►
From YouTube: 5/29/2021 - Senate 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
I
will
call
this
meeting
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
back
to
order
it
is
still
may
29
2021.
I
appreciate
everybody's
patience
and
flexibility
with
that
long
recess.
It
is
just
that
time
of
session
when
these
things
happen
and
I
do
apologize
for
interrupting
our
presenters
in
the
middle
of
their
presentation.
You
are
welcome
to
start
over
welcome
to
summarize
what
you
have
already
said,
I'll
leave
that
up
to
you
and
we
will
dive
back
into
the
hearing
on
ab219.
B
Thank
you
so
much
good
evening,
chair
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
assemblyman,
steve
yeager,
representing
district
nine
in
southwest
las
vegas
before
you
have
assembly
bill
219
in
its
first
reprint
I'll,
just
make
a
couple
of
quick
remarks
and
then
I'll
hand
it
over
to
mrs
bortolin
and
take
you
through
the
bill.
So
this
is
a
bill
about
record
sealing,
and
the
idea
here
is
to
allow
greater
access
to
justice
and
streamline
some
of
our
record
sealing
process.
B
There
are
three
main
objectives
of
the
bill
that
I
think
is
accomplished
by
the
language
in
the
bill
number
one.
It
streamlines
record
sealing
for
people
who
have
received
a
pardon
number
two.
It
clarifies
the
law
on
the
role
of
the
prosecuting
attorney
in
the
record,
sealing
process
and
then
number
three.
It
allows
a
petitioner
to
appeal
a
denial
of
a
petition
to
seal
a
record.
C
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
bailey,
bortle
and
nevada
coalition
of
legal
services.
For
the
record.
This
will
be
the
quick
version,
but
I
think
there
is
some
stuff
to
talk
through
here
so
to
walk
through
the
bill.
Section
one
requires
the
court
to
grant
a
record-sealing
petition
without
relitigating
the
merit
of
someone
who's
received
a
pardon
from
the
pardons
board.
C
C
So
we
know
that
when
the
district
attorney
stipulates
to
a
record
sealing
petition-
or
I
should
say
prosecuting
attorney
because
they're-
not
all
district
attorneys
throughout
the
state,
but
when
the
prosecuting
attorney
stipulates,
the
court
shall
apply
the
presumption
that
was
passed
in
2017,
that
if
the
person
is
eligible
for
sealing,
then
the
record
shall
be
sealed
and
being
eligible
is
having
a
offense
that
is
eligible.
So
there's
different
categories,
some
crimes
the
legislature
has
declared
ineligible.
C
If
the
prosecuting
attorney
objects
to
that
request,
then
a
hearing
is
set
and
the
court
conducts
a
hearing
to
determine
what
should
happen
next.
The
law
doesn't
say
what
happens
if
the
prosecuting
attorney
doesn't
respond,
but
it
also
doesn't
specifically
compel
a
response.
So
this
has
left
some
cases
in
a
precarious
position,
with
no
statutory
path
forward
and
what
you
have
before
you
is
some
clarity
specifying
that
if
the
prosecuting
attorney
does
not
file
a
written
objection
within
30
days,
the
court
shall
apply
the
presumption
set
forth
in
nrs,
179.2445
and
seal
the
records.
C
The
reason
we
extended
to
30
days
was
because,
in
some
of
the
smaller
jurisdictions
that
front
end
process
is
not
happening
in
the
same
way.
So
while
I
do
think
that
in
our
larger
jurisdictions
you
don't
necessarily
need
30
days,
you'll
know
relatively
quickly
that
this
was
coming
and
that
you
can
alert
the
court
that
you'll
be
filing
an
objection.
C
I
do
think
that
the
30
days
is
long
enough
to
balance
that
interest
of
making
sure
that
this
continues
and
that
there's
a
clear
progression
happening
in
the
case
and
allowing
adequate
time
to
review
the
case.
If
you
hadn't
previously
seen
it
then
section,
5,
subsection
7
also
streamlines
the
record
sealing
process
in
the
same
way
for
someone
who
has
been
acquitted
for
whom
prosecution
has
been
declined
or
for
whom
charges
were
dropped
and
then,
lastly,
section
six
allows
a
person
to
appeal
the
decision
if
their
petition
is
denied.
C
Honestly,
that
was
just
some
strange
language
in
our
conversations
with
the
judiciary
and
and
with
lcb
on
this,
that
the
language
you
currently
have
before
you
about
re-hearings
does
not
appear
anywhere
else
in
law
and
wasn't
particularly
productive
for
the
parties
that
are
involved
to
wait
two
years
and
go
back
to
somebody
who's
already.
Given
you
a
decision,
so
we
thought
that
process
was
wasting
everyone's
time,
but
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
give
these
people
the
same
right
to
appeal
that
exists
in
all
other
cases.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
you
know
I
guess
you
know
my
mayor
culpa
is:
I
missed
the
language
when
I
first
went
through
this,
not
that
we
had
a
lot
of
time
was
the
bit
about
if
the
prosecution
doesn't
object,
that
it
removes
the
discretion
of
the
court.
D
Personally,
I
think
that
failure
to
object
when
you
know
that
this
is
coming
is
a
choice,
and
so,
if
you're
not
going
to
make
the
choice
to
object,
then
you've
made
the
choice
to
allow
it
to
go
forward.
So
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
shell,
but
does
the
court
still
have
to
make
the
findings
that
are
required?
C
Bailey
bortlin
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair
through
you
to
senator
pickard.
Yes,
they
still
have
to.
The
court
still
has
to
do
the
undertake
the
process
to
ensure
that
the
presumption
applies
and
that
they've
met
that
burden.
So
again,
not
some
cases
will
never
be
sealed,
and
so
this
doesn't
create
a
loophole
where
cases
that
otherwise
should
not
be
sealed
could
be.
But
in
those
eligible
cases
where
the
legislature
has
declared
that
the
policy
is
to
to
seal
the
records
whenever
eligible,
it
would
extend
that
presumption
to
those
cases.
D
So
thank
you
for
that
and
then,
as
we
deal
with
vacating
judgments
versus
pardons,
I
think
there's
a
significant
difference
between
those
two
types
of
cases
where
you
know,
if
someone's
been
pardoned,
they've
been
pardoned
if
they've,
if
the
case
has
been
vacated,
I
I
would
imagine
at
least
what
I
hear
mostly
is
those
are
dismissed
without
prejudice,
and
so
are
we
waiting
then,
until
the
statute
of
limitations
for
bringing
the
action
has
passed,
you
know
it,
or
is
this
just
vacated
or
not
prosecuted,
without
you
know
or
with
prejudice
that
they
can't
bring
it
back?
D
My
concern
is
this
because
those
aren't
the
same
as
pardons
those
aren't
the
same
as
acquittals.
D
Those
are
non-prosecutions
for
various
reasons.
It
doesn't
mean
the
person
didn't
do
it.
Those
records,
in
my
view,
shouldn't
be
sealed,
or
at
least
it
should
be.
It
should
go
to
a
hearing.
Why
not
make
the
hearing
mandatory
notwithstanding
a
an
objection
from
the
prosecution.
C
I
think
our
thinking
is
that
this
is
still
when
someone
is
applying,
so
the
case
is
still
being
reviewed
when
we
first
looked
at
this,
I
had
the
inclination
that
this
didn't
go
far
enough,
because
we've
done
the
eviction
record
sealing
and
we
know
that
those
records
really
do
affect
someone's
life.
So
in
the
civil
context,
if
you
have
an
eviction
case
that
doesn't
end
up
turning
into
a
granted
eviction,
those
are
automatically
sealed
the
next
day
that
you
lose
the
case
so
that
you
don't
have
that
record
following
you
around.
D
Okay-
and
I
I
agree
with
that-
that
concept
completely,
but
I'm
talking
about
where
we've
got
a
situation
where
the
prosecution
may
not
have
an
opportunity
for
whatever
reason,
they're
backed
up
whatever
they
don't
meet
the
30-day
requirement.
D
So
there
may,
it
may
not
have
been
a
choice
and
because
this
is
a
different
type
of
case,
where
you
know
it's
dismissed
without
prejudice,
they're
still,
ultimately
subject
to
future
prosecution,
if
we're
not
waiting
until
after
the
window
of
time
for
that
prosecution
to
be
brought,
but
then
we're
sealing
the
case,
I'm
not
sure
that's
necessarily
appropriate
without
a
hearing,
and
so
on
that
issue
alone.
D
I
I
personally
would
be
more
comfortable
by
saying
we're
going
to
mandate
that
hearing
whether
or
not
there's
been
an
opposition,
and
then
you
know,
if
then
they
don't
show
up
for
that
hearing
now,
they've
made
a
choice,
but
you
know
it's
that
discretion
in
the
court.
You
know
I
do
kind
of
resonate
with
and-
and
I
think
I've
been
pretty
consistent
over
the
years.
I
like
putting
discretion
in
the
in
the
court.
D
B
So
steve
yeager
for
the
record,
I
think
you're
right,
it's
a
policy
choice
and-
and
I
think
that
the
thinking
was
this-
I
mean
if
the
case
is
declined
or
or
dismissed,
and
the
person
wants
to
seal
the
record.
I
think
they
should
have
an
opportunity
to
do
that
now.
If
the
prosecuting
agency
decides
they
still
want
to
prosecute
within
the
statute
of
limitations.
They
certainly
can
do
that.
This
doesn't
bar
a
prosecution
down
the
road
if
they
get
additional
information
and
I
think
from
a
fairness
perspective,
you
know
some
of
these
timelines.
B
You
might
have
to
wait
three
or
four
years.
So
the
idea
being
you
know
if,
if
they
decide
not
to
seek
prosecution
to
make,
someone
have
to
potentially
wait
years
before
they
can
get
that
off
their
record.
It
seemed
like
a
a
situation
where
we
would
want
them
to
have
the
ability
to
benefit
from
that
presumption,
and
you
know,
certainly
I
I've
never
prosecuted
before
so
I
don't
know
how.
C
D
But
it's
interesting
and
I'm
sorry,
madam
chair,
if
I
can
follow
up,
I
that's
an
interesting
statement
because
that's
based
on
the
current
status
of
the
law,
but
if
we
change
this,
wouldn't
that
change
the
calculus
and
say
well
now,
maybe
we
will
try
to
sneak
one
through
I
mean
that's,
ultimately
the
concern
right
I'll
be
interested
to
see
what
that
I
don't
see
any
prosecutor.
Oh
yes,
I
do
I'll
be
interested
to
see
what
the
other
side
has
to
say
about
this.
D
I
certainly
agree
with
the
idea
that,
if
we're
improperly,
because
I
firmly
believe
in
innocent
pro
until
proven
guilty,
so
if
we're
messing
up
their
lives
over
something,
that's
never
ultimately
been
proven.
I
I
have
a
problem
with
that,
but
by
the
same
token
I
don't
want
to
necessarily
hide
some
records
that
really
maybe
should
be
public
if
that
person
really
is
worthy
of
being
prosecuted.
So
that's
the
balance
right.
D
So
I
understand
the
policy
choice,
but
I
think
if
we
change
the
status
of
the
law,
it
might
actually
incentivize
trying
to
slip
something
past.
I
get
it
and,
and
honestly
I
think,
particularly
knowing
the
representatives
from
the
defense
bar
they're
not
trying
to
get
the
guilty
off
necessarily
they're,
trying
to
protect
society
from
the
other
side
of
the
coin.
So
I
get
that
I'm
just
trying
to
find
the
balance.
C
And
bailey
borderland
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
would
say
that's
definitely
been
part
of
the
robust
conversations
we've
been
having.
I
just
don't
see
that
fear
coming
to
fruition,
because
the
flip
side
of
that
is
that
they
do
object
right
and
you
do
have
the
hearing
set,
and
this
is
again
a
very
burdensome
process.
E
More
of
a
comment,
I
appreciate
the
bill.
A
couple
of
years
ago,
I
took
part
in
a
it
was
a
volunteer
event
at
the
doolittle
center
that
legal
aid
had
put
together
with
my
friend
john
pirro,
where
they
brought
attorneys
volunteering
to
try
to
help
people
with
record
sealing.
They
had
judges
from
different
courts
all
over
clark
county,
and
it
was
very,
very
challenging,
even
where
there
was
no
opposition
from
the
prosecuting
agency
in
terms
of
trying
to
get
all
the
right
records
and
scope
numbers.
E
I
think
for
someone
to
do
it
pro
se
would
be
a
huge
huge
mountain
to
climb,
and
I
think
of
the
five
or
six
clients
that
I
had
assigned
to
me.
That
day
I
successfully
got
one
client's
record
sealed
and
even
though
we
had
all
the
courts
there,
all
the
agencies
trying
to
you
know
help
people
as
much
as
we
could.
So
I
appreciate
the
bill.
Thank
you.
F
Actually,
I'm
more
confused,
I
think
than
anything.
So
I
don't
practice
law,
obviously
pardon
tomorrow,
barely
very,
for
example,
automatic
pardon
right
no
arguments
on
that
I've
been
convicted
of
some
crime.
I
do
whatever
the
window
is
currently
that
the
law
allows.
I
can
then
apply
right
now
to
have
my
records
sealed
correct,
but
what
this
seems
to
be
doing
is
I've
been
accused
of
a
crime
and
I
haven't
been
convicted
or
even
prosecuted.
Now
I
want
to
come
and
seal
those
records
up.
F
C
Billy
bordelin
for
the
record,
it's
interesting
record
sealing
is
a
pretty
state-by-state
statutory
beast
and
I
think
what
chairman
yeager
could
probably
tell
you
better
than
most.
C
F
C
C
F
F
C
Bailey
portland
for
the
record,
with
an
assist
from
john
piero.
I
believe
it
is
typically
two
years,
but
it's
specific
to
the
offense
that
someone
has
listed,
so
I
think,
there's
some
different
policy
choices
laid
out
in
statute
that
mr
pirro
could
walk
you
through
better
than
I
could
about
those
timelines.
One
last.
F
C
No
thank
you
for
the
question
bailey
bortle
in
for
the
record,
so
I
think
that's
a
very
good
question
and
most
people
don't
know
that.
C
There's
a
difference
and
that's
part
of
why
we're
bringing
the
bill
and
what
we're
trying
to
clean
up
is
that
there's
a
pardons
board
that
issues
the
pardons
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
different
types
of
pardons
and
there's
I'm
going
to
speak
generally,
but
a
general
typical
pardon
would
be
the
state
saying
this
is
as
if
you
have
not
committed
this
crime,
but
the
records
for
the
crime
still
exist.
So
it's
problematic
because
in
one
way
we're
telling
people
you
don't
have
to
admit
that
this
happened.
C
So
it's
it's
a
confusing
point
of
education
that
this
difference
exists
in
law
and
perhaps
it
shouldn't.
So
we
are
trying
to
make
it
easier
where
we've
already
done
the
work
at
the
pardons
board.
To
say
this
shouldn't
be
something
that's
following
you
around
anymore.
So,
let's
connect
that
to
sealing
your
records
so
that
it
truly
doesn't
follow
you
around
anymore.
A
All
right
any
other
questions.
I
have
a
question
and
I
want
to.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
reading
this
section
right,
so
I'm
going
to
point
you
directly
to
what
I'm
looking
at,
which
is
on
page
four
in
subsection
four
starts
at
line.
Thirty
three,
I
believe
I'm
in
section
three.
I
believe
this
is
so
it
starts
with.
If
the
prosecuting
agency,
the
prosecute
the
petitioner,
I
believe
this
is
for,
like
I
don't
know
how
to
put
it,
except
for
your
run-of-the-mill
record
ceiling
request.
C
Bailey
portal,
in
for
the
record,
so
the
goal
is
to
get
some
consistency
in
how
this
is
applied.
So
there
there
are
courts.
That
would
say
if
no
one,
if
no
one
objects,
if
the
person
meets
the
presumption,
the
person
meets
the
presumption
and
we've
created
an
off-ramp
for
an
objecting
party
and
that
that
is
part
of
the
rebuttable
presumption
right.
That
we're
going
to
go
in
and
really
look
at
that.
C
C
Even
though
that's
not
the
policy
choice
that
the
legislature
has
made,
and
so
there
will
be
hearings
that
occur
independent
of
an
objection
where,
if
that
person
had
applied
in
a
different
courthouse
or
a
different
jurisdiction,
the
presumption
would
have
been
applied,
and
I
think
that's
just
some
lack
of
direction
in
the
law,
and
so
the
judiciary
that
I
have
spoken
to
is
comfortable.
Putting
in
this
this
clarity
to
ensure
that
if
you
meet
the
presumption,
it
is
applied
throughout
the
state
consistently
so
long
as
there
is
no
objecting
party.
So.
B
B
Steve
yeager
for
the
record,
I
I
think
the
the
key
piece
here
is
on
line
39.
It
talks
about
the
court.
If-
and
the
court
makes
the
findings
set
forth
in
subsection,
five
and
subsection.
Five
then
is
indeed
the
presumption.
I
guess
not
the
presumption,
but
it's
it's
the
time
period
that
you
haven't
gotten
in
trouble,
so
the
court
still
has
to
make
that
finding
that
that
you've
met
the
requirements
like
the
court,
wouldn't
be
able
to
say
well,
you
got
in
trouble
last
week,
but
nobody's
here
objecting.
A
No,
I
think
I
guess,
then
this
is
maybe
a
question
of
law
and
not
not
a
question
about
the
bill
or
the
policy,
but.
A
If
the
court
were
applying
the
presumption,
if
we,
you
know,
ordered
the
court
to
apply
the
presumption
and
there
was
no
objecting
party,
I
would
interpret
that
to
mean
that
the
court
still
has
the
discretion
that
the
resumption
can
be
overcome
by
the
court's
own
judgment.
Without
an
objecting
party.
A
And
so
we're
skipping
the
presumption
step
and
going
directly
to
not
only
are
we
applying
the
presumption,
but
we're
not
overcoming
it.
You're
sealing
the
records,
so
I'm
wondering
why
we're
going
directly
to
stealing
the
records
instead
of
just
telling
the
court
to
follow
the
presumption
and
giving
once
more
the
off-ramp.
If
the
court
sees
an
especially
egregious
case,
because
I
mean
in
in
my
view,
the
requirements-
the
presumption
set
forth
in
section
5
is
not
terribly
onerous,
I
get
it.
I
get
that
staying
out
of
trouble
is
significant.
A
I
get
that
the
time
periods
are
important,
but
I
think
that
it
also
overlooks
a
lot
of
other
factors,
so
someone
could
still
meet
the
elements
of
the
presumption
and
there
still
may
be
very
good
policy
reasons
for
not
sealing
the
records
and,
of
course,
a
prosecuting
agency
should
catch
that
they
should
object
to
it.
I'm
just
not
understanding
why
we're
forcing
the
courts
to
seal
the
record
without
the
input
of
a
prosecuting
agency,
instead
of
giving
them
the
latitude
to
apply
the
presumption.
C
Bailey
bordelin
for
the
record,
I
think
you're
right.
I
would
push
back
on
the
verbiage
that
we're
forcing
them
in
the
sense
that
I
don't
think
that
they're
going
to
object
here
today.
I
think
this
is
something
that
has
been
worked
out,
but
in
terms
of
the
policy
you're
right
that
what
we
are
going
for
and
the
policy
we're
putting
forward
is
that
if
these
elements
have
been
met,
we
want
them
sealed
without
additional
off-ramps.
C
Bailey
bortolin
for
the
record.
We
did
work
on
that.
I'm
gonna,
where
I
think
we
have
objecting
party
it
says
so,
I'm
at
the
bottom
of
page
four
subsection.
Four.
We
did
change
that
in
the
first
redraft
to
if
no
objecting
party
attends
the
hearing,
because
there
is
an
opportunity
to
notice
other
parties
and
there
is
an
opportunity
for
the
victim
to
be
heard.
But
that
is
something
that
would
happen
in
conjunction
with
the
prosecutors
who,
in
my
conversations,
I
feel
like
I'm
really
complicating
this
now.
C
A
So
I
mean
I
disagree
with
victims
all
the
time,
and
you
know
I
I
can
foresee
many
situations
in
which
I
would
be
perfectly
happy
to
seal
somebody's
record
sign
on
the
dotted
line
stipulate
to
it
and
if
I
had
a
victim
who
really
felt
that
wasn't
just
what
I
might
do
in
that
situation
is
choose
just
to
stay.
Stay
silent.
A
But
the
way
I
read
the
statute
is
saying
that
if
I
choose
to
stay
silent
as
the
prosecutor
that
the
record's
going
to
get
sealed
and
there's
no
way
for
the
victim's
voice
to
be
heard.
Unless
I
stand
up
and
object
to
the
ceiling,
which
actually
sounds
like
a
worse
situation
for
the
person
trying
to
get
their
record
seal
to
be
in
than
being
in
the
situation
where
the
prosecutor
is
silent,
but
the
victim
still
gets
hard.
C
A
I'll
tell
you,
I
have
victims
who
follow
their
cases
forever.
They
know
every
time
that
they're,
that
the
person
who
hurt
them
applies
for
parole
has
a
parole
hearing
sends
a
letter.
Coughs
sneezes
appears
in
a
courtroom.
They
will
be
at
that
hearing
at
the
courthouse.
You
know
an
hour
before
it
starts.
C
Bailey
borland
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
think
for
those
of
us
who
are
in
this
conversation
in
2017.
These
are
the
conversations
we
had.
I
think
there
is
a
a
lot
of
worthy
debate
on
whether
or
not
this
should
be
a
presumption,
and
what
we
were
looking
to
do
here
was
take
that
policy
decision
that
had
been
made
and
fill
a
spot
where
there
was
lack
of
clarity
and
direction
on
what
happens
next
and
there's
not
a
good
direction.
C
C
I
know
one
jurisdiction
has
litigated
on
this
and
could
probably
speak
to
that
further.
If
we
want
to,
but
the
judiciary
handles
them
differently,
some
of
them
will
then
set
them
for
hearing.
Some
of
them
will
wait
because
there's
also
no
time
frame
on
which
the
prosecuting
attorney
has
to
take
either
action.
So
then,
what
happens,
and
so
does
that
failure
to
take
action
mean
that
that
person
can
never
continue
in
the
process
and
it's
going
to
be
held
in
limbo
forever.
C
B
Steve
yeager,
I
think
you
raise
a
really
great
point.
I
mean
that,
can
the
court
on
its
own
volition,
as
a
judicial
actor,
overcome
a
statutory
presumption,
and
so
I
think
it's
a
tricky
balance
here,
because
we
have
a
separation
of
powers
between
an
executive
branch,
a
district
attorney,
a
prosecuting
attorney,
that's
going
to
step
in
and
object,
and
then
the
court
who
the
legislature,
the
other
branch
of
government,
has
told
the
policy
of
the
state
is
to
seal
records
when
appropriate
and
to
re
to
to
give
people
second
chances.
B
So
I
I
think,
as
miss
bortland
said,
that's
what
we're
kind
of
trying
to
avoid,
because
I
think
if
you
asked
certain
members,
certain
judges,
some
are
going
to
say
it's
not
my
role
to
overcome
a
statutory
presumption.
That's
a
district
attorney
or
a
prosecuting
attorney's
role,
and
if
they're
not
here,
the
record
is
going
to
be
sealed.
And
then
you
have
some
that
say
no
and
I'm
not
going
to
say
it's
judicial
activism.
It's
not
that
but
they're
they're
digging
into
the
case
to
figure
out
what
they
should
do.
B
And
so
I
think
that's
a
problem.
We're
trying
to
solve
is
making
sure
that
you're
getting
equal
application
of
the
law
depending
on
which
jurisdiction
or
which
judge
you
might
be
in
front
of,
and
I
certainly
understand
that
it's
a
policy
choice
that
we're
making,
but
I
think,
that's
sort
of
the
tightrope
we're
trying
to
walk
with
this
with
the
three
branches
of
government
being
intimately
involved
in
this
record.
Sealing
process.
D
D
D
Is
that
something
we
should
investigate
before
we
pass
this
law
because
I
don't
want
to
be,
you
know,
contrary
to
the
constitution.
At
this
point,.
C
Philly
borland
for
the
record.
The
question
has
been
raised.
I
am
not
a
prosecuting
attorney,
so
I
would
do
not
want
to
speak
to
their
interpretation
of
this,
but
perhaps
those
that
are
may
want
to
in
the
conversation
that
we've
had
with
some
members
of
the
judiciary
and
when
that
question
was
contemplated.
C
D
D
Right
good,
let
me
ask
my
second
question:
while
we're
looking
then-
and
the
other
thing
that
came
up
was
we're
talking
about
the
presumption
presumptions
need
clear
and
convincing
evidence
in
order
to
rebut
them
and
the
court
can't
my
understanding.
Is
the
court
can't
bring
evidence
on
its
own
volition,
so
it
can't,
unless
there
is
evidence
already
on
the
record,
that
would
rebut
the
presumption
in
the
first
instance,
which
I
think
would
probably
be
disqualifying
information
in
the
first
place.
D
How
does
the
court
overcome
any
presumption
without
taking
evidence,
so
it's
got
to
be
through
a
hearing.
Can
the
court
without
the
under
this
bill?
I
don't
think
it
could,
but,
as
I
read
the
bill,
we,
the
court
can't
require
a
hearing
on
its
own
volition
to
get
that
evidence,
even
if
the
judge
thinks
that
that's
a
pro
that
might
be
appropriate,
it's
this
is
shall
and
so
we're
taking
that
discretion
away.
D
C
Bailey
bortlin
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I
probably
should
have
weighed
these
mental
gymnastics
on
the
record
and
I'd
be
happy
to
talk
to
you
off
the
record,
but
I
do
on
marcy's
law
when
I
did
those
mental
gymnastics,
and
I
think
it
goes
back
to
how
I
was
attempting
to
answer
chair's
question.
C
If,
if
that
obligation
exists,
a
question,
I
am
not
prepared
to
make
a
legal
finding
on
here
today.
I
do
believe
that
it
would
be
the
prosecuting
attorney
that
would
be
notifying
the
victim
which
would
bring
in.
I
think,
an
ask
to
object
and
to
your
second
question
I
would
say:
that's
what's
happening
right
now,
when
the
court
stipulat
or
when
the
prosecuting
attorney
stipulates,
we
are
already
not
setting
a
hearing
in
light
of
those
stipulations,
and
so
I
think,
like
a
lot
of
things
we
talk
about
in
this
committee.
C
D
Sure-
and
I
I
mean
this
is
similar
to
you-
know
the
governor
will
send
something
to
to
him
and
if
he
chooses
not
to
sign
it,
it
becomes
law.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
philosophical
position,
it's
the
practical
one
that
concerns
me
and
because
I
don't
play
in
the
sandbox.
I
needed
to
ask
that
question.
So.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
schaible,
quickly,
reviewing
marcy's
law,
which
is
article
1,
section
8a
of
the
nevada
constitution.
A
Thank
you
all
right.
I
appreciate
you
answering
all
of
our
many
questions.
You
didn't
think
we'd,
let
you
escape
the
what
might
be
the
very
last
hearing
without
you
know,
putting
you
through
the
wrangler,
I
hope,
and
so
with
that
I
will
move
on
to
testimony
and
we'll
start
with
test.
Oh,
let's
get
something
else
to
say:
bailey.
C
Borland
for
the
record,
can
I
just
say
thank
you
and
it's
not
the
same
when
you're,
not
here,
senator
pickard,
so
I'm
glad
we
got
to
do
those
mental
gymnastics.
A
Hey,
we
will
now
take
testimony
in
support
of
ab219
in
the
room,
and
each
person
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin
whenever
you're
ready.
G
Thank
you,
chair
john
piero,
for
the
record
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
since
it's
only
two
minutes
I'll
move
fast.
Most
of
you
were
here
in
2017
when
we
applied
that
presumption.
G
Now
they
also
make
clear
that
is
a
incumbent
upon
the
state
to
rebut
that
presumption.
So
it
is
incumbent
on
the
state
to
rebut
that
presumption
at
a
hearing,
and
ms
burchie
will
go
into
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
happening
when
the
state
doesn't
show
up.
G
Mrs
bortland
is
correct,
though,
that
these
are
civil
matters,
so
sometimes
they
go
to
civil
judges,
and
it's
wildly
different.
So
I
don't
think
that
this
bill
really
with
putting
the
shell
in
there
conflicts
with
this
most
recent
opinion,
where
it
says
that
it
should
be
sealed.
Should
the
state
not
rebut
the
presumption
and
senator
schreibel,
we
did
talk
about
marcy's
law
a
little
bit.
I
would
always
say
when
in
2017
I
was
hearing
that
passed
as
well
over
our
objection.
G
It
is
I,
I
believe,
it's
incumbent
upon
the
prosecutor
to
notify
them,
but
I
will
say
that
the
factors
that
are
involved
in
this
case
now
makes
clear
in
sealing
a
record.
Are:
has
the
person
be
rehabilitated,
you're,
not
tracing
over
the
facts
of
the
old
case,
because
that's
what
the
judge
did
in
this
new
case?
They
tried
to
trace
over
the
old
facts
of
the
case,
and
the
supreme
court
makes
clear
that
it's
it's
not
about
the
old
facts
of
the
case.
Cases
has
do
they
qualify
under
the
statute.
G
Have
they
filed
all
the
correct
paperwork,
meaning
the
criminal
history
from
the
repository
scope,
everything
else
that
they
needed
to
be
filed
which
senator
picker
the
court
would
be
able
to
pick
up
on
whether
new
things
have
come
up
right
because
they
would
have
all
the
paperwork
there
in
front
of
them
when
they
were
making
the
decision
and
did
the
state
rebut
the
presumption?
And
if
not,
then
the
person
is
eligible
for
stealing,
unless
it
is
one
of
those
crimes
that
this
body
has
said
is
not
ever
eligible
for
stealing.
H
Thank
you,
kendra
burchie,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
for
the
record.
I
am
also
testifying
today.
I
want
to
put
their
support
on
the
record
since
there's
another
committee
here
and
going
on
at
the
same
time
for
hollywell,
born
with
the
aclu
ben
schallinor,
with
faith
in
action
and
christine
saunders
with
plan,
and
I
believe
that
battleborn
progress
also
asked
me
to
put
their
support
on
the
records
if
they
call
in
that's
fantastic.
If
not,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
their
information
was
put
on
the
record
as
well.
H
When
I
first
started
practicing
criminal
law,
it
was
very
common
for
the
district
attorneys
to
or
prosecuting
attorneys,
to
not
show
up
for
these
hearings,
which
then
caused
a
problem
for
the
judiciary.
And
so
then
the
judiciary
started
to
require
that
the
the
state
showed
up,
even
if
they
did
not
file
an
objection.
H
This
became
really
cumbersome
and
has
been
cumbersome
on
people
who
have
rehabilitated
themselves.
Who've
moved
on
for
some
crimes.
This
could
take
five
seven
years
after
that
they
have
completed
parole
or
probation
in
order
to
even
be
eligible
to
start.
The
process
there
are
people
who've
moved
on
with
their
lives,
started
new
jobs.
H
I
can
vividly
remember
time
in
court,
where
I
had
someone
who
was
had
moved
to
florida
and
had
to
fly
back
for
a
less
than
two
minute
hearing
where
the
judge
then
apologized
and
said.
I'm
sorry
that
you
know
the
state
had
nothing
to
say
they
came
and
said
no
objection
and
that
person
had
to
take
time
off
work.
Take
that
costly
flight
in
order
just
to
have
that
two
minute
hearing,
but
it
was
so
important
for
that
person
to
have
their
criminal
records
sealed,
so
it
was
extremely
vital
to
them.
H
H
So
I
would
just
note
that-
and
we
do
believe
that
this
is
extremely
important
to
help
people
understand
the
process.
While
I've
been
here
at
the
legislature,
I
had
the
privilege
of
participating
in
a
lawyer
in
the
library
clinic
where
I
assisted
people
with
trying
to
just
answer
these
questions
and
they're
lost
with
what
the
process
is.
So
it's
extremely
crucial
that
we
clarify
these
issues
and
I
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you.
It
should
go
quickly,
you're
right
in
that,
if
we
don't
have
a
response
within
a
period
of
time,
a
default
can
be
taken,
but
that
default
needs
to
be
noticed
and
then
there's
an
opportunity
for
up
to
six
months
to
have
that
default.
Set
aside
for
cause.
Is
there
a
similar
provision
in
this
bill
that
would
allow
for
that
ceiling
to
be
set
aside
and
and
the
things
restored?
Does
that
fall
under
the
normal?
What
is
that
nrcp65?
H
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
I'd
have
to
double
check,
and
perhaps
a
sponsor
of
the
sponsors
of
this
bill
have
that
information
since
they're
now
adding
instead
of
just
a
rehearing,
and
I
apologize
mr
pirro's
coming
to
the
table,
so
I
will
let
him
answer.
Thank
you.
G
John
peer
for
the
record,
senator
if
I
may,
it
is
a
civil
proceeding
and
I
will
say
even
after
you
get
the
order,
you
have
to
notice
all
the
parties
with
the
order,
so
the
district
attorney's
office
would
get
a
notice
to
seal
the
record.
I
imagine
that
they
would
be
able
to
file
something
at
that
point
in
time.
H
Kendrick
burjee
for
the
record,
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
since
they'll
be
an
appeals
process,
that
probably
adds
something
to
that,
and
I
just
note
again
that
these
are
very
different
proceedings
than
with
custody
cases,
and
just
note
that
for
the
record,
thank
you
and
I
apologize
that
just
my
last
thing
that
I
wanted
to
mention
was
just
just
since
we
to
put
it
on
the
record
that
marcy's
law
is
an
opt-in
process
where
the
victim
would
have
to
actually
opt
in
to
request
to
have
notifications
for
all
those
hearings.
A
I
I
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
committee
members
for
your
time
this
evening.
My
name
is
reverend
michael
willoughby.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
We
will
move
to
opposition
testimony.
We
will
start
with
people
in
the
room
and
then
we
will
go
to
the
phones
whenever
you're.
A
K
But
I
wanted
to
thank
chair
yeager
for
hearing
our
concerns
at
least
remotely,
as
we
all
kind
of
grappled,
with
the
circumstances
of
kova
this
session
and
ms
bordland,
especially
for
listening
to
our
concerns
trying
to
work
with
us.
We
thought
we
were
going
to
be
able
to
come
to
consensus
in
this
bill,
but
we're
just
not
there
ceiling
is
an
act
of
judicial
grace
and
the
purpose
of
stealing
is
to
let
people
who
were
previously
involved
in
the
criminal
justice
system
pursue
law-abiding
citizenship
unencumbered
by
the
record
of
their
past,
their
past
transgression
progressions.
K
So
I
would
disagree
under
the
current
statutory
structure,
with
the
pres,
with
the
representation
that
it's
only
the
district
attorney.
That's
going
to
present
that
evidence.
The
statute
requires
notification
of
victims
it
require,
or
it
allows
I'm
sorry.
It
allows
victims
to
appear.
It
allows
anyone
in
the
community
anyone
having
relevant
evidence
and
it
requires
notification
of
all
law
enforcement
agencies,
so
all
police
agencies
officers
that
may
have
dealt
with
this
person
in
addition
to
the
prosecuting
attorney's
office.
K
So,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
we
decide
to
stipulate
or
we
decide
not
to
take
a
position,
we
agree
to
the
shortening
of
those
times
with
the
understanding
that
there
would
be
a
public
hearing.
As
to
the
questions
that
have
arisen
during
this
hearing
about
marsy's
law,
I,
as
I
read
marcy's
law.
This
is
a
public
hearing.
These
aren't
closed
hearings.
I've
been
to
ceiling
hearings.
K
I
haven't
been
to
very
many
ceiling
hearings
or
actually
anywhere
a
public
defender
appeared,
but
I've
I've
handled
them
in
their
public
hearings,
and
so
I
would
argue
that
under
marcy's
law
they
are
entitled
to
be
present
along
with
really
any
member
of
the
community.
If
it's
not
a
closed
hearing.
That
said,
I
want
to
make
something
clear
on
their
record
because
it's
been
said
a
couple
times:
there's
nothing
in
marcy's
law
that
alters
the
current
obligations
of
a
prosecutor.
K
K
K
Section
four
of
the
bill
men's
nrs
179.247,
which
has
to
do
with
ceilings
and
instances
in
which
the
person
was
convicted
of
prostitution
or
a
prostitution
related
crime,
and
I
just
wanted
to
add
we're
not
that
concerned
about
the
changes
as
it
relates
to
just
that
section.
That's
a
very
narrow,
narrow
scope
of
crimes
and
we're
not
particularly
worried
about
that.
But
section
5
is
particularly
troublesome
because
it
regards
crimes
for
which
a
person
has
been
arrested,
but
the
charges
were
dismissed
or
the
person
was
acquitted.
K
Well,
in
the
case
of
a
dismissal,
we
often
have
a
tool
called
dismissal
without
prejudice.
If,
for
some
reason,
our
witnesses
aren't
there,
we
can't
locate
them,
there's
a
problem
with
the
case
we
can
dismiss
without
prejudice
and
on
some
of
these
felonies.
We
have
quite
a
long
time
to
refile.
If
the
victim
becomes
cooperative
or
more
evidence
reveals
itself
etc.
The
case
becomes
more
viable
in
court.
K
This
would
basically
not
allow
us
to
refile
the
cases,
and
I
think
there
was
a
comment
made
earlier
that
we
could
probably
just
go
ahead
and
refile
the
case,
but
you
have
to
understand
that
once
a
case
is
sealed,
prosecutors
do
not
have
access
to
it.
It
is
not
in
our
records.
We
can't
look
at
it.
We
can't
see
it
so
once
this,
if
a
case
is
dismissed
and
then
it's
sealed,
it's
not
getting
refiled,
no
matter
what
the
circumstances.
K
Section
six
of
the
bill
changes
the
recourse
for
a
person
whose
petition
is
denied
from
a
petition
for
rehearing
to
filing
a
direct
appeal
in
front
of
the
nevada
supreme
court.
We
don't
have
a
particular
problem
with
that.
It
seems
to
me
they
are
going
to
be
getting
a
lot
of
frivolous
appeals,
but
we're
not
as
concerned
about
that.
From
our
perspective
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
K
L
Well,
where,
let's
okay,
so
let's
say
the
person
victim
didn't
show
up,
they
otherwise
meet
the
rehabilitation
presumption.
Okay,
part
of
the
concern
that
I've
heard
is
that
the
victim
may
not
have
a
chance
to
be
heard.
But
I've
also
heard
today
that
the
supreme
court
has
said
we
should
not
be
rehashing
the
original
crime.
The
key
to
whether
records
should
be
sealed
is
whether
they
are
rehabilitated,
and
so
what
instance
could
a
vic?
K
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
harris,
jennifer,
noble
again
for
the
record
the
victim
victim
could
testify
that
they're
persisting
on
contacting
me,
I
haven't
you
know.
I've
they've
approached
me
again
with
a
similar
type
of
scheme,
I'm
thinking
about
instances
of
elder
abuse,
fraud,
etc.
So
if
there
may
be
information
that
a
victim
would
have
that
the
police
might
not
have
or
the
police
may
have,
that
suggests
that,
while
we
haven't
had
a
subsequent
arrest,
it
suggested
the
person
is
indeed
not.
L
Rehabilitated,
okay,
so
that
makes
sense,
but
in
order
for
that
situation
to
arise,
that
victim
would
have
to
have
felt
not
felt
threatened
enough
to
contact
the
police
and
put
that
on
any
record
right.
This
would
have
to
have
happened
and
no
law
enforcement
was
aware,
or
the
prosecuting
attorney
in
the
original
case
wasn't
aware.
Otherwise
it
would
show
up
when
the
record
sealing
case
came
forward
and
all
of
the
records
were
provided
to
the
judge
right.
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record.
Thank
you
again
for
the
question
senator
harris.
I
think
the
part
where
we
may
disagree
about
in
your
question
or
the
assumption
is
that
victims
aren't
scared
if
they
don't
contact
the
police
or
they're,
not
bothered
by
a
certain
activity,
and
I
don't
think
that's
an
assumption.
We
can
make
victims
fail
to
report
for
all
kinds
of
reasons,
and
it
would
take
me
a
long
time
to
go
into
them.
L
K
If
I
made
jennifer
noble
for
the
record,
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and
and
certainly
that
argument
can
be
made
by
the
petitioner
or
their
attorney,
but
nonetheless,
I
think
under
marcy's
law.
They
have
a
right
to
be
heard
and
they
may
present
evidence
along
with
any
other
member
of
the
community,
that
is
assisting
the
court
in
making
its
decision
regarding
rehabilitation.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
want
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
things.
First,
do
you
know
if
the
victims
are
listed
as
one
of
the
service
contacts?
I
know
when
we
went
into
the
covid
requirements.
D
D
K
D
Ultimately,
if,
if
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
the
mechanism,
it
sounds
like
you've
got
quite
a
bit
of
time
before
that
defendant,
before
you're
required
to
move
on
on
charges
against
that
defendant.
D
And
I'm
trying
to
balance
their
right
to
move
on
with
their
lives
as
presumed
innocent.
So
how
do
we
strike
that
balance?
Do
we
then
mandate
that
the
court
have
a
hearing?
Do
we,
you
know
how?
How
do
we
address
that,
because
I
I
tend
to
agree
that
we
shouldn't
be
leaving
these
people
hanging
if
it
turns
out
four
years
later
that
there's
no
prosecution
done?
How
is
that
not
a
miscarriage
of
justice
if
we're
hanging
this
over
their
heads
and
they're,
never
they're
never
proven
guilty.
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record.
Thank
you
again
for
the
question
senator
pickard,
so
I
think
we
need
to
remember
that
we
have
statutes
of
limitation
for
a
reason
and
if
we're
sealing
a
record
before
a
statute
of
limitation
has
expired,
that's
that's
obviating
or
that's
contrary
to
the
whole
purpose
of
statutes
of
limitation.
D
K
D
K
And
if
I
may
follow
up
to
scheibel,
thank
you
senator
pickard.
Also,
I
think
relevant
to
your
question-
is
that
all
police
reports
regarding
the
case
also
have
to
be
sealed.
So
it's
not
like
we
could
go
back
to
a
prosecuting
agent
or
I'm
sorry,
an
arresting
agency
and
get
information
about
the
case.
It's
all
gone.
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record,
I
believe
that
the
records
are
retained
by
the
courts
to
some
extent
in
a
sealed
area,
and
so
you
could
move
to
unseal
them.
The
court's
record.
Yes,.
D
All
right,
but
that's
just
the
court
records
all
the
prosecutorial
notes
and
the
investigatory
notes.
All
those
are
gone
forever.
Nobody
ever
gets
access
to
those.
Is
that
what
you're
saying,
even
if
my
thought
was,
if
you
were
to
bring
emotion,
say
we
adopt
this
language,
they
seal
the
records
before
the
statute
of
limitations
has
expired.
You
now
come
across
enough
evidence
and
witnesses
and
whatever
to
prosecute
the
case,
you
file,
you
want
to
prosecute,
but
the
record
is
sealed
and
you
move
to
unseal
the
record.
You
still
can't
get.
D
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record,
I
know
they're
removed
from
our
computer
system
forever,
because
I've
seen
I've
actually
sat
there
and
watched
as
the
system
gets
updated
and
we
can't
access
them.
Whether
there's
somebody's
notes
in
a
paper
file
off-site
somewhere,
we
might
be
able
to
access
them,
but
my
understanding
is
that
sealed
is
sealed.
You
don't
get
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
case
file.
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record
hypothetically:
if
there
was
an
order
to
unseal,
if
the
order
included
our
records,
then
I
suppose
we
could
try
to
get
to
whatever
we
had.
A
So
is
it
incumbent
upon
the
applicant
to
provide
a
background
check
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
and
I
see
you're
nodding
your
head
and
for
the
record
she's
nodding
her
head
in
affirmance,
and
so
my
question
is
as
a
prosecuting
agency
when
you
get
those
records,
I'm
assuming
the
very
first
thing
you
do
is
run
like
a
triple
I
or
an
ncic
or
something
am
I
correct.
K
A
Okay,
so
then
the
kind
of
information
that
somebody
else
might
bring
to
the
table
a
victim
could
even
be
a
family
member
could
be
the
kinds
of
criminal
records
that
are
not
picked
up
by
the
criminal
repository
when
somebody
is
arrested
but
not
charged
when
somebody
is
detained
but
not
arrested
when
somebody
files
a
police
report,
but
there
is
no
charge
so
like,
for
example,
if
I'm
the
victim
of
domestic
violence
and
I
file
a
police
report,
but
nothing
ever
happens,
and
then
my
abuser
goes
to
seal
his
or
her
record
six
years
from
now.
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record:
yes,
I
think
the
example
you're
giving
is
a
good
one.
Also
remember
that
police
may
be
investigating
a
person
and
women
don't
know
about
it
right,
because
we
don't
receive
police
reports
until
they're
complete,
hopefully
until
the
case
is
ready
for
us
to
prosecute.
So
a
police
agency
is
also
losing
its
opportunity
to
appear
at
that
hearing
if
we
fail
to
object
under
the
rubric
of
this
bill,
so
the
police
agency
may
have
relevant
evidence
that
the
court
never
gets,
because
it's
not
an
ncic.
It's
not
insidious.
F
I
don't
practice
law
shows
like
forensic
files.
I
love
those
in
all
seriousness
like
the
cold
case
files
they're,
always
using
evidence,
that's
20
years
old
and
stuff
and
going
back
through
it
in
theory.
If
this
law
passes,
even
though
they
because
they
were
never
formally
prosecuted,
could
they
have
those
types
of
records,
sealed
and
and
and
then
deny
people
you
know
going
down
the
road
to
be
digging
through
those
files
trying
to
to
figure
out
some
murder
or
whatever
from
the
past.
K
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question,
senator
hansen.
You
know
one
thing
I
noticed,
I
believe
about
section
five,
which
has
to
do
with
folks
who
have
been
charged
but
not
convicted
or
not
dismissed.
Is
I
don't
see-
and
I
may
be
not
reading
this
holistically
enough-
a
limitation
in
terms
of
the
felonies
to
which
it
applies.
So
you
the
way
I
read
it
and
people
may
certainly
disagree
with
me.
You
could
have
a
homicide,
that's
not
prosecuted
and
under
I
I
don't
know
how
that
would
work.
K
F
Yeah,
well
that's
an
important
thing
because
I
mean
I'm
using
an
example:
that's
probably
fairly
extreme,
but
you
know
there's
probably
a
lot
of
times
where
people
have
broken
the
law.
The
level
of
evidence
isn't
there
to
prosecute
them,
but
over
time
more
and
more
evidence
is
produced,
but
if
they
actually
are
able
to
seal
these
records
in
some
window
of
time,
then
future
people
who
are
doing
the
investigations
will
be
denied
valuable
work
and
details
that
were
provided
to
previous
investigators.
It
seemed
to
me
so
I
don't
know
that
you
know
I
could.
F
I
can
understand
some
of
this
idea,
but
the
idea
that
if
you
were
never
formally
prosecuted,
then
you
can
have
the
right
to
come
back
and
seal
the
records
unless
there's
some
really
significant
limitations
on
what
kind
of
crimes
we're
talking
about
that.
That
just
seems
a
little
extreme
to
me
anyway,
thanks
madam
chair.
L
Thank
you
so
much.
Madam
chair,
ms
noble,
I
want
to
ask
you
the
I
guess
the
the
question.
That's
at
the
heart
of
this
policy
decision
right
in
in
your
opinion,
whose
burden
is
it
to
decide
whether
a
record
should
be
sealed
so
right.
The
prosecuting
attorney
we're
talking
about
about
a
bill
here
with
a
prosecuting
attorney,
for
whatever
reason
has
not
stipulated
and
for
whatever
reason
has
not
made
a
challenge.
L
Who,
then,
if
not
the
prosecuting
attorney,
who
then
has
the
burden
to
show
that
that
record
should
not
be
sealed?
Is
it
incumbent
upon
the
court
to
seek
out
any
potential
victims
from
alabama
that
may
have
come
up
in
the
meantime
or
incumbent
upon
the
court
to
research?
Whether
metro
has
any
impending
cases
right?
So
what?
What
is
your
philosophical
view,
I
guess
about
who
has
the
burden
to
show
that
someone's
record
should
not
be
sealed?
K
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
harris,
I
think
jennifer
noble
for
the
record.
K
I
I
think
that
there's
two
parts
of
your
question,
one
there's
a
rebuttable
presumption,
so
there's
an
there,
has
to
be
evidence
that
overcomes
it,
but
the
way
that
this
is
structured,
it
doesn't
actually
require
that
that
evidence
be
presented
by
the
prosecutor
in
the
current
law
and-
and
I
think
I
agree
with
this-
for
the
record-
anyone
having
relevant
evidence-
a
community
member,
a
former
employer
who
had
a
lot
of
embezzlement
and
lost
a
ton
of
money
because
of
what
this
person
did,
members
of
the
police
department
who
might
know
what
they're
up
to,
but
they
haven't,
filed
anything.
K
Yet
those
folks
can
all
present
evidence
under
the
current
statutory
structure
and
the
world.
According
to
me,
I
think
that
that
is
the
way
it
should
be,
that
there
is
a
presumption
and
it
is
ultimately
the
judge's
decision
and
an
exercise
of
judicial
discretion,
which
I
think
should
be
at
the
heart
of
any
sealing
question.
L
I
appreciate
the
answer
I
would
suggest
we
always
have
these
great
separation
of
powers
issue,
and
I
would
suggest
we
also
have
the
ability
to
say
when
someone's
record
should
be
sealed
by
putting
that
into
the
nrs
which
it
seems
to
me.
We
are
attempting
to
do
today.
A
All
right,
thank
you
for
indulging
us
and
I
do
think
it
was
helpful.
I
appreciate
that
we've
all
learned
a
lot
about
record
sealing
and-
and
it's
it's
an
important
question
so
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
other
testimony
and
opposition.
I
don't
see
anybody
in
person
so
we'll
go
to
the
phones.
Please.
A
I
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
I
will
invite
the
sponsors
back
for
round
two.
No,
I'm
just
kidding
closing
comments
and
anything
you
want
to
respond
to,
because
I
know
we
did
expand
the
record
quite
significantly
during
the
testimony.
So
please
go
ahead.
C
C
I
appreciate
all
of
the
viewpoints
and,
as
miss
noble
acknowledged,
I
appreciate
working
with
her
and
her
position
on
this
as
well
and
that
there
are
clearly
some
remaining
disagreements
to
some
of
the
conversation
that
was
had.
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
believe
that
record
sealing
is
different
from
an
expungement
so
to
go
back
to
senator
hansen's
point
of.
Why
are
there
so
many
different
types
of
things,
and
why
do
they
all
do
different
things
if
we
had
an
expungement
process
in
nevada?
C
That
would
necessitate
that
the
records
be
destroyed,
but
a
record
sealing
process,
which
is
the
policy
choice
that
we've
made
in
this
state
does
necessitate
exceptions
to
access
to
those
records.
So
it
is
my
legal
understanding
that
the
police
do
maintain,
as
an
exception,
to
record
sealing
access
to
that
information,
and
so
those
scopes
which
are
what
we
end
up
tracking
down
when
we
try
to
do
these
record
ceilings.
That
information
does
exist
and
continue
to
exist.
C
Or
should
you
have
an
opportunity
to
apply
to
the
court
in
which
the
prosecuting
agency
that
declined
prosecution
would
have
an
opportunity
to
say
no,
we
don't
think
that
should
go
away,
and
so
we
are
dealing
with
the
in
between
and
the
gray
zone
here
out
of
necessity,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
pull
back
and
look
at
the
real
framework
that
was
set
up
that
already
exists
in
law.
C
I
do
believe
was
intended
for
the
prosecuting
agency
to
either
stipulate
or
object,
and
so
that
framework
remains
and
it
would
be
a
choice
to
continue
to
stipulate
or
object.
But
I
I've
we've
been
faced
with
the
question
of
what
should
the
policy
choice
be?
If
that
doesn't
occur,
I
guess
the
other
policy
choice
would
be
to
force
a
stipulation
or
an
objection
within
a
certain
amount
of
time,
so
that
that
gray
zone
isn't
there.
C
C
A
Chair
yeager,
you
know
it
is
a
misdemeanor
to
say
something
untrue
on
the
record.
So
are
you
sure
this
has
been
an
enjoyable
experience,
or
would
you
like
to
move
on
to
sherry
yaker
go
ahead.
B
You
know
we're
trying
to
solve
a
problem
and
the
problem
is:
what
do
we
do
when
the
prosecutor
doesn't
engage
in
some
fashion
and
we
certainly
could
require
them
to,
but
I
have
a
feeling
my
prosecutor
friends
would
not
want
to
have
to
do
that
in
every
case,
and
so
I
think
we've
chosen
a
path
forward
in
terms
of
what
to
do
when
the
prosecutor
does
not
engage,
and
I
appreciated
the
exchange
between
senator
harris
and
miss
noble
and
the
reference
to
the
case
and
I'll
just
remind
the
committee
members
that
in
the
bill
itself
on
page
3,
section
2,
this
is
the
law.
B
This
is
the
language
we
put
into
the
law
in
2017
as
a
body,
and
it
reads
thus
the
legislature
hereby
declares
that
the
public
policy
of
the
state
is
to
favor
the
giving
of
second
chances
to
offenders
who
are
rehabilitated
and
the
ceiling
of
the
records
of
such
persons.
So
that's
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here.
Of
course,
there's
nuance:
there's
always
nuance,
but
I
think
we've
we've
provided
a
solution
in
our
mind
that
helps
move
the
state
forward.
I
wish
we
had
expungement,
we
don't.
B
Some
states
have
automatic
record
sealing
pennsylvania
and
utah
in
particular.
We
don't
have
that
yet
we
don't
have
the
capabilities,
so
I
think
until
we
get
to
that
point,
this
is
a
step
forward
and
realizing
this
may
be
the
very
last
hearing
for
your
committee.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
time
you
gave
this
bill
and
I
just
want
to
thank
you
all
for
your
hard
work,
I'm
sitting
on
the
assembly,
judiciary,
committee
and
running
that
committee.
B
I
know
how
hard
this
committee
works,
how
serious
the
topics
are,
and
I've
really
enjoyed
appearing
in
front
of
all
of
you
this
session.
So
thank
you
so
much
and
best
of
luck
in
these
next,
oh
52
or
so
hours,
and
hopefully
when
we
all
get
done
here,
we'll
have
a
chance
to
get
together
outside
the
beautiful
confines
of
this
legislative
building.
Thank
you.
So
much
chair.
A
A
We
have
a
brief
work
session
on
our
agenda
for
ab427
all
right
and
I
believe
the
work
session
document
has
been
uploaded
to
nellis
and
I
don't
believe
we
printed
out
copies
for
you,
but
if,
oh,
we
did
print
out
copies
for
you
excellent.
So
if
we
are
ready
to
move
into
that,
I
will
hand
it
over
to
mr
guyan,
and
we
did
just
hear
this
bill.
I
think
yesterday.
G
Patrick
grinden,
for
the
record,
we
did
just
hear
this
bill
yesterday,
so
I
won't
read
the
bullet
point
list
of
all
the
many
things
it
does.
I
will
just
say
that
this
is
assembly
bill
427
and
its
first
reprint,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
driving
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
or
a
prohibited
substance.
It's
an
assembly,
judiciary
committee
bill,
as
we
said
we
heard
here
yesterday
and
I
won't
go
through
it.
I
think
if
there
are
questions
the
committee
can
go
ahead
and
tackle
those,
and
there
are
no
amendments
chair-
that's
all
happened.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
a
comment
that
I
wanted
to
get
on
the
record.
We
had
a
long
conversation
offline
regarding
the
potential
impacts
of
this
on
child
custody
cases,
and
after
talking
to
you,
chair,
shibal
and
nick
anthony,
it's
my
understanding
that
this
does
not
rise
to
the
same
level
as
an
offered
plea
in
terms
of
its
inadmissibility
admissibility
in
a
civil
matter,
and
this
is
about
protecting
kids.
A
Right,
we
have
a
motion
to
do
pass
from
senator
harris,
a
second
from
senator
orrinshaw,
any
further
discussion,
not
hearing
any
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
any
opposed.
Nay,
I
heard
an
a
senator
sittelmeyer
is
the
lone,
nay,
and
so
the
motion
does
carry
the
measure
passes
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
myself
and
with
that
that
brings
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
A
I
I
A
All
right,
then,
I
guess
that
brings
our
meeting
to
a
close.
I
do
very
briefly.
I
know
the
hour
is
late,
but
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
did
not
thank
our
fantastic
staff
who
keeps
coming
back
into
this
room
and
helping
us
get
all
of
our
work
done.
Our
amazing
secretary
pam
king
is
with
us
tonight
my
policy,
analyst
patrick
guynan,
our
committee
council,
nick
anthony
and
the
unsung
heroes
of
the
lcb
every
session,
but
especially
this
session.
A
The
bps
staff
jeff
laughlin
our
unit
chief,
jens
gaffidi,
the
control
room,
supervisor,
jen
wells
who
is
our
host
or
hostess
here
and
always
helps
us
get
started
at
whatever
time
we
do
get
started.
Bryce
kyle,
who
you
hear
on
the
phone
lines
all
the
time
and
he's
so
friendly
and
nice
to
all
of
us
that
we
will
miss
him
if
we
don't
have
another
meeting.
Sierra
ferguson
is
also
one
of
our
hosts
here
in
senate
judiciary
who
makes
sure
that
our
meetings
get
broadcast
to
everybody
who
wants
to
join
us.
A
Virtually
brad
zainer
operates
the
camera.
So
the
reason
I
look
so
amazing
and
all
of
you
look
so
amazing-
is
because
of
brad's
help
and
also
david
wilding
he's
our
sound
technician.
So
that's
the
only
reason.
Any
of
us
can
understand
anything,
that's
going
on
here,
at
least
at
a
audible
level.
So
with
that,
I
do
just
want
to
thank
everybody,
the
the
staff
and
the
members
of
my
committee.
I
have
a
fantastic
committee
here.
It
has
been
my
honor
and
my
pleasure
to
work
with
all
of
you.
A
You
all
bring
interesting
questions
and
experiences
to
the
table.
You
have
asked
fantastic
questions
to
all
of
our
presenters.
You've
brought
up
excellent
points.
You've.
I
think
that
every
bill
that
came
through
this
committee
came
out
of
it
better
than
it
came
in
because
of
all
of
your
hard
work,
and
so
I
want
you
to
know
how
much
I
personally
appreciate
it,
and
with
that
we
are.