank
you
chair
members
of
the
committee
good
morning.
I
am
roberta
lang.
I
am
the
state
senator
from
district
7
in
clark,
county
senate
bill,
168
deals
with
curbside,
pickup,
packaging
and
labeling
and
modernizing
how
establishment
establishments
maintain
their
delivery
records.
We
drafted
the
bill's
language
in
cooperation
with
the
cannabis
compliance
board,
the
cannabis
compliance
board
executive
director,
tyler,
tyler
klimas
is
also
available
for
questions.
Matt
walker
and
I
will
trade
places.
He
will
be
available
to
answer
questions
as
well
and
here
to
discuss
the
bill,
and
the
amendment
is
lake.
E
Briefly,
I'll
summarize
what
the
bill
intends
to
do
and
then
we'll
go
section
by
section,
we'll
cover
curbside,
pickup
first
and
then
move
to
packaging
and
labeling
and
digital
records,
so
this
bill
would
allow
dispensaries
to
continue
to
provide
curbside
pickup
to
customers.
Curbside
pickup
was
authorized
by
governor
steve
syslax
declaration
of
emergency
directive,
16
issued
on
april
29
2020
the
cannabis
compliance
board
provided
written
guidance
for
how
dispensaries
should
implement
curbside
pickup
on
may.
First,
twenty,
twenty,
initially
curbside
pickup
helped
dispensaries
comply
with
covid19
restrictions,
reducing
in-store
capacity
as
it
turns
out.
E
Customers
really
liked
the
convenience
of
curbside
pickup.
It
is
especially
convenient
for
elderly
customers
or
medical
patients
who
have
difficulty
or
prefer
not
to
leave.
Their
car
dispensaries
asked
the
nda
to
work
on
making
curbside
pick
up
a
permanent
feature.
The
ccb
agreed
the
curbside
pickup
has
worked
out
well
and
the
ccb
and
the
nda
worked
together
on
this
legislation.
E
The
proposed
loop
bill
language
would
allow
for
curbside
pickup
and
authorize
the
ccb
to
adopt
regulations.
Those
regulations
will
be
just
like,
what's
currently
being
implemented
under
the
current
guidance.
Some
of
the
features
of
curbside
pickup
include
designated
spaces
security
cameras
with
a
direct
line
of
sight.
No
one
under
21
years
of
age
may
be
in
the
vehicle,
and
orders
must
be
placed
in
advance.
The
proposed
language
of
the
bill
will
also
allow
local
governments
to
determine
whether
curbside
is
appropriate,
based
on
the
location's
characteristic
or
compliance
with
other
local
regulations.
E
With
respect
to
labeling.
The
bill
removes
language
in
the
statute
that
would
limit
the
ability
of
the
ccb
to
make
common
sense
reforms
to
the
nevada,
cannabis
compliance
regulations
dealing
with
packaging
and
labeling.
At
the
same
time,
none
of
the
proposed
language
would
alter
the
warnings
or
other
information
that
is
required
to
be
conveyed
in
statute.
E
The
reason
for
the
proposed
revisions
is
to
allow
the
ccb
and
stakeholders
to
develop
packaging
and
labeling
regulations
that
have
clear
easy
to
understand
definitions
that
clearly
convey
safety
information
and
that
are
in
line
with
best
practices
and
safety
standards.
Many
of
the
packaging
and
labeling
regulations
have
not
been
updated
in
years
and
therefore
do
not
reflect
modern
production,
new
safety
standards
or
public
health
expertise.
E
This
is
a
common
sense
update
to
reflect
modern
record
keeping
practices
and
the
ccb
agreed
with
this
language
and
updating
the
requirements
as
well.
Now
I'll
go
through
the
bills
section
by
section
section.
One
of
the
bill
adds
specific
language
to
nrs678a450,
authorizing
the
board
to
adopt
regulations
relating
to
the
packaging
and
labeling
of
cannabis
products.
The
board
has
already
adopted
regulations
to
this
effect
under
the
authority
given
to
the
board
in
other
sections
of
the
statute,
but
this
language
seeks
to
make
this
all
the
more
clear
section.
E
3
explicitly
allows
for
curbside
pickup
at
cannabis
sales
facility
and
states
that
the
ccb
shall
adopt
regulations
necessary
for
implementation.
Subsection
3
also
provides
that
local
governments
retain
authority
to
determine
whether
curbside
pickup
is
appropriate
at
a
particular
location.
Subsection
4
defines
curbside
pickup
as
the
delivery
of
cannabis
or
cannabis
products
by
a
cannabis
sales
facility
to
a
consumer
in
a
motor
vehicle
located
on
the
premises
of
the
cannabis
sales
facility.
E
Section
5
removes
required
labeling
language,
it
moves
required,
labeling
language
from
4b
to
1h
and
removes
the
language
affix
a
label.
Those
warnings,
ingredient
and
thc
information
do
not
go
away.
They
move
to
the
section
on
warnings
in
nrs678b520
sub
1.,
also,
both
the
keep
out
of
reach
of
children
and
the
amount
of
thc
were
already
required
by
cannabis
establishments
in
other
parts
of
the
section.
E
Similarly,
where,
under
subsection
seven
there's
a
list
of
warnings
that
must
be
conveyed
by
written
notification,
this
bill
seeks
to
revise
that
language
to
state
instead
that
the
information
shall
be
conveyed
in
a
manner
to
be
determined
by
the
board.
That's
to
allow
the
ccb
to
adopt
regulations
that
factor
in
expertise
and
guidance
from
other
jurisdictions
regarding
how
warnings
are
best
made
section.
6
allows
for
delivery
records
to
be
kept
in
electronic
format
again.
This
is
just
modernizing
the
statute
to
allow
for
the
digital
management
of
records.
E
A
You
know
this
brings
me
back
to
2017
and
I
think
that
was
when
we
first
worked
on
the
labeling
issue
and
I
it
was
senator
farley
and
senator
sagerbloom,
neither
of
whom
are
here
in
the
building
anymore,
and
I
had
the
pleasure
of
of
working
on
some
of
that
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
So
let
me
say
I'm
happy
to
see
that
we
keep
evolving
into
a
better
language
and
a
better
process,
and
I
particularly
appreciate
the
removal
of
the
word
affix
and
members.
A
A
We
may
let
them
off
easy
this
morning
and
I
think
that
speaks
to
the
work
that
you've
done
on
the
bill
and
having
it
in
in
a
good
form
over
here.
So
again,
thank
the
three
of
you
for
the
presentation,
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we'll
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
some
wrap-up
remarks.
So
at
this
time,
I'll
take
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
168..
A
A
F
G
Begin
hi:
this
is
brandon
weigand,
it's
b-r-a-n-d-o-n,
last
name
w-I-e-g-a-n-d,
I'm
the
regional
general
manager
for
the
source,
dispensaries
and
the
source
holding,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
nevada,
organic
remedies,
henderson
organic
remedies
and
wellness
orchards
in
nevada
in
support
of
sb168.
G
G
Was
permitted
to
remain
open
as
a
result
of
its
status
as
an
essential
business,
social,
distancing
mandates
and
general
customer
apprehension,
limited
dispensaries
abilities
to
service
customers
in
store
as
part
of
the
evolving
coven
19
response
cannabis
establishments
were
permitted
to
conduct
previously
prohibited
curbside
sales
as
part
of
social
distancing
protocols.
The
result
has
been.
G
Alternative
to
shopping
in
the
store
that
customers
have
come
to
expect
and
appreciate
and
an
option
that
should
remain
following
the
conclusion
of
the
pandemic.
The
industry
has
been
responsible
and
thoughtful
about
rolling
out
curbside
service
in
a
way
that
protects
customers,
team
members
and
communities
as
a
whole.
Moreover,
the
industry
has
invested
heavily
in
infrastructure
and
technology
to
support
curbside
operations.
G
These
investments
advance
our
industry
and
there
is
no
reason
to
see
these
advancements
and
with
the
pandemic,
bill
also
provides
much
needed
changes
to
packaging
and
labeling
by
allowing
the
ccb
to
provide
common
sense
regulations
that
are
easily
understood
and
applied.
The
current
framework
is
wasteful
and
leaves
customers
frustrated
with
the
amount
of
packaging
and
labels
that
company
products
running
joke.
H
G
Our
customers
is
that
a
gram
of
flour
is
accompanied
by
10
grams
of
packaging
and
labels.
More
cost
effective,
environmentally
friendly
options
are
available
that
will
still
ensure
the
customer
is
provided
with.
All
the
information
needed
upon
purchase
dispensers
are
already
required
to
ensure
that
all
products
leave
the
store
in
a
child
proof
resealable
package,
there's
no
reason.
H
G
Required
labeling
cannot
be
placed
within
that
packaging
rather
than
to
fix
the
product
itself,
which
is
another
source
of
customer
frustration.
The
bill
will
allow
the
ccb
to
provide
these
unnecessary
requirements
to
reflect
not
only
a
more
environmentally
environmentally
friendly
solution,
but
also
to
reflect
modern
production
and
public
health
expertise.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
A
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
and
support.
I
will
now
open
it
for
testimony
in
opposition.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city
who'd
like
to
testify
in
opposition?
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward.
I
don't
see
any
activity
on
the
hollywood
squares
zoom
screen
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
any
opposition
there?
Please.
F
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
opposition
testimony.
I
will
not
open
it
for
neutral
testimony
any
neutral
testimony
here
in
carson
city.
I
don't
see
neutral
testimony
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
neutral.
I
think
we
have
a
number
of
folks
from
ccb
that
were
here
to
answer
questions
but
want
to
make
sure
nobody
wanted
to
offer
any
testimony.
A
Okay,
I
see
mr
klima
shaking
his
head.
No
thank
you.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
hollywood
squares
of
the
brady
bunch
screen.
I
think
we
need
maybe
nine
nine
squares
to
be
the
brady
bunch,
and
I
only
see
six
at
the
moment.
So
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
neutral
bps.
Could
we
check
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anyone
there
in
neutral?
Please.
A
D
Thank
you
very
much
cherry
yeager.
I
just
had
a
quick
question
about
the
labeling
and
I
am
looking
at
section
5
sub
h,
where
you
basically
keep
the
labeling
the
same
except
you
remove
the
part
on
the
label.
That
would
say
the
total
content
of
thc,
measured
in
milligrams
that
will
no
longer
be
on
the
label,
and
I'm
wondering
why
thank
you.
E
D
E
A
D
Thank
you
so
much.
I
want
to
leave
you
with
this.
This
bill
is
not
about
whether
you
like
or
don't
like
cannabis.
It's
codifying
what
is
already
in
the
governor
allowed
under
emergency
order
for
curbside
pickup,
and
it
allows
for
the
board
to
make
adjust
the
regulations
for
labeling
and,
and
so
I
urge
you
to
support
this
bill.
I
think
it's
a
good
bill.
D
A
A
Unfortunately,
it
needed
a
pandemic
for
it
to
happen,
but
I
think
once
it
it
went
that
direction.
It
seems
to
make
a
lot
of
sense,
so
I
appreciate
the
thought
you
put
into
this
bill
and
allowing
the
industry
to
continue
to
flourish
in
that
way
and
if
I
could
ask
you
next,
if
we
could
take
on
those
long
cvs
receipts
in
some
way,
while
we're
at
it,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
A
So
thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation
and
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day
and
thanks
to
everyone
who
joined
us
on
the
zoo
this
morning
as
well,
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
168
and
we'll
go
back
to
our
agenda
and
we'll
take
it
from
the
top.
So
at
this
time,
I'll
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
50
and
its
first
reprint
senate
bill
15
is
first
reprint
revises
provisions
relating
to
warrants.
A
I
will
let
committee
members
and
members
of
the
public
know
there
is
an
amendment
on
nellis
that
was
brought
forward
by
the
attorney
general's
office,
so
that
is
obviously
a
friendly
amendment,
but
I
believe
it's
a
mock-up
amendment
too.
So
it
might
make
sense
to
look
at
that
when
we
are
going
through
the
bill,
so
welcome
attorney
general
ford,
miss
adair
and
mr
george
who's
joining
us
on
the
zoom.
I
A
I
Well,
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
aaron
ford
and
I
am
your
attorney
general
joining
me.
Virtually
and
in
person
are
members
of
my
staff.
I
have
a
fee
with
me
today,
chief
of
staff,
jessica,
darrell
to
my
left,
first
assistant,
kyle,
george,
on
the
screen.
I
I
I
I
As
I
mentioned
a
moment
ago.
The
purpose
of
a
no
knock
warrant
is
to
secure
persons,
premises
or
evidence
before
the
subject
is
able
to
respond,
but
from
the
perspective
of
the
subject,
she
only
knows
that
an
armed
person
has
violently
entered
her
premises
and
in
those
immediate
moments
she
does
not
know
their
intent.
I
I
I
One
of
the
most
recent
examples
of
such
a
tragedy
is
the
killing
of
brianna
taylor
in
louisville
kentucky.
I
got
goosebumps.
As
I
said
her
name.
I
need
not
go
into
the
details
of
that
incident.
As
I'm
sure
all
committee
persons
are
quite
familiar
with
it.
Suffice
it
to
say
the
police
were
investigating
taylor's
apartment
had
a
no
knock
warrant
to
enter
and
execution
of
that
no
knock
warrant
led
to
miss
taylor's
death.
I
I
I
As
a
result
of
this
policy,
that
agency
has
not
executed
a
no
knock
warrant
in
years.
Another
agency
has
similarly
adopted
policies
that
constrains
when
they
know
knock.
One
is
appropriate
and
requires
several
levels
of
sign
off.
As
with
the
first
agency,
as
that
I
mentioned
in
practice,
no
knock
warrants
are
extremely
aware.
With
this
one
too.
I
In
short,
nevada's
police
have
done
a
good
job
of
policing
themselves
on
the
use
of
no
knock
warrants.
The
restraint
we've
seen
exercised
here
is
a
result
of
internal
policy.
However,
and
not
law
sb50
codifies
these
good
policies
into
law
by
providing
that
no
knock
warrants
can
only
issue
in
very
limited
circumstances.
I
First,
I
will
address
the
elephant
in
the
room.
I
know
that
some
are
calling
for
a
complete
prohibition
of
the
use
of
no
knock
warrants,
particularly
in
the
light
in
the
light
of
events
in
kentucky
last
year,
but
in
my
judgment
there
may
be
rare
examples
where
a
no
nut
warrant
may
be
justified
and
needed
to
protect
life
if
planned
and
executed
appropriately.
I
I
I
Section
1.1
of
this
world
strikes
a
portion
of
that
mandatory
language,
so
that
if
the
underlying
offense
is
simply
that
the
subject
has
failed
to
provide
adequate
identification
during
a
stop
while
operating
a
watercraft
or
while
engaging
in
activities
regulated
by
the
department
of
wildlife,
the
court
has
discretion
to
issue
a
summons.
Instead
of
an
arrest
warrant,
we
have
preserved
existing
language
in
the
law
that
allows
a
district
attorney
to
directly
apply
for
a
summons
instead
of
an
arrest
warrant.
I
I
I
I
I
In
recent
days,
we've
worked
with
lcb
to
amend
this
language
and
would
like
to
draw
the
committee's
attention
to
the
exhibit
file
before
the
hearing,
the
amendment
that
chairman
yeager
referenced,
the
district
attorney's
association,
the
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice,
the
public
defenders
and
the
aclu.
That
is
folks
who
are
generally
the
ones
who
are
litigating.
This
issue
have
confirmed
that
the
language
in
this
exhibit
is
faithful
to
our
agreement.
I
If
a
defendant
subsequently
challenges
a
no
knock
warrant
on
the
basis
that
an
applicant
deliberately
misrepresents
or
omits
a
material
fact
when
applying
then
the
reviewing
court
can
engage
in
a
two-step
inquiry.
Regarding
the
materiality
of
the
fact
at
issue,
first,
the
court
will
conduct
a
what
we
call
de
novo
or
brand
new
review
of
the
warrant
application
that
either
includes
a
fact
that
was
omitted
or
omits
the
fact
that
was
misrepresented.
I
The
court
will
then
determine
whether
a
no
knock
warrant
could
have
been
lawfully
issued.
If
the
now
included
or
now
omitted
fact
was
in
the
original
application,
if
the
court
determines
it
should
have
not
been
issued,
then
the
original
warrant
was
invalid
and
subject
to
the
usual
consequences
of
an
invalid
warrant.
I
I
If
those
circumstances
no
longer
exist,
the
officers
may
not
lawfully
proceed
with
executing
the
warrant
in
a
no-knock
fashion.
Second,
all
officers
executing
a
no
knock
warrant
must
wear
prominent
insignia
that
identifies
them
as
law
enforcement
officers.
This
provision
reduces
the
likelihood
that
the
officers
are
mistaken
for
anything
other
than
what
they
are
law
enforcement
officers.
I
Third,
all
officers
executing
a
nordic
warrant
must
wear
body
cameras,
as
provided
under
existing
law.
Fourth
officers
may
only
use
as
much
force
as
is
necessary
to
enter
the
premises.
This
is
a
circumstance,
specific
determination
that
will
vary
according
to
the
specifics
to
the
specific
facts
of
a
given
warrant
execution.
I
Lastly,
although
a
no
knock
warrant
by
definition
allows
officers
to
enter
without
verbally
identifying
themselves,
they
must
do
so
as
soon
as
practicable.
After
entering
the
premises,
the
balance
of
section
1
contains
technical
provisions
and
definitions
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
can
characterize
section
2
by
simply
stating
that
it
duplicates
the
nrs
171,
no
knock
warrant
arrest
requirements,
we've
just
covered
in
the
nrs
179
search
warrant,
sections
of
nevada
law.
I
Over
the
past
year,
we've
seen
and
heard
the
cries
for
reform,
as
you
all
know,
or
may
know,
if
you're
not,
I
want
to
invite
you
to
take
a
look
at
the
justice
and
injustice
forums
that
my
office
put
on.
In
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
george
floyd
killing,
it
is
now
available
on
demand
on
cox,
pick
up
your
remote
and
say
justice
and
injustice,
and
you
can
watch
several
of
those
who
participated
in
the
drafting
of
this
say
that
they
were
interested
in
doing
this.
I
I
suspect
you
will
also
see
some
who
are
now
opposing
this
on
the
screen
during
that
same
time,
period
advocating
for
such
changes.
Keep
that
in
mind
as
you
proceed
over
the
past
year,
again,
you've
heard
of
christ
for
reform,
and
this
summer
I
joined
many
of
you
in
responding
to
those.
This
bill
is
one
of
the
products
of
those
conversations.
I
A
Thank
you
so
much
attorney
general.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
bill.
I
know
it's.
It's
been
a
long
process
to
get
where
we
are
here
today
and
just
let
me
say
on
behalf
of
the
committee,
I
appreciate
your
work
and
your
team's
work.
I
know
it
was
a
group
effort
and
to
all
those
who
have
participated
over
the
last
several
months
to
get
us
to
this
place.
We
certainly
appreciate
that
hard
work.
I
know
it's
not
always
easy.
A
D
Thank
you
chair,
and
it's
good
to
see
you
both
today
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
talking
about
this.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
have
a
couple
of
things
that
you
said
that
I
I
took
the
notes
down
correctly,
so
this
is
basically
internal
policy
of
law
enforcement
like
in
nevada
already,
and
then
this
would
be
putting
the
policy
in
statute.
I
Thank
you
so
much
similar
harder
great
to
see
you
as
well.
You
have
heard
me
correctly
in
that
regard.
Many,
I
don't
know
if
all
of
our
agencies,
but
many
of
our
agencies,
the
two
largest,
have
policies
already
that
limit
and
restrict
these
have
no
knock
warrants,
but
their
policies
and
policies
change
as
administrations
change
and
what
I
look
to
do
with
this
is
to
codify
what
is
clearly
a
best
practice
for
no
knock
warrants
into
our
law,
so
that
we
can
have
the
gold
standard
in
that
regard.
D
Follow-Up,
okay,
thank
you,
and
so
could
you
just
give
me
an
example.
So,
as
I
understand
you
said,
there's
an
arrest
warrant
and
a
search
warrant.
Those
are
the
two
different
types.
I
Similar
hardy,
I
was
mentioning
that
there
were
two
types
of
warrants:
no
knock
warrants
or
knocking
announce
warrants:
okay,
when
you
watch
law
and
order,
you'll
hear
them
run
up
to
the
to
the
door
with
their
signature
and
their
paraphernalia
on
and
they'll
scream
police
and
they'll
crash
the
door
open.
That's
called
a
a
knock
and
announce
okay
or
sometimes
they'll
walk
up,
and
they
won't
say
a
thing
and
you'll
see
them
number
to
each
other,
one
two
three
and
then
they'll,
just
slam
the
door
in
that's
a
no
knock
warrant.
D
Okay
and
then
could
you
give
me
an
example
just
if
this
is
past,
then
what
kind
of
circumstances?
I
know
you
can't
cover
everything,
but
what's
a
circumstance
that
they
would
want
to
use
in
a
no
knock
warrant
or
could.
I
Well,
no,
I
appreciate
the
question.
Let
me
answer
that
two
ways.
Let
me
tell
you
the
the
reason
why
it's
important
that
we
modify
or
put
into
law
what
I'm
suggesting
here.
I'm
not
sure
I
don't
know
if
you're
familiar
with
the
brianna
taylor
case,
who
was
killed
with
the
wrongful
execution
of
an
olympic
no
knock
warrant.
We
want
to
avoid
that
and
so
do
our
law
enforcement
agencies.
D
J
A
K
Thank
you
chair,
thank
you
attorney
general
and
your
office
for
bringing
this
very,
very,
very
important
bill.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
questions
that
I
think
will
help
just
for
some
clarity
and
a
couple
of
things,
as
I'm
also
learning
more
about
our
process.
K
So
I
noticed
in
section
two
where
it
talks
about
the
summons
and
warrants,
and
please
forgive
me
if
this
is
a
remedial
question,
but
if
we
could
just
get
some
clarity
on
the
difference
in
summons
and
a
warrant
and
then
when
the
it
would
be
necessary
to
proceed
with
the
nodemark
warrant.
I
H
Yes,
sir,
for
the
record
kyle
george
first
assistant
attorney
general.
The
difference
between
a
warrant
and
summons
is
simple.
A
warrant
is
a
court
order,
directing
law
enforcement
to
seek
out
and
arrest
a
person.
An
individual
named
in
the
warrant
and
a
summons
is
a
legal
notice
by
the
court
sent
directly
to
the
president,
inviting
them
or
instructing
them
to
appear
in
court
on
a
certain
date
and
time.
So
one
is.
H
K
H
For
the
record
kyle
george,
it
depends
on
which,
on
which
what
the
underlying
crime
is
in
existing
law.
There
is
a
provision
that
says
the
court
must
issue
a
warrant
for
arrest
for
certain
trivial
crimes.
Basically,
traffic
violations,
hunting
violations
and
warcraft
violations.
Where
this
subject
may
not
have
had
id
at
the
time
they
were
stopped.
H
What
we've
done
in
this
bill
is
taking
that
out
and
giving
the
court
some
discretion
saying
these
are
not
public
safety
crimes
that
we're
concerned
about
and
therefore
we'll
invite
the
person
to
give
them
the
opportunity
to
show
up
in
court
to
resolve
that
issue.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
the
person
fails
to
respond
to
that
summons.
At
that
point,
a
warrant
will
in
fact
issue
for
the
arrest
and
it
reverts
back
to
the
regular
wrong
procedure.
H
Thank
you,
assemblyman
for
the
record
kyle
george,
under
the
the
proposals
contained
within
this
bill.
Never
we
do
not
anticipate
using
this
bill
or
using
no
knock
warrants
for
misdemeanor
practice.
We
believe
it
should
be
reserved
only
for
the
most
serious
and
significant
crimes
which
must
be
felonies
to
begin
with,
as
well
as
present
some
risk
to
public
safety,
to
officers,
safety
and
other
criteria.
H
So,
under
the
scenario
we
talked
about,
where
someone
is
being
summonsed
in
for
a
minor,
perhaps
craft
defense
and
then
failed
to
show
up
repeatedly
under
this
bill
and
no
enoch
warren
should
never
issue
from
those
particular
circumstances,
because
that
would
not
amount
to
a
felony.
Okay.
K
My
page
got
a
little
confused
here,
I
believe.
Well,
it's
subsection
e
or
item
e
it
discusses
the
officers
must
determine
if
any
change
in
circumstance
has
been
abbeviated.
K
It
has
alleviated
the
need
for
no
knock
entry,
so
if
we
could
just
get
some
context
because
from
what
I
understand
or
what
I
may
believe
in
the
brianna
taylor
case,
there
is
some
debate
on
whether
or
not
they
had
the
person
they
were
looking
for
in
custody
already,
and
so
I'm
assuming
that
this
would
require
them
to
kind
of
do
a
check
to
make
sure
before
they
exercise
another,
no
knock
warrant
that
they
have
not
already
obtained
the
suspect.
So
how
like?
K
What
are
the
ways
that
they
must
use
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
no
knock
is
still
necessary?.
I
Aaron
full
for
the
record,
I'm
going
to
refer
back
to
kyle
after
I
offer
a
preliminary
remark
and
I'll
just
say:
this
is
entirely
fact
specific
to
cinnamon
miller
if
they
walk
up
to
the
door
and
they
recognize
something
on
the
scene
that
says.
Okay,
I
no
longer
need
to
know
knock
warren.
It
could
be
as
you've
indicated.
We
just
got
a
call
saying
we
got
the
guy
in
custody
already,
but
it
could
be
something
else.
You
know.
I
Maybe
the
door
is
open
and
they
can
and
as
they
walked
up,
they
saw
someone
you
know
I
could
make
up
a
a
whole
bunch
of
scenarios
in
which
they
would
need
to
reassess
whether
they
need
to
do
a
no-knock
warrant
or
not,
and
that's
the
point
of
this
is
to
ensure
that
they
do
in
fact
do
a
reassessment
of
the
circumstances
before
executing
it.
But
let
me
let
kyle
speak
a
little
bit
more
on
that
issue.
H
Thank
you
attorney
general
for
the
right
kyle
george.
I
I
think
that
covers
most
of
the
the
answer
to
that
question.
Assemblyman,
the
one
thing
I
would
add
one
other
example.
I
would
add,
law
enforcement
may
show
up
on
scene
and
notice,
presence
of
children,
for
example,
and
based
on
that
they
are
no
longer
able
to
safely
execute
a
no-knock
warrant
and
therefore
determine
at
that
point.
Perhaps
the
subject
is
not
present
their
kids
around.
H
They
may
decide
just
knock
on
the
door
and
be
given
access
into
the
facilities
onto
the
premises
as
opposed
to
executing
no
knock
warrants,
but
I
think
the
attorney
general
really
encapsulated
the
underlying.
Perhaps
the
best
example
of
when
circumstances
would
change.
K
I
I
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
the
affidavit
requirement
lays
out
some
specific
requirements
that
the
peace
officers
have
to
go
to
before
they
can
even
get
the
no
knock
warrant.
The
the
reassessment
of
the
scene
is
also
going
to
be
something
that
is
required,
and
you
know
to
your
specific
question
whether
they
have
to
call
a
superior,
that's,
not
necessarily
laid
out
as
a
requirement,
but
in
the
totality
of
circumstances
it's
something
that
should
be
considered.
H
Thank
you,
kyle
jones,
for
the
record
under
this
process.
The
applicants
must
make
specific
representations
to
the
court
underlying
why
it
is
necessary
to
have
a
no
knock
warrant
in
these
circumstances,
so
they
may,
for
example,
list
five
different
reasons.
If
upon
arriving
at
the
scene,
two
of
those
no
longer
there
the
need
for
no
knock
warrant
may
no
longer
be
present.
So
no,
there
is
no
specific
requirement
that
they
call
anyone.
H
Perhaps
the
people
with
the
best
knowledge
are
actually
on
scene,
but
one
thing
I
would
point
out:
the
bill
does
require
that
the
no
knock
warrant
will
be
executed
under
the
guidance
of
the
peace
officer
who
is
trained
in
execution
of
warrants.
So
that
is
one
safety
check,
so,
as
rightly
private
gaining
entry,
they
will
probably
go
through
a
checklist.
Okay.
This
is
what
we
represented
to
the
court.
This
these
factors
are
all
still
present.
Yes,
we
can
still
do
this
safely.
We
cannot
proceed
or
perhaps
not.
A
And
assemblyman
miller
I'll
just
add
on,
because
you
asked
the
question,
I
think
there's
an
important
distinction.
So
if
someone
has
a
summons,
as
mr
george
indicated
telling
them
they
need
to
be
in
court,
if
they
don't
show
up
in
court,
the
judge
will
issue
what's
called
a
bench
warrant.
That's
just
the
judge,
saying
I'm
issuing
a
bench
warrant,
so
that
is
a
warrant
and
essentially
what
that
warrant
means
is.
A
If
law
enforcement
happens
to
run
you
or
encounter
you,
they're
gonna,
say:
there's
a
warrant
and
they're
gonna,
probably
arrest
you
the
warrants
that
are
contemplated
in
senate
bill
50
the
two
different
types.
These
are
warrants
where
you
actually
have
to
swear
out
an
affidavit
in
front
of
a
judge
and
give
particular
facts.
A
Sometimes
you
hear
those
phrases,
interchangeably,
bench,
warrant,
arrest,
warrant,
search
warrant,
they're
all
different,
and
I
think
the
ones
that
we
have
in
senate
bill
50
are
the
most
difficult
to
get
because
there's
a
direct
judicial
oversight
and
there
has
to
be
sworn
affidavits
from
law
enforcement
or
prosecutors
to
support
them.
So
hopefully
that
doesn't
muddy
the
water
and
clears
it
up
just
a
little
bit
for
you
and
if
you
have
additional
questions,
please
do
feel
free
to
ask
we're
happy
to
to
walk
you
through.
B
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you
a.g
and
your
staff
for
being
here
today
and
for
having
the
courage
and
the
and
just
having
the
courage
to
bring
this.
It's
it's
really
much
appreciated.
I
did
want
to
sort
of
ask
you
a
little
bit
more
privately
about
section
1.1
and
in
number
six.
B
B
Do
you
believe
that
these
additional
requirements
for
to
substantiate
the
need
for
a
no
knock
warrant
will
help
us
in
the
future
to
avoid
misidentification,
and
in
that
case
it
was
really
kind
of
blatant.
The
names
were
the
same,
but
the
description
was
completely
different
and
and
someone
lost
their
life.
So
how
do
you
see
this?
These
extra
steps,
helping
avoid
that.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question.
The
senate
woman
summers
armstrong
great
to
see
you
and
I
actually
appreciate
the
question.
I'm
not
certain
that
this
bill
would
directly
address
a
an
honest
mistake
of
measure
of
misidentification.
I
What
this
bill
seeks
to
do
is
to
ensure
that,
in
the
section
you're
talking
about
specifically
a
peace
officer
should
not
deliberately
misrepresent
a
material
fact.
In
other
words,
they
don't
need
to
be
lying,
excuse
my
colloquialism,
and
if
they've
lied
about
something
that
is
material
to
them,
receiving
the
affidavit
in
the
first
place,
there
are
judicial
remedies
now
that
have
been
put
in
and
this
specific
provision
was
heavily
negotiated.
I
I'm
going
to
just
say
the
aclu,
for
example,
was
like.
We
need
to
insert
some
language
that
is
going
to
allow
for
some
level
of
accountability
to
the
extent
this
happens,
and
we
worked
well
with
the
district,
attorney's
association
and
others
to
come
up
with
this
language.
It's
language
that
is
similar
to
what
is
in
the
law
related
to
misrepresentations,
and
what
happens
when
affidavits
are,
you
know,
contain
his
representations,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
it
would
have
affected.
I
This.
This
absolutely
would
kick
in
to
address
that.
But
if
there
were
again,
if
it
were
not
a
deliberate
misrepresentation
of
ontario
fact,
it's
not
likely
that
the
circumstance
would
have
been
addressed.
B
I
And
their
contract-
okay,
I'm
sorry!
I
shouldn't
cut
you
off
sorry
for
the
record
over
there.
I
know
shouldn't
speak
over
anyone.
It
does
provide
for
a
judicial
remedy
that
addresses
this.
The
warrant
will
will
be
deemed
to
have
not
been
validly
issued
in
the
first
place
and
there
are
subsequent
consequences
in
the
criminal
legal
procedures
that
will
manifest
that
type
of
finding.
B
Okay,
thank
you
because
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
at
least
in
the
communities
that
I
represent
and
and
just
throughout
the
state,
we're
seeing
this
and
we're
hearing
about
this
every
single
day.
We
have
a
person
who
calls
in
every
day
and
gives
us
information.
B
We
understand
that
there's
a
need
for
for
the
law,
but
when
we
see
things
that
happen
that
are
outside
the
construct
of
what
we
believe
is
fair
application
of
of
the
law,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
remedy,
and
so
you
know
I
think
people
just
want
accountability
and
they
want
there
to
be
clarity
and
and
results
right.
B
If,
if
my
son
is
out
there,
acting
up
and
y'all
come
and
get
him
first
of
all,
he
was
raised,
they
were
raised,
bear
and
they
know
better
and
they
you
should
come
and
get
them
if
they're,
if
they're
cutting
up.
But
if
my
son
brandon
who's
a
common
name
is
mistaken
for
someone
else
and
someone
and
the
police
come
and
they
behave
in
a
manner
that
is,
is
not
acceptable.
We
also
want
them
to
be
held
accountable
if
there's
a
poor
behavior.
So
we
just
appreciate
you
so
much
for
bringing
this.
I
Thank
you
listen.
I
know
your
children,
you
you,
you
know
my
children
and
if
either
of
our
kids
get
caught
up,
we're
going
to
call
each
other.
That's
that's
how
we
operate,
and
I
appreciate
that
comment,
and
I
will
say
this.
I
know
it
was
a
comment,
not
a
question
and
if
you
will
endorse
me
real
quickly,
mr
chair,
when
I
brought
this
bill
and
the
pattern
and
practice
bill
that
you
guys
have
already
passed,
it
was
a
direct
result
of
the
outcry
from
the
community.
I
Our
community
said
they
wanted
some
accountability.
They
wanted
transparency.
We
had
our
justice
and
injustice
forum
where
we
had
law
enforcement,
both
union
representation
and
brass.
So
to
speak,
we
had
the
aclu,
we
had
community
members,
we
had
everybody
on
the
screen
and
immediate
aftermath
of
george
floyd
and
here's
the
issue
when
asked
during
that
time.
I
almost
called
you
by
your
first
name:
someone
showed
summers,
armstrong.
What
could
allies
do
because
they
felt
our
pain.
I
I
People
have
gotten
complacent,
they
they
say
one
thing
on
the
record
so
to
speak,
and
then,
when
it
comes
time
to
support
the
actual
policy
that
they
say
they
claim
to
support,
they
won't
do
it,
and
so
what
we
see
here,
what
we
saw
in
the
state
senate
on
this
bill
in
particular,
was
a
unanimous
vote
coming
out
of
committee,
which
I
think
tells
the
public
that
we're
listening
to
them.
I
I
take
the
onus
upon
myself
to
try
to
present
these
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
I'm
getting
quick
arrows
in
the
back
of
from
from
from
doing
some
of
these
things.
It's
not
a
bravery
from
my
perspective
assemblywoman,
because
I'm
not
scared
of
this.
I
L
Thank
you
chair
good
morning,
mr
attorney
general.
It's
a
pleasure
to
see
you
and
your
staff.
Hopefully
we'll
see
you
again
this
afternoon
at
the
law
enforcement
officer.
Memorial
speaking,
I've
got
actually
two
questions.
If
I
may
one's
a
curiosity
question,
you
mentioned
that
there's
an
agency
in
the
u.s
that
does
not
allow
no
knock
warrants.
What
is
that
agency.
I
Senator
neil
great
to
see
you
as
well,
no,
I
don't
think
I
mentioned
it
was
an
agency.
I
said
there
are
some
folks
who
are
pressing
for
the
complete
abolition
of
no
knock
warrants.
That
is
not
my
effort
or
my
desire.
There
may
be
agencies
and
in
fact
I
know
I
believe,
colorado
passed
a
complete
ban.
I
could
be
mistaken
on
that,
but
I
think
colorado
passed
a
complaint
ban
of
no
knock
warrants
and
other
jurisdictions
have
done
so
as
well.
I
L
I
must
have
misunderstood
you,
and
I
agree
with
you.
A
complete
ban
is
absolutely
irrational.
We
try
to
take
a
motion
out
of
a
lot
of
our
actions
when
we
make
laws
and
deal
with
the
facts,
not
the
emotion
I
must
say,
and.
I
I'll
just
say
reasonable
minds
can
disagree
and
I'm
not
chastising
colorado
for
banning
it.
That's
their
desire
in
in
their
reasonable
mind,
they
thought
a
band
was
more
appropriate
than
a
limitation.
So
I'm
not
no.
I
don't
want
to
be
misunderstood,
as
you
know
chastising
it
for
doing
so.
I
just
thought
in
my
own
mind,
I
I
wanted.
L
And
I
agree
with
you
on
that,
and
so,
but
my
real
question
that
I
want
to
do
and
with
is
in
1.16,
and
it's
actually
a
couple
questions
right
now
of
a
peace
officer,
deliberately
falsifies
information,
an
affidavit
for
a
warrant
that,
to
me
is
a
crime.
Is
it
not?
It's
perjury,
it's
perjury,
so
we're
just
once
again
codifying.
What's
already
in
statute.
I
At
some
level,
yes,
sir
unfold
for
the
record
at
some
level-
yes,
sir,
but
again,
this
is
also
indicating
that,
in
addition
to
a
criminal
charge
of
perjury,
there
is
also
a
in
the
process
of
the
criminal
proceeding
that
is
occurring
relative
to
a
particular
subject.
I
That
very
well
could
be
the
case,
and
you
know
I
don't
want
to
speak
with
a
with
whole
cloth
on
that
particular
issue,
and
I
don't
know
my
second.
My
first
assistant
kyle
george
wants
to
chime
in
on
this,
but
there
are
absolutely
procedural
ramifications
for
misrepresenting
material
facts,
one
of
which
may
be
yes.
Indeed,
the
entire
conviction
is
thought
the
entire
arrest
is
thrown
out
and
every
piece
of
evidence
that
has
been
obtained
because
of
the
poisonous
tree
that
you've
referred
to
can't
be
used.
I
That
is
current
constitutional
law,
but
there
may
be
other
iterations
of
ramifications
that
that
I
can't
articulate
off
top
of
my
head
right
now
that
others
may
want
to
chime
in
on
as
well.
L
J
Thank
you,
a.g
jessica.
I
dare
for
the
record,
and
I
do
want
to
give
a
first
assistant
kyle
george,
a
chance
to
talk,
because
he
worked
very
hard
on
the
amendment
and
the
amendment
is
the
the
section
that
you're
referring
to,
but
the
important
part
of
of
that
amendment
is
also
6b.
J
So,
let's
say
an
officer
represents
in
their
affidavit
facts
a
b
c
and
d
fact:
a
is
a
deliberate
misrepresentation.
It
is
not
true,
but
facts
b,
c
and
d
are
true.
If
the
court
looks
at
that
affidavit
and
then
takes
fact,
a
out
and
facts
b,
c
and
d
are
sufficient
to
have
weren't
warranted
a
no
knock
warrant
on
their
own.
Then
the
warrant
would
still
be
valid.
J
J
If
this
misrepresentation
was
gone,
would
I
have
made
the
same
decision,
and
that
is
why
this
this
amendment
is
so
important
and-
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear-
that
regardless
it
would
be
a
gross
miscarriage
of
justice
if
a
peace
officer
commits
perjury
with
a
misrepresentation
to
the
court
and
that
peace
officer
is
then
dealt
with
accordingly,
but
the
warrant
was
still
allowed
to
be
valid
and
the
person
who
was
the
subject
of
that
warrant
goes
to
prison.
To
me,
that
seems
like
it
is
absolutely
a
perversion
of
our
judicial
system.
J
So
that's
what
we're
getting
at
is
to
ensure
that,
of
course,
peace
officers
who
are
doing
their
their
hardest
and
relying
on
information
and
putting
forward
a
an
affidavit
that
they
swear
to
under
the
under
oath
is
appropriate,
and
I
I
do
want
to
commend
the
many
law
enforcement
organizations
who
worked
with
us
on
this
amendment.
So
they
can
be
clear
that
their
officers
are
held
to
the
highest
standard,
but
not
an
impossible
one
for
mistakes.
That
do
happen
honestly
in
this
line
of
work,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they're
just
people.
L
Thank
you.
So
we're
talking
about
a
no
knock
warrant.
Maybe
the
facts
did
not
justify
the
no
knock,
but
they
would
have
justified
a
search
warrant,
an
arrest
warrant,
but
you're
saying
it's
void.
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
clarify
does
whether
you're
saying
a
no
knock
is
void,
but
a
warrant
would
have
been
appropriate.
L
J
Thank
you,
assemblyman
jessica.
Dare
for
the
record?
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
because
it's
an
important
one.
The
answer,
I
think,
is
yes,
even
if
a
no
a
regular
warrant,
regular
arrest
or
search
warrant
would
have
been
appropriate
with
those
facts
and
circumstances,
would
it
still
be
void?
Yes,
is
that
a
risk
that
we
take
by
putting
this
in
this
bill?
J
Yes,
but
I
think
the
more
important
risk
is
to
allow
deliberate
misrepresentations
to
stand
and
to
permit
warrants
to
remain
valid
if
there
are
deliberate
misrepresentations.
A
You're
welcome
and
assemblyman
o'neill
certainly
would
invite
you
to
continue
those
discussions
with
the
attorney
general
and
his
staff
in
the
interest
of
time
we're
going
to
take.
I
think
one
more
question,
because
we
do
have
a
lot
of
folks
who
want
to
testify
on
this
bill,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
through
that
testimony,
so
we're
going
to
go
to
assemblyman
or
liquor
for
our
final
question
for
attorney
general
ford.
M
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
david
oren
liquor
assembly
district
20.,
I'd
like
to
follow
up
on
assemblywoman's
summers,
armstrong's
question
and,
as
you
point
out,
the
people
make
mistakes
and
you
would
you
know
we're
not
going
to
punish
somebody
for
a
mistake,
but
when
I
think
about
all
the
changes
in
the
health
care
setting
to
prevent
the
prop
mistakes
from
happening
all
the
double
checks,
they
do
to
make
sure
you're.
I'm
david
licker
you're
a
round
four.
Before
we
take
your
blood
or
cut
off
your
foot.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question
of
cinnamon
only
locker.
I
think
the
answer
is
contained
within
the
final
requirement.
I
That
says
they
have
to
reassess
the
situation
before
executing
on
the
no
knock
warrant
right
and
you
know,
while
this
bill
and
the
law
would
not
dictate
necessarily
every
single
action
item
that
a
law
enforcement
officer
would
have
to
undergo
in
order
to
ensure
that
everything
is
lined
up
with
all
the
you
know,
it
does
require
a
final
assessment
of
the
facts
and
I
think,
as
kyle
george
indicated
earlier,
that-
and
maybe
I
indicated
this
earlier-
it
very
well
could
be
a
last
minute
phone
call
from
a
supervisor
saying
actually
wrong
house
go
next
door,
or
actually
we
got
the
guy
in
custody.
I
Those
are
the
types
of
things
that
in
practice
would
be
occurring
on
the
ground
and
it's
required
by
purposes
under
the
under
this
statute
that
they
do
assess
before
executing
the
no
knock
warrant.
I
don't
know
if
mr
george
wants
to
offer
any
additional
thoughts
on
that.
H
Thank
you
attorney
general
kyle
jones
for
the
record,
just
just
to
kind
of
clarify.
I'm
sorry,
let's
clarify,
I
just
wanted
to
follow
with
one
point
in
this.
H
H
To
the
question
of
whether
is
a
last
minute
check,
every
officer
should
be
doing
that
anyway,
when
executing
these
high
risk
warrants
because
of
the
potential
danger
to
public
safety
and
officer
safety.
So
I
do
think
as
a
matter
of
practice,
the
the
trained
professionals
who
execute
these
specialized
warrants
will
will
do
so
just
to
ensure
one
last
time
that
everyone
is
as
safe
as
possible
before
it's
executed.
I
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
further
out
on
that.
M
A
Okay
committee
members,
I
think
we're
gonna
end
questions
there.
There
may
have
been
some
additional
questions,
but
I'll
ask
you
to
follow
up
offline,
as
we
have
another
bill
still
to
here,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
we
can
get
through
some
testimony
on
this
one.
So
thank
you
attorney
general
ford.
Thank
you.
Miss
adair
and
mr
george,
we're
now
going
to
take
testimony
on
the
bill.
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
50,
and
I'm
going
to
start
here
in
the
room
in
carson
city.
A
D
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jennifer
noble,
I'm
a
chief
deputy
district
attorney
in
the
washoe
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
I
also
represent
the
17
elected
district
attorneys
of
nevada,
the
nevada
district,
attorney's
association,
and
we
are
here
today
in
full
support
of
senate
bill
50..
D
I
don't
want
to
take
up
a
lot
of
your
time.
I
know
a
lot
of
questions
have
been
asked,
but
I
want
to
thank
attorney
general
ford,
kyle,
george
and
jessica
adair
for
really
bringing
together
a
very
diverse
group
of
stakeholders
and
not
locking
us
in
a
room
but
putting
us
in
a
room
all
day.
They
did
feed
us
pizza
and
there
was
coffee,
but
we
were
in
there
for
the
duration
of
thanks
to
vaccines
and
masks,
and
the
result
is
the
bill
that
you
see
before
you.
D
It
is
the
true
result
of
good
faith
participation
by
everybody,
and
I
urge
you
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
D
N
D
Have
a
I
have
a
friend
who
son
was
killed
by
a
no
knock
warrant?
He
had
been
growing
a
couple
of
marijuana
plants,
the
police
broke
in
early
in
the
mornings.
He
thought
somebody
had
broken
in.
He
didn't
know
what
was
going
on.
He
brought
his
gun
out
and
he
was
shot
and
killed
in
his
hallway
outside
his
bedroom
door.
J
D
D
A
A
So
we
have
letters
and
support
from
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada,
make
it
work,
nevada,
the
aclu
of
nevada,
the
clark
and
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
and
battleborn
progress
and
the
reason
they
have
submitted
those
letters
in
support
rather
than
testify,
is
they
wanted
to
make
sure
that
affected
family
members
would
have
time
to
testify
on
the
phone
today,
given
our
time
constraints.
So
I
want
to
thank
those
organizations
for
putting
their
comments
in
writing.
A
F
G
F
G
Good
morning,
members
of
assembly,
judiciary,
chair
yeager,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
police
union,
my
name
is
eddie
ablester
e-d-d-I-e-a-b-l-e-s-e-r,
the
members
of
the
nevada
police
union,
want
to
thank
attorney
general
ford
and
his
dynamic
staff
for
all
their
hard
work
in
reaching
out
and
connecting
with
various
groups
across
the
state
or
senate
assembly
bill
50.
We
appreciate
the
work
that
his
team
has
done
and
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
police
union
and
our
900
plus
members
in
the
state
we
call
in
support
for
this
bill.
Thank
you.
F
C
C
Officers
entered
apartment
2l
instead
of
apartment
3l
and
tackled
a
75-year-old,
reverend
named
aseline
williams,
william
suffered
heart
failure
and
died.
During
the
raid
on
may
16
2003
12
nypd
officers
stormed
the
apartment
of
alberta
screw
on
a
no
knock
warrant
before
entering
they
tossed
the
flash
grenade
the
boom
stunned
alberta.
She
died
two
hours
later
from
a
heart
attack
on
november
21st,
2006
three
plane
cross
officers
of
atlanta
pd
broke
down
the
door
of
cat
92
year
old
catherine
johnston,
a
retiree
living
alone.
She
fired
one
shot
from
her
rusty
revolver
at
the
intruders.
C
The
officers
responded
with
39
shots,
five
or
six
of
which
hit
catherine.
The
officers
handcuffed
her
as
she
was
dying.
The
list
continues
on
a
seven-year-old
ayanna
stanley
jones
was
killed
during
a
no-knock
warrant.
At
least
81
civilians
died
executing
these
type
of
search
warrants
from
2010
through
2016.
These
numbers
only
include
deaths.
They
do
not
include
people
who
have
been
permanently
injured
or
wounded
or
have
property
damage
as
a
result
of
these
raids.
I
do
support
the
bill
because
it's
a
start
and
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
Thank
you.
F
G
Hello,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
chuck
callaway
c-a-l-l-a,
representing
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
want
to
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
including
us
in
the
working
group,
and
I
think
that
was
a
very
beneficial
way
for
us
to
work
out
the
details
of
this
bill.
We
are
in
support.
G
I
just
did
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
in
the
senate
and
also
today,
in
this
in
the
assembly,
the
lines
sometimes
tend
to
get
a
little
blurred
between
a
no
knock
warrant
and
a
tactical
entry,
such
as
a
swat
team,
would
do
in
a
hostage
situation,
and
I
just
wanted
the
record
to
reflect
that.
Those
are
two
entirely
separate
things
that
a
no
knock
warrant
does
not
necessarily
equate
to
a
tactical
entry,
but
we
are
in
support,
and
we
thank
the
attorney
general
for
including
us.
Thank
you.
F
G
Good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
troyce
e
k,
m
e,
representing
the
las
vegas
police
managers
and
supervisors
association,
who
represent
the
sergeants
lieutenants
and
captains
for
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We'd
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general
for
his
invite
to
take
part
in
the
working
group.
G
We
think
it
was
an
effective
group
and
feel
that
the
changes
and
the
amendment
to
address
the
exclusionary
rule
for
allowing
a
thorough
review
to
ensure
that
warrants
that
meet
the
fourth
amendment
but
might
have
an
issue
on
the
no
knock
side
would
still
be
authorized
to
have
that
evidence
in.
We
feel
that
that
was
a
a
genuine
amendment.
We
feel
enhanced
oversight
over
no
knock
warrants
because
of
the
danger
involved
in
them
is
the
right
way
to
go
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
we
encourage
your
support.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
I
50..
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
your
attorney
general
aaron,
four
for
the
record.
Thank
you
again
for
entertaining
this
bill.
It's
important
and
again,
I
think
the
unanimity
coming
out
of
the
other
chamber
demonstrates
that
we're
listening.
I
hope
that
we
can
get
comparable
support
from
this
committee
and
from
the
chair
in
that
regard.
I
also
want
to
indicate
that
I
got
an
email
from
the
naacp
reno
sparks
who
wanted
to
also
voice
their
support
for
the
bill.
I
So
if
there
are
no
other
questions,
I
I
say
thank
you
so
much
and
have
a
great
afternoon
great
morning.
A
A
So
thank
you
again
to
you
and
your
staff
for
this
bill
and
thanks
to
all
who
participated
in
those
working
groups
with
that
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
50
we'll
now
go
to
our
second
bill,
listed
on
the
agenda
and
I'll
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
62
in
its
first
reprint.
That
measure
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
solicitation
of
contributions
good
to
see
you
again
miss
adair
mr
george,
when
you're
ready,
please
present
senate
bill
62
and
then
we'll
see.
If
we
have
some
questions,
mr
george,
are
you
sticking
with
us?
A
J
Thank
you,
chair,
yeager,
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
and
they
are
missing
out,
because
this
is
a
fun
one.
No,
I
I
apologize
ag
ford
has
to
go,
monitor
a
court
hearing
that
is
starting
in
just
10
minutes.
So
thank
you.
So
much
for
hearing
this
bill
senate
bill
62
senate
bill
62
is
a
bill
intended
to
increase
transparency
of
organizations,
soliciting
charitable
contributions
in
nevada
and
give
the
state
additional
tools
to
fight
charity
fraud.
J
First,
I
want
to
express
my
deep
gratitude
to
the
deputy
secretary
of
state
kim
perandi
and
the
entire
secretary
of
state's
office
and
secretary
of
state
sagaski
for
their
assistance
in
the
formulation
of
this
bill.
It
has
undoubtedly
improved
the
bill,
so
it
best
serves
the
state
and
our
mutual
goals
to
promote
transparency
and
trust.
J
J
Unfortunately,
there
are
those
who
seek
to
exploit
the
generosity
of
others
for
their
own
greed.
Charitable
organizations
registered
with
the
irs
as
a
501c3
organization
must
submit
lengthy
verification
and
documentation
to
demonstrate
that
the
organization
is
organized
and
operated
exclusively
for
charitable,
religious,
educational,
scientific,
literary
or
other
approved
purposes.
J
Fraudulent
organizations
clearly
cannot
meet
this
threshold,
so
many
turns
to
turn
to
other
kinds
of
entities
that
are
easily
formed
and
simply
call
it.
A
charity
common
examples
of
these
entities
include
pacs
and
llc's.
You
are
probably
familiar
with
pacs
or
political
action
committees,
while
most
pacs
serve
a
legitimate
political
purpose.
There
are
those
who
use
the
more
relaxed
registration
requirements
to
masquerade
as
a
charity,
solicit
contributions
from
well-meaning
people
and
then
pocket
the
cash.
J
Our
office
receives
complaints
regarding
charity
fraud,
particularly
after
a
disaster
when
people
are
vulnerable
and
others
seek
to
assist
them.
Yet
these
scam
organizations
can
escape
our
jurisdiction
and
punishment
at
the
federal
level.
The
irs
cannot
revo
revoke
the
tax-exempt
status
of
an
organization
that
never
registered
as
a
501c3
in
the
first
place
under
nrs
598.1305,
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
has
jurisdiction
under
the
deceptive
trade
practices,
act
to
prosecute
charities
that
make
false
claims
in
their
solicitations,
but
and
here's
the
key
part.
J
J
J
J
Charities
are
also
required
to
file
an
annual
financial
report
with
the
secretary
of
state
with
extremely
basic
information
that
would
normally
be
included
on
a
charities
990
form
with
the
irs.
It
is
as
simple
as
one
single
page
section.
Two
clarifies
that
a
contribution
does
not
include
bona
fide
fees
or
membership
dues
that
this
is
not
intended
to
apply
to
clubs
or
hobby
organizations.
J
People
who
pay
a
due
to
be
a
member
of
a
club
and
they're
not
actively
soliciting
charitable
con
contributions
from
the
general
public.
It
also
clarifies
that
a
contribution
does
not
have
to
be
tax.
Deductible
donations
to
pacs
or
chipping
into
an
llc
is
clearly
not
tax,
deductible
sections
three
and
four
make
conforming
changes.
Section
five
makes
conforming
changes
to
what
an
to
that
the
types
of
organizations
has
been
expanded
and
section
six
and
seven
also
make
conforming
changes.
M
L
L
M
G
J
A
A
That's
where
the
word
comes
from
and
is
in
the
same
sentence
as
perpetuities.
So
is
it
was
it
article
14?
Is
that
where
it
was,
I
can't
remember
we'll
find
that
site
for
you,
but
that
is.
That
is
definitely
the
word
of
the
day.
So
I
challenge
everyone
on
the
committee
to
try
to
use
the
word
elemotionary
at
some
point
today
and
you'll
get
confused,
looks
from
our
colleagues,
I'm
sure.
Do
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members,
assemblyman
aren't
liquor.
M
J
Thank
you,
assemblyman
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
so
that
language
and
the
bill
is
existing
nevada
state
law,
so
we're
not
seeking
to
change
state
laws.
That
applies,
but
because
religious
organizations
often
do
file
as
a
501c3
they're
already
covered.
So
in
section
1a
they
are
already
required
to
register
with
the
secretary
of
state
as
a
501c3
organization,
and
that's
not
what
we're
we're
not
trying
to
change
any
of
that
of
that
status.
Currently.
D
Thank
you,
terry
yeager.
Thank
you,
miss
adair,
so
I
just
had
a
quick
question.
The
bill
expands
the
type
of
organizations
required
to
register
the
secretary
of
state
as
terrible
organizations,
and
then
in
section
one
sub
one.
It
says
charitable
organization
means
any
person
directly
or
indirectly
solicits
contributions.
D
J
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
the
question,
because
we
want
it
jessica.
Dare
for
the
record.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
didn't
happen.
So
there
is
current
regulation
already
under
the
secretary
of
state
regs
that
exclude
those
very
small
mom
and
pop
lemonade
stands,
so
we're
not
seeking
to
change
any
of
that
those
current
regs
and
that,
because
that
was
very
important
to
us.
What
we're
trying
to
do,
though,
is
capture
and
the
reason
it's
it's.
J
A
person
is
because
the
the
individual
will
file
as
a
an
officer
of
that
organization
with
the
secretary
of
state,
but
no
we're
not
seeking
to
expand
the
definition
to
those
those
existing
small
small
organizations.
D
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
kasama,
from
district
2..
Thank
you
again
for
all
your
presentations
today.
D
I
guess
my
my
question
is:
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
starting
a
whole
new
area
of
of
people
filing
and
and
we're
probably
a
lot
of
people-
don't
know
they
need
to
file,
and
it
just
seems
to
me
that
the
bad
actors
aren't
going
to
file,
and
so
it
seems
like
there's
just
a
whole
bunch
of
policy
and
regulation
that
I
don't
think
is
needed
because
it's
the
you
know,
you're
the
bad
actors
aren't
going
to
come
and
do
that
and
then
you're
still
going
to
get
complaints
from
them
and-
and
we
know,
there's
so
many
organizations-
I
mean
everybody-
puts
military
or
or
something
for
the
organization
looking
for
money
and
and-
and
you
know,
as
you
said,
prying,
you
know
on
emotions
from
people,
so
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
think
of
how
this
in
the
big
picture.
J
J
So
when
we
get
complaints
from
or
from
an
individual
who
said
hey,
I
got
the
solicitation
who
says
that
they're
raising
money
for
las
vegas
metro,
but
it's
not
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
foundation.
It's
some
other
random
organization
and
we
go
and
look.
We
look
through
the
secretary
of
state's
website
and
we
don't
see
it
and
we
talk
to
the
secretary
of
state
they're
not
registered,
because
that
organization
is
soliciting
and
would
be
required
to
register
under
this
this
law
and
they
haven't
registered.
J
We
can
then
take
action
against
that
organization
for
the
act
of
not
registering,
and
let's
say
they,
then
they
do
register
and
they
start
making
false
solicitations.
Then
we
can
go
after
them
for
the
dtpa
violation.
I
I
think
you're
right
criminals,
don't
follow
the
law,
but
that's
why
we
design
the
law
to
ensure
that
we
have
the
tools
to
then
go
after
those
who
who
don't
abide
by
the
existing
law
and
also
I
misspoke.
When
I
answered
assemblywoman
krasner's
question,
I
said
regulation
I
meant
law
and
it's
in
section
four.
J
In
its
existing
law,
there
are
existing
statements,
er,
I'm
sorry
statutes
in
the
law,
that
are
exceptions
for
small
organizations,
and
it
is
currently
in
the
bill
in
section
four
and
I
apologize
for
misspeaking
on
that.
N
J
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
yes,
and
we
do
rely
on
those
constituent
complaints,
we're
complete,
driven
office,
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
conduct
up
sting
operations,
for
example
on
these
types
of
organizations,
but
we
do
get
these
complaints
and
right
now
it
is
so
frustrating
for
our
office
to
not
be
able
to
do
anything
about
the
you
know,
americans
for
america
organization,
that's
raising
money
for
cancer
research,
and
we
know
that
they're,
not
a
legitimate
organization,
and
that
people
think
that
they're
donating
to
a
legitimate
organization
that
would
you
know,
assist
in
cancer
research.
J
So,
yes,
I
I
believe
that
we
will
and
working
with
the
secretary
of
state
on
this
bill.
They
are
very
interested
in
working
on
these
issues
as
well,
because
it
serves
us
all
and
we'd
be
happy
to
receive
those
complaints.
But
I
cannot
tell
you
how
frustrating
it
is
for
our
office
to
know
that
there's
nothing
that
we
can
do
under
the
current
law
if
they
are
not
an
actual
charity.
A
I
don't
think
we
have
other
questions
I
did
want
to
let
the
committee
know
I
found
the
section
in
the
constitution.
It
is
article
15
miscellaneous
provisions,
which
is
a
quite
fascinating
part
of
our
constitution.
It
establishes
carson
city
as
a
seat
of
government.
It
has
term
limits.
It
indicates
when
the
general
election
should
happen
and
also
indicates
that
the
number
of
legislators
shall
never
exceed
75
but,
most
importantly
in
section
4.
This
is
the
entirety
of
the
provision.
No
perpetuity
shall
be
allowed,
except
for
elemonary
purposes.
J
A
Thank
you,
mr,
dare
appreciate
it.
We
will
now
take
some
testimony
on
senate
bill,
62.,
we'll
start
with
testimony
and
support.
There's
nobody
left
here
in
carson
city
in
the
audience.
I
don't
think
there's
anyone
left
on
the
zoom
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
support.
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
close
testimony
in
support.
I
will
now
open
testimony
in
opposition.
Again
we
don't
have
anyone
left
in
the
audience
here
in
carson
city.
We
don't
have
anyone
on
the
zoom.
I
believe
we
have
a
few
folks
on
the
phone
who
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
take
the
first
caller?
Please.
F
N
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
janine
hanson
j-a-n-I-n-e-h-a-n-s-e-n,
I'm
the
state
president
of
nevada,
families
for
freedom.
We
oppose
sb
62,
requiring
many
additional
non-profit
organizations
to
register
and
provide
financial
information
to
the
secretary
of
state.
Registering
these
non-profit
organizations
is
the
first
step
before
requiring
non-profits
to
disclose
their
donors,
which
will
expose
them
to
the
cancer
culture,
intimidation,
retaliation,
harassment
and
violence.
This
has
already
happened
in
california.
N
The
law
in
california
is
being
challenged
in
court
by
americans
for
prosperity
which
filed
against
the
attorney
general,
xavier
becerra,
which
requires
charities
and
tax-exempt
non-profit
organizations
to
provide
the
government
with
names
and
addresses
of
donors.
Robert
alt
of
the
buckeye
institute,
who
is
one
of
the
attorneys
for
the
lawsuit,
said.
In
fact,
it
is
alarming
violation
of
the
first
amendment
right
to
free
association
and
would
have
a
chilling
effect
on
free
speech.
Courts
have
consistently
held
that
forced
disclosure
of
donors
can
threaten
freedom
of
association
since
the
ruling
in
the
landmark
1958
naacp
case.
N
The
brief
in
california
argues
that
freedom
of
association
is
threatened
because
of
potential
retaliation
and
additional
scrutiny
from
the
government.
If
certain
officials
disagree
with
the
mission
of
the
non-profit
afp
and
its
donors
could
be
a
potential
target
of
retaliation
because
of
not
the
nonprofit
often
takes
stances
against
the
government.
As
I
repeat
this
bill,
sb
62
is
the
first
step
toward
what
they're
doing
in
california.
N
F
N
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
community,
my
name
is
melissa,
clement,
with
nevada
ride
to
life,
testifying
in
opposition
to
sd-62.
N
While
I
understand
the
desire
to
protect
the
public
from
scam
charitable
organizations,
we
are
rightly
concerned
that
this
could
be
used
in
future
sessions
and
in
the
future
to
require
organizations,
501
c
4s,
pacs
packs,
etc
to
disclose
their
donors.
This
has
been
used
in
california
and
other
locations
to
dox
donors
who
hold
opinions,
contrary
to
special
interests.
N
This
threatens
freedom
of
speech
and
freedom
of
association.
In
recent
months,
we
have
seen
individuals
losing
their
jobs
being
threatened
for
holding
for
holding
opinions
that
vary
on
life,
liberty,
election
integrity
and
any
other
manner
of
topics,
and
for
this
reason
we
oppose
scp-261.
Thank
you
so
much.
F
G
I'll,
say
first
off
ditto
to
jeannine
hansen's
testimony,
and
I
will
say
that
I
have
the
same
concerns
regarding
the
potential
for
government
overreach
with
the
potential
for
disclosure
of
donors.
The
government
overstepping
its
constitutional
limits
is
nothing
new.
We
saw
this
in
play
when
judicial
watch
obtained
irs
documents,
proving
that
the
obama
administration
ordered
that
agency
to
target
and
destroy
conservative
organizations.
G
According
to
an
article
in
news
punch
from
april
5th,
2017
quote
nearly
700
pages
of
obama.
Irs
scandal
documents
showed
that
officials
working
under
obama
used
inappropriate
political
labels
to
have
conservative
tax-exempt
organizations
receive
unfair
treatment
by
the
irs
government
overreach,
be
it
on
the
federal
or
state
level,
is
a
threat
to
the
liberty
of
americans
and
must
be
avoided
senate
bill
62
would
encourages
overreach.
So
I
urge
you
to
please
oppose
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
F
F
N
A
p
m,
a
n,
I'm
the
state
vice
president
of
nevada,
eagle
forum,
we
oppose
sb
62..
The
people
of
this
great
country
have
always
come
together
to
speak,
to
discuss
to
debate
and
to
celebrate
on
just
about
anything
and
everything.
We
have
always
known
how
important
it
is
to
be
able
to
do
that.
We
sometimes
come
together
in
organizations
and
sometimes
not
so
organized,
but
it
seems
that
our
state
government
wants
to
stifle
our
free
thought
and
free
speech
and
our
gatherings
the
more
we
want
to
enjoy
our
freedoms
and
liberties.
N
N
A
F
To
provide
neutral
testimony
on
senate
bill,
62
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
and
we
will
go
with
the
first
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
one
zero
one
press
star:
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
N
Good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
kim
perandi
k-I-m-p-e-r-o-n-d-I
and
I
serve
as
deputy
secretary
of
state
for
commercial
recordings.
You
may
have
already
seen
my
comments
as
they
were
posted
to
nellis,
while
in
senate
judiciary,
but
we
just
wanted
to
put
this
on
record
here
as
well.
N
I
thank
miss
jessica,
adair
for
bringing
senate
bill
62
to
our
attention
in
its
draft
stage
for
review
and
comment.
The
proposed
changes
to
chapter
82a
under
this
bill
cause
no
deviation
to
our
current
filing
process.
Nor
do
we
anticipate
any
fiscal
impact
to
our
office.
It
is
possible.
The
expanded
definition
may
cause
an
increase
in
the
number
of
filings
our
office
processes,
as
well
as
the
number
of
inquiries
and
investigations
of
complaints.
N
A
A
J
Thank
you,
chair,
just
go
dear
for
the
record
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
opportunity
to
make
some
concluding
remarks,
because
I
was
very
surprised
to
hear
the
opposition
today.
This
is
the
first
we've
learned
of
this
opposition
and
I,
if
you're,
still
on
the
line,
folks
opposition
folks,
I
really
wish
you
had
come
to
our
office
before
the
hearing.
So
we
could
have
talked
about
your
concerns.
J
J
First
of
all,
this
bill
did
not
come
from
legislation
from
california.
It
came
from
model
legislation
from
ohio,
ohio
has
a
scam
pack
law
that
we
thought
was
a
great
example
of
what
states
can
do
in
this
realm
and
we
modeled
our
legislation
after
that
deputy
secretary
paranti
just
testified
as
to
the
financial
requirements
that
must
be
listed
when
filing,
but
if
you're
interested
members
of
the
committee,
it
is
on
page
six
of
the
bill.
J
It
is
very
simple
and
it
contains
absolutely
no
information
that
is
related
to
donors.
None
not
a
single
thing.
I
will
note
that
many
of
the
members
who
are
folks
who
were
testifying
in
opposition
talked
about
donor
information
requirements
as
they
relate
to
501c3s
and
pacs.
J
This
build
doesn't
change
anything
as
it
relates
to
501c3s
and
packs,
as
members
of
this
committee
probably
know
very
intimately,
pacs
have
significant
reporting
requirements
as
it
comes
as
as
it
pertains
to
donors.
There's
a
lot
of
transparency
required
into
terms
of
donor
donations
to
and
from
pax.
This
bill
does
not
change
anything,
and
if
you
notice
in
the
listing
of
types
of
organizations
to
require
there
is
the
word
political
is
not
included
in
terms
of
the
the
types
of
organizations.
J
501
c
3's
also
have
donor
reporting
requirements,
those
are
confidential
and
they
go
to
the
irs
there.
This
bill
does
not
change
anything
as
it
re
pertains
to
501,
c
3s
and
frankly,
the
purpose
of
this
bill
does
not
is
not
pertains
at
2501
c3s
at
all.
501
c3s
are
legitimate
charity
organizations.
That's
not
what
we're
concerned
with
what
we're
concerned
with
are
organizations
that
register
as
organizations
beyond
501
c3s.
J
That
say
that
they
are
a
charity
and
solicit
charitable
contributions
from
the
general
public.
That
is
what
we're
concerned
with
here.
If
the
members
of
the
committee
are
concerned
that
this
bill
could
be
used
to
obtain
donor
information,
I
would
encourage
you
to
read
the
bill.
J
If
you
have
any
questions
about
the
text
of
the
bill,
its
intent,
please
don't
hesitate
to
contact
me
or
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
but
I
want
to
be
extremely
clear
that
there
is
nothing
in
this
bill
that
pertains
to
donor
information.
J
A
N
Thank
you
chair
for
another
chance
and
thank
you
miss
adair
for
that
that
clarification.
It
was
very
helpful
just
in
section
one
down
in
sub
3b,
and
I
I
probably
should
have
asked
this
earlier,
but
now
that
you
mentioned
a
couple
things
that
made
me
think
of
it.
N
J
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
jessica,
dare
for
the
record,
so
we
don't
define
patriotic
and
because
we
don't
want
to
be
too
over
inclusive
or
under
inclusive.
So
I
would
take
the
plain
meaning,
and
so
the
americas
for
american
organization
wants
you
to
chip
in
to
help
america
right.
So,
but
you
know
if
what
we're
concerned
about,
though
you
know,
if
it's
a
pack,
so
I
think
that
might
be
where
you're
headed
right.
If
it
is
a
pac,
they
are
already
required
to
register
with
the
secretary
of
state
as
a
pac.
J
J
So
if
a
pac
is
soliciting
political
contributions,
great
wonderful,
they
fall
under
the
secretary
of
state's
authority
for
appropriate
political
contributions
to
that
pac,
and
there
are
so
many
requirements
that
they
have
to
follow.
But
if
a
pac
is
not
soliciting
political
contributions
and
they're
soliciting
charitable
contributions
that
they
say
will
be
used
for
putting
up
flags
outside
of
a
a
business
or
you
know
down
the
street,
and
then
they
don't
do
that
they
just
take
the
money
themselves.
That
is
a
is
a
lie.
J
It's
a
misleading
statement
in
order
to
solicit
that
charitable
contribution.
That
is
a
really
long
answer
to
your
very
simple
question,
but
I
I
want
to
make
really
clear
that
there's
already
a
lot
of
registration
and
reporting
requirements
as
they
pertain
to
political
organizations.
It's
not
what
we're
trying
to
get
into
and
we
don't
need
to
add
to
that.
What
we
do
need
is
dtpa
jurisdiction
for
those
scam
organizations
that
will
make
it
more
difficult
for
some
of
the
organizations
that
testified
today.
D
Thank
you
for
the
record
assembly,
women
kasama
district
2..
So
I
read
through
that
section
for
again
on
page
five,
where
you
talked
about
you
know,
the
small
little
groups
would
be
exempt,
but,
as
I
read
through
that
it
says
fewer
than
15
persons.
D
So
you
know
if
if
the
the
school
has
a
fundraiser
and
the
child
is
selling
cookies-
and
you
know
I
used
to
do
that
with
my
kids-
are
selling
candles,
you
know
and
you
you
go
to
everybody
in
the
office
or
whatever,
and
you
you
try
and
get
some
funds,
but
many
times
you
know
the
goal
was
to
get
the
to
get.
You
know
20
25
30
and
they
win
a
prize
if
they
have
50
people
and
they're
just
selling
the
candles
or
the
cookies.
It
seems
to
me
that
they
would
have
to
register
now.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
jessica.
Dare
for
the
record?
No!
The
charity
organization,
however,
that
they
that
they
are
raising
money
for
does
need
to
register.
So
if
they
are
raising
money
for
the
susan
g,
komen
foundation,
they're
already
501
c
3,
but
for
example,
they
would
register
right.
So
those
kids
are
just
agents
of
that
organization.
J
That
is
soliciting
contributions,
and
I
also
want
to
be
clear
that
if
the
the
contributions
are
directed
to
only
people
who
are
within
your
family,
so
if
you're
doing
a
fundraiser
for
someone's
medical
expenses,
like
that's,
not
what
we're
trying
to
capture
here
so
these.
I
think
these
are
important
exceptions.
So
we
don't
catch
up
the
folks
who
are
just
trying
to
to
do
a
good
deed.
A
Okay
and
we're
going
to
leave
it
there
committee,
given
the
time
if
you
do
have
additional
questions
for
mr
dair,
please
feel
free
to
reach
out
offline.
Thank
you
for
spending
your
morning
with
us,
mr
dairy.
We
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day,
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
62.
That
takes
us
to
our
last
item
on
this
morning's
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
We
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
write
public
comment.
A
A
F
F
C
Ian
marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e-g-r-a-n-t
sister
at
home
security
murder
by
reno
police
and
washington
county
sheriff's
office
during
the
mental
health
crisis.
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
stanley,
gibson,
stanley
and
gibson
was
born
in
las
vegas
and
was
a
lifelong
resident.
He
served
in
the
u.s
army
during
the
first
gulf
war
and
was
a
decorated
soldier
receiving
medals,
including
the
army,
good
conduct,
medal.
F
C
Service
ribbon
saudi
arabia,
kuwait,
liberation
medal,
south
west
asia
medal
and
the
national
defense
service
medal.
He
had
an
honorable
discharge.
His
mother
had
to
bury
her
son.
His
wife
had
to
bury
her
partner
of
11
years.
Not
only
do
police
murders
of
community
members
weaken
the
public's
trust
in
law
enforcement,
but
as
the
community
and
the
taxpayers
who
ultimately
pay
for
these
bad
actors.
C
Stanley
was
43
years
old
when
he
was
shot
and
killed
by
lvm
pd
officer
jesus
aravello.
In
the
early
morning,
hours
of
december
12
2011.
an
inferior
police
plan
to
force
stanley
out
of
his
car,
led
to
the
shooting
the
officer
erroneously
thought
he
was
being
shot
and
returned
fire.
He
fired
seven
shots
into
stanley's
cadillac,
his
wife
rhonda
said
he
suffered
from
post-traumatic
stress
disorder
from
his
time
proudly
and
bravely
serving
our
country
during
the
gulf
war.
Stanley
gibson
was
unarmed.
C
His
jacket
would
later
be
returned
to
his
wife,
riddled
with
bullet
holes
and
his
service
medal
still
attached
to
his
jacket.
I
don't
think
the
general
public
is
aware
of
how
many
veterans
are
killed
by
police,
while
in
crisis
stanley
was
killed.
Less
than
two
years
after
21
year,
old,
anarm,
trayvon
cole,
who
was
shot
by
lbmpd
in
his
apartment,
bathroom
stanley's
murder,
is
a
perfect
example
of
how
the
mental
health
care
system
failed.
C
Stanley
had
been
arrested
two
days
prior
and
was
ordered
to
have
a
psychic
valve
done
at
the
jail
that
never
took
place
and
he
was
released.
These
unnecessary
murders
by
police
have
been
occurring
for
far
too
long
in
nevada.
I
would
just
like
to
mention
ronald
van
dejas
was
killed,
may
4th
2020
by
rpd
and
spd
washout
d.a
chris
hicks
has
yet
to
release
his
ois
report.
Over
a
year
later,
his
family
and
his
community
wait
for
the
report
and
the
body
cam
footage.
Please
support
those
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability
from
law
enforcement.
A
Thank
you
bps
appreciate
your
help.
As
always
I'll
close
public
comment,
anything
else
from
committee
members
this
morning.
I
don't
see
anything
just
as
a
reminder.
Tomorrow
we
have
a
meeting
at
nine
o'clock.
There
is
a
work
session
planned
for
tomorrow,
as
of
today,
we've
heard
all
the
bills
that
are
within
our
committee.
I
do
believe
we'll
be
getting
more
bills
potentially,
but
as
of
now,
we
don't
have
any
more
left,
so
tomorrow
we'll
be
doing
a
work
session,
starting
at
nine,
a
reminder
that
we'll
have
donuts
available
in
my
office
at
eight
o'clock.
A
So
if
you
get
here
early,
please
stop
by
for
that.
I
don't
yet
know
what
next
week
holds
for
us,
but
I'll
have
more
information
for
you
tomorrow
with
that
behind
us.
Thank
you
committee
for
your
attention
and
hard
work
and
please
go
forward
in
an
elementary
spirit.
We'll
see
we'll
see
you
here
tomorrow
at
9
a.m.
This
meeting
is.