►
From YouTube: 4/1/2021 - 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
All
right,
I
will
call
this
meeting
to
order.
This
is
the
senate
judiciary
committee
on
april
1st
of
2021,
I'm
sorry.
We
are
starting
a
little
bit
late
today
because
we
got
off
the
floor
just
about
one
o'clock,
so
hopefully
you
all
had
a
chance
to
grab
a
bite
and
refill
your
water
bottles
or
whatever
it
is.
You
need
to
do
and
you're
ready
for
a
couple
of
bill
hearings
and
a
work
session.
A
I
don't
see
all
of
my
members
here
yet
so
we're
gonna
hold
off
on
the
work
session
for
a
few
more
minutes,
but
let's
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
here.
Oh
sorry,
let's
call
the
role
please.
B
D
A
Here
april,
fools.
E
A
Approve
this
motion
and
discussion
all
right
see
none.
We
will
move
on
to
a
note
for
the
record
that
we
also
have
our
fabulous
staff
here
nicholas
anthony
our
committee
council
is
here,
patrick
diamond.
Our
committee
analyst
is
here
both
of
them
work
for
lcb.
We
do
have
a
work
session
today.
I
think
I
said
this
before
we're
gonna
do
that
later,
when
we
have
more
of
our
members
here
and
so
in
the
meantime,
not
in
the
meantime,
equally
important,
we
are
going
to
hear
sb401
from
senator
harris
whenever
you're
ready.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
scheible
and
good
afternoon
for
the
record.
I'm
dallas
harris
present
representing
senate
district
11
in
clark
county,
I'm
here
to
present
senate
bill
401,
which
requires
the
reporting
of
certain
information
relating
to
pretrial
detention,
as
was
the
case
with
sb
147
relating
to
no
contact
orders
which
I
presented
to
this
body
earlier
this
session.
G
Additionally,
the
reporting
concept
relating
to
persons
held
in
jail
on
low
bail
amounts
and
for
periods
longer
than
a
week
was
brought
to
the
committee's
attention
for
from
representatives
of
the
clark
county
detention
center.
As
we
learned
during
the
interim
accurate
and
complete
pretrial
release,
data
impacts,
every
corner
of
the
bail
system.
G
Turning
our
attention
to
the
provisions
of
the
bill
section,
one
of
sb
401
requires
justice,
courts,
municipal
courts
and
district
courts
to
maintain
certain
records
concerning
pretrial
detention
and
to
submit
the
records
to
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts
at
least
quarterly
section.
One
specifically
details
the
information
to
be
included
in
the
records.
G
I
will
quickly
highlight
some
of
the
information,
including
one,
the
offense
two,
whether
the
defendant
was
admitted
to
bail,
denied
admission
to
bail
or
released
without
bail,
three,
the
amount
of
bail
set
or
the
conditions
imposed
for
release
without
bail,
four,
the
dates
on
which
the
defendant
was
taken
into
release
from
custody.
G
G
The
sentence
imposed
on
the
defendant
section
two
of
sb
401
requires
the
court
administrator
to
compile
total
numbers
based
on
the
information
required
to
be
maintained
in
section
one
and
a
quarterly
submit
such
information
to
the
director
of
the
lcb
for
transmittal
to
the
legislature
or
to
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice.
If
the
legislature
is
non-session.
G
Finally,
sections
three
and
four
of
sb401
require
county
and
city
jails
to
notify
the
court
having
jurisdiction
over
a
defendant
in
a
criminal
case.
If
one
the
defendant
is
in
custody
for
more
than
seven
days
after
the
amount
of
fail
is
set
and
two
the
amount
of
bail
is
set
at
25,
000
or
less.
This
will
alert
the
courts
if
someone
is
truly
sitting
in
jail
because
they
simply
cannot
afford
bail.
G
In
conclusion,
I
believe
this
bill
establishes
much
needed
data
collection
and
reporting
requirements
which
will
enable
future
policy
decisions
regarding
pre-trial
release
to
be
data,
driven
as
you've
heard
with
other
criminal
justice
bills.
This
session,
for
far
too
long
nevada
suffered
from
a
lack
of
accurate
data
upon
which
to
make
important
policy
decisions.
G
It's
my
hope
that
this
brief
discussion
highlights
the
need
for
this
important
legislation
so
that
we
may
glean
insight
into
how
to
most
efficiently
ensure
the
safety
of
our
community
by
learning
at
a
minimum
who
is
in
our
jails
awaiting
trial,
for
which
offenses
and
for
how
long.
I
strongly
urge
your
support
of
senate
bill
401.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you
senator
harris.
Do
members
of
the
committee
have
questions
for
senator
harris?
Go
ahead,
senator
picker.
D
D
I
think
you
just
answered
the
latter
part
of
the
question.
The
purpose
is
to
determine
if
someone
is
sitting
in
jail.
I
don't
know
if
sitting
in
jail
without
the
ability
to
make
their
bail
to
be
more
complete,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
going
to
be
used
for
any
other
purpose.
D
We
list
out
the
things
that
are
going
to
be
listed.
Is
this
capturing
all
the
data
that
there
is
to
know
whether
or
not
the
person
couldn't
afford
the
the
bail?
Because
all
I
can
see
you
know
one
question
that
came
to
mind
I
should
have
put
that
way
is:
is
it
that
they
can't
make
the
bail
or
they
couldn't
get
someone
to
post
it
for
them?
D
Or
you
know
it
as
opposed
to
affordability,
maybe
they
just
didn't,
have
any
friends
that
were
willing
to
do
it
for
him
kind
of
thing.
I
I
don't
know
this
area,
so
are
we
gathering
all
the
information
we
need
to
to
actually
be
able
to
tell
the
courts
that
this
person
couldn't
afford
jail
versus
just
couldn't
find
somebody
to
bail
him
out.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question
sandra
picker
to
you
through
chair
scheible.
You
know,
I
don't
see
much
of
a
distinction
all
the
time
between
not
being
able
to
afford
it
yourself
and
having
someone
bail
you
out
like
a
friend
right.
This
is
not
a
lot
of
people,
don't
necessarily
have
friends
who
are
gonna
post
the
bail.
G
They
just
have
the
money
to
do
it
themselves,
and
so
you
know
if
you
are
in
bail
for
for
2500
or
less,
and
it's
been
seven
days
or
more
regardless
of
whether
the
question
is,
you
don't
have
any
friends
who
have
that
kind
of
money.
We
know
you
don't
have
that
money
yourself
and
someone
else
who
was
able
to
put
that
money
up
would
have
been
out
on
the
street,
and
so
that's
really
the
key.
What
we're
looking
at
here.
D
Okay,
let
me
ask
it
this
way,
then,
because
I
was
under
the
impression
that,
when
you're
in
jail,
you
can't
go
to
the
bank
and
get
money
so
you're
not
able
to
get
your
own
money,
let
alone
someone
else,
and
I
was
thinking
more
in
the
context
of
there's
no
family
member
who
can
go
to
the
bank
on
behalf
of
the
person
pull
out
the
money.
There's
no
spouse,
there's
no
child,
there's!
No
somebody
else,
even
though
it's
this
person's
money.
D
So
it's
still
a
question
of
whether
or
not
they
are
able
themselves
to
post
the
bail
or
they're.
Not,
and
so
can
you
maybe
elucidate
the
process
a
little
bit
and
and
explain
why
that
may
why
there?
I
did
because
I
see
a
difference
there.
G
Senator
pickard,
I
think
I'll
I'll
have
to
chat
with
you
a
little
bit
more
about
this,
maybe
offline,
because
I'm
not
sure
if
I
quite
get
what
your
look,
what
your
you
know
what
your
concern
is
here.
G
D
So
what
I
hear
you
saying
is
that
the
person
who
is
in
jail
has
the
ability
to
go
to
the
bank
and
and
get
that
or
somehow
get
the
money.
So
the
only
reason
that
they're
sitting
in
jail
is
that
they
don't
have
the
money.
G
I
would
not
say
senator
harris
for
the
record.
Sorry,
I
got
to
get
better
at
that.
I
wouldn't
say
it's
the
it's.
The
only
reason
I'm
suggesting
it's
a
fairly
decent
indication
that
the
reason
they're
sitting
there
is
because
they
don't
have
the
funds
themself
to
say.
That's
the
only
reason,
of
course
not
if
you
you've
illuminated
some
situations
where
maybe
you're
a
single
person-
and
you
don't
have
any
friends
in
the
world
to
go
to
the
bank
for
you.
G
That
might
also
be
the
the
scenario,
but
I
I'm
saying
the
the
correlation
between
those
two
being
in
jail
for
seven
days
or
more.
Your
bail
set
at
2500
or
less
is
probably
going
to
be
pretty
strong.
A
I'll
also
add,
I
think
that
you
would
all
you'd
also
be
able
to
get
a
bail
bond.
So
if
my
bail
is
500
and
I
can
afford
500-
but
I
don't
have
anybody
to
post
it
for
me,
of
course
they
don't
do
it
for
free,
but
I
could
still
call
a
bail
bonds
company
from
ccdc
and
say
hey.
I
have
a
bail
that
I
can
afford,
but
I
don't
have
anybody
to
post
it.
A
For
me,
they'll
charge
me
some
kind
of
fee
to
come
down
to
ccdc
and
put
the
500
on
the
books,
and
then
I
have
to
pay
them
750
or
whatever
it
is.
So.
I
think
that
you'd
have
to
be
in
a
very,
very
narrow
category
of
person
who
can
afford
your
bail,
but
can't
afford
to
pay
a
bail
bonds
person
to
come
down
to
the
jail
post
for
you.
D
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
question
today.
I
was
just
wondering
on
seven,
if
there's
a
reason
why
we
don't
have
something
like
adding
an
l,
isn't
it
also
pertinent
to
the
discussion
of
why
they
may
not
be
able
to
make
bail
their
prior
history?
So
if
there
was
a
history,
maybe
that
they,
unfortunately
in
other
states
or
in
other
jurisdictions
or
at
other
times,
chose
to
not
show
up
after
posting
bail,
so
in
other
words
they
have
a
history.
G
Senator
sotomayor
dallas
harris
ford,
the
record
you
are
correct,
but
in
that
case,
what
what
would
likely
happen
is
that
the
bail
would
be
set
at
a
higher
amount
because
of
those
prior
instances
where
they
fail
to
appear,
and
so,
if
it's
2500
or
less
right,
that's
why
there's
that
monetary
value
to
it,
then
we're
pretty
got
a
good
idea
that
you
just
can't
afford
it
now
the
number
the
amount
of
your
bail
mill
may
be
higher
in
order
to
try
and
account
for
previous
times
where
you
fled,
but
that's
where
you
would
see
that
correlation
there.
F
But
isn't
that
the
exact
point
senator
harris
that
shouldn't
you
have
that
information
in
this
analysis
so
that
when
you're?
Looking
at
this
information,
you
say
well
gee,
you
know
this
guy.
He
has
a
2500
bail
and
it's
just
totally
improper.
I
mean,
after
all,
he
just
unfortunately
stole
a
candy
bar
and
some
people
might
say
he
just
needed
it
because
he
was
hungry
and
but
in
that
respect,
if
you
actually
had
ellen
here
talking
about
previous
history
or
priors,
you
might
be
able
to
determine.
F
G
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
sotomayor.
You
know
I
think
you're
you're,
hitting
on
on
a
on
a
decent
point
here.
I
don't
personally
have
any
history
of.
I
don't
have
the
data
in
front
of
me
of
how
often
bail
is
set
at
2500
or
less
when
someone
has
a
substantial
history
of
fleeing,
but
I
would
suggest
that
it's
probably
not
that
often
and
there's
nothing.
I
think
in
the
bill
that
would
preclude,
of
course,
the
judge
from
finding
the
proper
amount
we've
got
other
bills.
G
That
would
ask
them
to
take
into
consideration
a
person's
income
and,
of
course,
there's
always
that
factor
of
risk
of
fleeing
and
risk
of
safety
to
the
community
that
goes
into
setting
the
proper
bail
amount.
F
G
Thank
you,
and,
and
if
it's
okay
with
you,
madam
chair,
I
would
just
like
to
make
one
more
point
to
senator
sedime's
question
here.
You
know.
I
would
also
note
that
part
of
the
issue
here
is
regardless
of
how
many
times
you
fled
right.
If
someone
also
fled
a
similar
amount
of
times
and
have
the
same
bail,
but
they
simply
had
the
money
to
pay
it,
you
know
we
would
we
that's
really
what
we're
interested
in
right.
G
So
one
person
said
at
2500,
even
if
they
had
fled
multiple
times
and
another
person
said
at
2500
after
fleeing
multiple
times
may
simply
be
sitting
in
jail
just
because
they
don't
have
the
funds
not
because
of
the
prior
history.
F
I
appreciate
that
senator
harris,
but
in
that
respect
then,
let's
add
m:
how
much
money
do
these
individuals
have
in
their
checking
and
or
savings
accounts,
or
do
they
have
a
check
again
or
savings
account?
So
we
can
obtain
that
data?
Listen,
I'm
okay,
obtaining
the
data,
so
we
can
make
informed
decisions.
I
just
would
like
to
look
at
the
whole
picture.
G
Understood
and
happy
to
continue
discussions
about
what
that
proper
data
should
be.
A
So
I'll,
take
this
opportunity
to
give
a
little
bit
of
history
about
even
you
guys
already
heard
the
history,
but
there's
a
very
important
decision
about
this
jimenez
that
we've
talked
about
before,
and
one
aspect
of
that
decision
by
the
supreme
court
was
to
say
that
when
the
court
sets
a
bail
that
the
defendant
cannot
meet
and
that
serves
as
a
de
facto
pre-trial
detention,
that
is
not
a
violation
of
the
constitution.
A
A
What
I
think
this
bill
aims
to
do
is
to
count
the
number
of
people
for
whom
bail
is
serving
as
a
pre-trial
detention
mechanism,
whether
it
was
intentional
or
not
the
question
of
whether
we
intended
for
that
to
be
the
outcome
of
the
bail
versus
it
being
an
unintended
consequence
is
a
separate
policy
question
that
I
think
is
addressed
in
a
couple
of
other
bills
coming
forward
this
year.
A
The
point
of
gathering
this
data
is
to
say
how
many
people
are
experiencing
pre-trial
detention
as
a
result
of
their
bail
setting
and
then
to
your
point,
senator
settlemyre.
We
do
want
to
ask
that
additional
question
of
was
that
on
purpose
did
we
mean
to
hold
them
pre-trial
and
prejudice,
detention
by
setting
an
unattainable
bail,
or
was
it
an
unattended
unintended
consequence
of
sending
that
bail.
F
H
H
H
E
Good
morning,
chair
and
good
afternoon,
sorry,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piero
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defenders
office.
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
presenting
this
bill
today.
We
think
it's
very
important
that
we
study
data
so
that
we
can
start
making
informed
decisions
on
what
we're
doing
going
forward.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
we
support
it.
H
H
J
J
H
K
Hi,
jim
hoffman
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
nacj
supports
sb
401
pre-trial
detention
has
been
a
very
persistent
issue
before
the
legislature
for
the
past
several
sessions,
and
yet
we
haven't
been
able
to
address
this
problem.
One
of
the
reasons
for
that
is
that
there
are
some
real
holes
in
the
data
about
pre-trial
release
so
that
the
different
sides
of
the
issue
can
sometimes
have
trouble
agreeing
on
how
this
actually
works
in
practice.
K
H
H
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
senate
judiciary.
This
is
kendra
burchie
d-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defenders
office.
We
really
appreciate
the
work
that
senator
harris
has
done
through
the
interim,
with
working
with
stakeholders
through
the
interim
committee,
as
well
as
the
other
members
who
participated
in
that
committee.
You'll
be
hearing
several
bills
this
session
from
that
interim
committee,
and
we
appreciate
this
bill
because
we
do
need
the
data
collection
in
order
to
ensure
that
we
are
enacting
sound
policy.
So
we
appreciate
this
bill
and
support
it.
Thank
you.
H
L
Ett
k-a-I-l-e-y-b-a-r-n-e-t-t
the
record:
I'm
a
reno
nevada,
constituent
born
and
raised
in
las
vegas,
so
I
have
been
in
nevada
in
my
whole
for
my
whole
life,
I
don't
believe
someone
should
be
held
in
jail
because
they
can't
afford
to
pay
for
bail.
I
believe
we
need
to
end
cash
bail.
Indian
damon
of
the
reno
gazette
journal
wrote
a
very
informative
investigative
journalist
piece
death
behind
barge,
which
outlines
an
increase
of
death
in
washoe
county
jail,
the
last
few
years,
justice
for
nico
smith,
thomas
purdy
and
justin
thompson.
I
yield
my
time.
Thank
you.
H
H
L
L
But
without
this
we
don't
see
integrity,
we
don't
see
responsibility
that
needs
to
be
taken
and
as
well.
There
just
must
be
truth
and
accuracy
in
the
reports
that
are
given
if
any
reports
at
all,
because
that's
what
we're
seeing
here
is
that
there
were
no
reports
whatsoever.
So
even
when
there
do
become
reports,
there
must
be
truth
and
accuracy
so
that
the
public
can
continue
to
understand.
L
We
have
the
right
to
know
how
our
taxes
are
being
used
and
why
our
commit
community
members
must
show
we're
straight
in
the
eyes
of
injustice,
because
that
is
what
we
see
happening
here
with
pre-trial
detention,
and
so
when
there's
no
attempt
at
building
authentic
trust
with
the
communities
there's.
No,
we
can't
ask
our
community
to
have
faith
in
the
systems
that
continue
to
oppress
us.
So
I
support
sb401
and
I
call
on
all
of
our
legislators
to
do
the
same.
Thank
you.
H
F
Good
afternoon
to
the
senate
judiciary,
this
is
mark
evil,
m-a-r-c
e-b-e-l.
I
want
to
thank
the
senator
of
chair
tribal
time
today.
I
want
to
applaud
senator
harris
for
introducing
sb
401,
want
to
echo
all
the
important
comments
about
the
need
for
better
data
in
nevada.
It's
an
absolute
in
most
states
there's
a
sort
of
lack
of
accurate
data
of
who's
in
jail.
Why?
For
how
long
et
cetera?
So
I
in
full
support
of
it.
Thank
you
I'll
you,
the
restaurant.
H
H
M
I
am
for
this
bill,
but
what
disturbs
me
was
the
conversation
I
heard
between
you,
members
of
the
committee
right
before
you
open
this
to
public
comment.
There
seems
to
be
a
lack
of
understanding
about
a
lot
of
the
things
that
are
going
on
in
our
local
jails
right
now
and
the
negative
effect
that
the
yemen's
decision
had
on
bail
and
people
sitting
in
the
jail,
even
though
our
jail's
30
some
percent
down
in
capacity
from
what
it's
been
the
end
result
was.
M
You've
ended
up
with
more
people
with
low
bales
that
no
one
will
bail
them
out
and
it's
not
nothing
to
do
with
their
ability
to
get
bailed.
But
I
can
just
plug
it
into
one
example
here
and
this
kind
of
tells
me
what
you've
got
to
open
up
and
look
at.
M
He
has
a
history
of
like
60
felony
cases
divided
between
the
three
courts
here
in
the
valley.
He
has
a
long
history
of
not
showing
up
the
one
he's
in
jail
for
now
is
for
absconding
on
bail,
and
he
wanted
me
to
bail
him
out
and
he
has
the
money
to
bail
but
here's
the
problem.
I
turn
around
and
bail
this
guy
out
on
this
misdemeanor
and
he
turns
around
and
goes
over
to
these
felonies
in
las
vegas
justice
court.
M
The
district
court,
where
he's
been
ordered
to
be
on
low-level
monitoring
and
he's
going
to
turn
around
and
he's
going
to
get
out
and
he's
going
to
cut
that
monitor
off
and
he's
got
all
the
reason
in
the
world
to
hide
and
I'm
going
to
end
up
paying
that
bond,
because
I'm
not
going
to
find
him
in
the
time
it
takes.
So
the
value
of
a
bond
should
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
person's
ability
to
pay.
It
should
be
based
on
an
amount
of
money.
M
That's
going
to
assure
that
that
person's
not
going
to
sacrifice
it
and
what
is
ultimately
important
at
these
and
some
of
the
bigger
ones.
Is
you
get
a
friend
or
family
member
to
sign
for
them
shared
responsibility,
because
then
there's
some
accountability.
They
feel
that
somebody
that
they
feel
an
accountability
to
if
they
don't
have
an
accountability
to
the
person.
That's
signing
for
them.
They're
gonna,
take.
H
H
I
Hello,
my
name
is
yesenia
moya
that
is
y-e-s-e-n-I-a-m-o-y-a.
I'm
a
local
community
member,
that's
also
been
affected.
By
this
I
have
had
I'm
actually
really
disappointed
in
hearing
the
conversations
that
have
been
happening.
I
think
it
is
dehumanizing
and
utterly
kind
of
destructive
and
destroying
to
me
the
way
that
folks
are
addressing
this
issue
and
honestly,
it
doesn't
come
down
to
not
wanting
to
pay.
I
It
doesn't
come
down
to
not
being
able
to
pay,
but
the
fact
that
bail
and
cash
bail
is
inhumane
and
it
directly
affects
and
targets
black
and
brown
communities
that
have
been
minoritized
and
marginalized
in
the
state.
This
isn't
a
question
about.
If
it's
a
problem,
no,
it
is
dehumanizing
and
I
am
disappointed
in
hearing
the
language-
and
I
am
here
in
support
of
sb401,
because
I
have
plenty
of
family
members
who
have
who
I've
had
to
bail
out
myself
and
me
myself.
I
H
A
H
H
J
J
Testimony
thank
you.
I
apologize
for
the
technical
difficulties.
I
just
want
to
thank
senator
harris
and
all
the
members
of
the
interim
bail
study
committee.
I
had
the
pleasure
of
presenting
the
bill
establishing
that
study
committee
last
session
on
behalf
of
majority
leader
canazarro,
so
I
do
believe
she's
owed
that
credit
and
she
introduced
that
bill
at
the
request
of
bail
reform
advocates
during
negotiations
on
a
piece
of
legislation
last
session,
and
we
want
to
thank
her
for
that.
J
These
issues
needed
to
be
thoroughly
discussed,
and
you
know
here
we
are
with
a
package
of
bills
that
I
think
move
the
state
in
the
right
direction.
The
requirement
to
maintain
and
publicly
report
information
on
pre-trial
defendants
is
the
transparency
the
state
needs
to
ensure
bail
is
imposed
constitutionally.
J
H
H
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
We
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
sb
401
and
we
will
continue
to
take
the
agenda
out
of
order.
I
apologize
as
you
all
I
hopefully
know
at
this
point.
We
have
lots
of
members
who
are
presenting
bills
in
different
committees
at
the
same
time
and
everyone's
doing
their
best
to
make
their
schedules
work
and
so
we're
going
to
move
next
to
sb
257.
A
This
is
a
committee
bill
that
I
will
be
presenting.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
the
proverbial
gavel
over
to
our
vice
chair
majority,
leader
kanazawa.
N
A
A
Sb
257
is
a
bill
that
we're
all
going
to
learn
about
together,
as
we
all
received
an
email
about
an
hour
ago
with
a
new
version
of
the
language,
and
I
am
very,
very
thankful
to
our
partners
at
the
home
builders
association
who
have
been
working
diligently
with
the
nevada,
justice,
association
and
other
stakeholders
to
get
this
policy
right,
and
the
purpose
of
the
policy,
speaking
very
broadly,
is
to
reduce
hoa
payments
for
homeowners
who
own
what
are
not
single-family
homes,
town
homes,
condominiums
duplexes
facilities
like
those
because
their
insurance
needs
are
just
slightly
different
from
owning
a
free-standing
detached
single-family
home,
and
I
will
go
ahead
if
it
is
okay
with
the
vice
chair
and
turn
it
over
to
nat.
N
And
I
I
will
stop
you
right
there
before
and
before
you
get
started.
It's
good
to
see
you
here
in
the
committee
and
judiciary.
I
just
want
to
double
check
with
our
members
who
we
have
that
you
all
and
you
all
can
nod
your
heads
that
you
got
a
copy
of
that
amendment.
N
C
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon.
Vice
chair
canada,
zero
and
committee
members,
I'm
nat
hodgson,
the
ceo
of
the
sun
nevada,
homebuilders
association,
I'm
proud
to
be
with
you
today,
alongside
senator
scheibel,
to
present
sb
257.
C
I
often
remind
policy
makers
that
the
price
of
a
home
is
a
fairly
simple
math
problem:
price
of
land
cost
material,
labor
regulatory
cost
plus
time
equals
your
house
cost
for
home
buyers.
The
math
is
fairly
straightforward
as
well.
Monthly
income
minus
existing
debt
payments
is
balanced
against
the
anticipated
monthly
cost
of
the
mortgage
taxes
in
your
hoa
payment.
C
Attached
project
product,
such
as
town
homes,
have
a
medium
price,
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
less
than
attached
product
in
today's
market,
and
you
can
see
that,
according
to
homebuilders
research
data,
which
you
should
have
received
in
the
email
that
went
out
late
yesterday
evening
again,
I
apologize
for
the
delayed
information.
C
For
example,
in
1995,
southern
nevada's
for
sale
market
had
21
market
share
was
the
attached
product,
then
in
2010
to
2017
it
went
down
to
two
to
seven
percent
as
a
high
and
in
just
the
last
28
months,
we've
gone
from
15
to
almost
23
percent
of
attached
product
for
affordability
due
to
the
escalating
land
cost
density
is
the
key
to
keeping
market
costs
for
a
home
as
low
as
possible.
It's
as
simple
as
that.
Frankly,
for
too
many
nevada
families.
Because
of
these
rising
costs,
the
map
is
increasingly
not
working
in
their
favor.
C
Increased
land
cost
increased
material
costs
for
flat
wages
for
middle
class.
Buyers
mean
that
we're
also
often
losing
ground
in
the
fight
to
preserve
access
to
the
american
dream
of
home
ownership
senate
bill
257
seeks
to
increase
access
to
the
most
affordable
for
sale
units
on
the
market.
Today,
townhomes
and
duplexes
this
body,
by
supporting
key
compromises
in
the
last
legislative
session,
preserved
the
ability
for
developers
to
build
new
attached
homes.
C
This
growing
segment
of
the
market
is
a
key
access
point
to
home
ownership
for
working
families.
This
bill
would
seek
to
lower
development,
cost
of
town
homes
and
duplexes,
lower
your
monthly
hoa
payments
for
residents
of
town
homes
and
duplex
communities
and
help
more
nevadans
qualify
to
buy
new
town
homes.
This
is
a
bill
that
we,
I
think,
is
a
win-win
for
homeowners,
realtors
and
developers.
C
O
Thanks
nat
matt
walker
for
the
record,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
association
and
great,
to
be
with
you
this
afternoon
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
things:
I'm
passionate
about
insurance,
uniform
law,
commission
and
nhoas.
So
I
really
appreciate
your
patience,
but
this
is
an
important
conversation.
I'm
going
to
briefly
tell
you
a
story
about
why
we
kind
of
discovered
this
bill
concept
in
the
first
place
and
then
very
briefly,
walk
you
through
a
section
by
section
of
the
latest
amendment
that
we've
been
working
on
with
stakeholders.
O
So
I
was
working
with
assemblywoman
bacchus,
who
represents
sun
city
summerlin
and
many
other
areas
where
constituents
are
really
passionate
about
their
hoa
management
and
often
compare
notes
on
their
monthly
bills
and
other
expenditures
of
hoa.
O
We
her
constituents
discovered
that
there
was
a
big
increase
cost
for
the
homeowners
of
some
of
the
smallest
homes
in
the
in
the
community,
which
are
the
the
duplex
and
townhome
units,
and
they
inquired
to
her.
Why
there
was
such
a
discrepancy
why
their
neighbors
down
the
street,
who
have
a
larger
and
more
expensive,
single-family
home,
would
be
paying
less
in
their
hoa
assessments
and
so
in.
O
In
that
conversation
and
research,
we
stumbled
upon
this
issue
that
for
townhomes
and
duplexes
they're
required
hoas
are
required
to
cover
the
same
insurance
for
both
the
exterior
and
common
elements
of
a
community,
but
also
the
the
the
full
interior
of
the
unit
as
well,
and
we
researched
other
states
and
found
that
several
states
that
adopted
the
common
interests
community
owners
act.
The
uniform
law
act
around
the
same
time.
That
nevada
did
have
since
updated
it
to
reflect
some
lower
requirements
for
the
association.
O
Here
in
the
amendment
I'm
going
to
walk
the
committee
through
and
as
the
sponsor
mentioned,
we've
been
working
closely
with
the
nevada,
justice,
association,
cai
and
other
key
stakeholders
to
make
sure
that
we
did
not
leave
anybody
in
a
in
a
situation
where
they're
unclear
on
their
coverage
or
where
there
was
a
gap
in
coverage,
and
I'm
very
appreciative
of
the
the
improvements
to
the
bill
that
came
through
that
dialogue.
O
So
I
will
jump
directly.
O
We
are
so
appreciative
for
your
committee
staff,
again
matt
walker,
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
association,
so
walking
briefly
through
that
amendment,
which
all
focuses
on
nevada,
revised
statutes,
116.3113
going
down
to
subsection
two
here
we
are
diverting
creating
two
different
categories:
again:
the
traditional
high-rise,
condo
or
other
scenario
where
units
are
sharing
a
horizontal
wall
between
units
and
those
units
will
remain
status
quo
and
we're
then
calling
out
units
that
are
only
divided
by
vertical
boundaries
that
comprise
common
walls
and
in
the
case
where
you
have
one
of
those
communities
that
we
typically
refer
to
as
town
homes
or
duplexes
they're
able
to
but
not
required
to
maintain
lower
levels
of
insurance
as
an
association
where
they
don't
need
to
cover
the
floors,
ceilings
and
various
other
interior
components
of
of
that
unit.
O
As
mr
hodgson
mentioned.
We
believe
that
this
will
reduce
the
overall
cost
of
to
the
association
for
their
monthly
assessments.
Due
to
to
this
decreased
requirement
for
coverage,
should
the
governing
documents
reflect
this
reduced
coverage.
O
If,
for
whatever
reason,
a
town
home
or
duplex
community
is
built
after
the
effective
date
of
this
bill.
If
the
governing
documents
don't
specify
that
there's
this
reduced
coverage
of
these
interior
elements
of
of
the
units
they're
going
to
default
back
to
the
status
quo,
so
again
we're
just
looking
at
new
communities
going
forward,
and
only
when
the
governing
documents
spell
out.
O
So
to
to
conclude,
I
I
just
want
to
thank
again
sponsor
senator
and
my
senator
melanie
schreibel,
I'm
very
appreciative
of
the
opportunity
to
have
this
conversation,
as
mr
hodgson
mentioned.
We
do
see
this
as
a
win-win-win
and
appreciate
all
the
stakeholders
who
helped
us
improve
this
bill
and
get
us
to
a
finished
product.
To
present
to
you
today,.
N
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
walker,
as
well
for
being
here
today,
as
the
chair
mentioned
for
those
of
you
who
may
be
just
joining
us
or
who
may
be
waiting
in
line
to
testify
before
we
get
to
questions
of
the
committee.
Just
so
everyone
knows
what
may
be
driving
the
committee's
questions.
We
did
receive
a
new
amendment
that
amendment
is
now
available
on
nellis.
N
All
members
of
the
committee
also
have
that
particular
amendment
which
reflects
some
different
language
than
is
in
the
original
bill,
so
we'll
make
sure
we're
focused
on
that
particular
amendment
and
chair
schreibel.
If,
unless
you
have
additional
comments
to
make,
we
can
move,
I'm
saying
no,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
to
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
N
If
anyone
has
a
question,
please
go
ahead
and
you
can
use
the
raised
hand
feature,
because
I
have
figured
out
how
to
work
that
which
is
a
huge
plus
and
my
education
here,
and
I
see
that
senator
picker
does
have
a
question
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
you
senator.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
and
thank
you
senator
scheibel,
for
bringing
the
bill
and,
of
course,
mr
walker,
particularly
mr
hudson,
it's
good
to
see
you.
I
will,
however,
want
I
do
want
to
correct
something.
You
said,
mr
hodgson
and
that's
you've
been
doing
this
more
than
a
decade.
It
was
20
years
ago
we
worked
over
pulte
del
webb
together,
so
you've
been
at
this
a
long
time
and
and
of
course,
leave
it
to
a
home
builder
to
build
a
better
bill.
D
With
this
amendment,
I
I
like
where
it
went
particularly
sub4,
but
there's
one
question
that
reminds
my
mind
remains
in
my
mind,
and
that
is-
and
I
think
four
probably
covers
it,
but
when
we
have
associations
of
multiple
duplexes
or
town
homes,
where
we
have
only
vertical
separations,
some
of
those
governing
documents
are
designed
to
make
sure
that
the
association
owns
not
only
the
exterior
of
the
building
to
the
interior
surface,
but
also
those
common
walls,
and
since
the
association
is
owning
those
common
walls,
the
original
bill
would
have
said
you
don't
have
to
have
insurance
at
all.
O
O
But
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
to
make
a
clear
record
on
this.
So
section.
Two
of
the
admitted
version
of
the
build
now
creates
a
clear,
a
much
more
clear
picture
of
what
types
of
elements
are
not
required
to
be
insured
by
the
association
and,
if
you'll
note,
the
term,
finished
interior
surfaces
of
the
walls,
floors
and
ceilings.
I
think
that
there
was
an
attention
here
again
copied
from
colorado
of
picking
these
non-structural
elements
as
a
way
to
steer
clear
of
the
exact
controversy
that
you
called
out
there.
O
D
No
and
that's
fine-
I
just
noticed
that
that
also
includes
to
the
extent
the
insurance
is
available,
and
so
again
it's
going
to
leave
it
optional
and-
and
I
think
that's
not
the
intent
of
the
bill-
that
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
to
make
this
so
that
we're
just
excluding
the
stuff
we're
hanging
on
the
walls.
D
You
know
maybe
the
paint
or
other
decorative
features,
but
the
expectation
is
that
the
association,
if
it
owns
the
wall,
it's
going
to
insure
the
wall
because
the
renters
or
the
owners
who
buy
the
insurance
they
can't
legally,
typically
the
insur
their
insurance
companies
aren't
going
to
be
including
structural
elements
that
are
owned
by
the
association.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
we're
not
intending
to
leave
any
gaps
here.
O
Matt
walker
for
the
record,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders
and
through
you
vice
chair,
canada,
zero
to
senator
pickard.
Thank
you
again
for
the
for
the
follow-up.
That's
exactly
right!
We're
intending
to
leave
no
gaps
here
and
that's
why
it's
so
important
that
we
have
that
disclosure
and
it's
so
important
that
we
leave
it
up
to
the
the
declarant
who's
forming
these
governing
documents
to
ensure
that
they're
customizing
the
terms
of
the
insurance
coverage
in
those
governing
documents
to
the
circumstances
of
what
features
are
in
the
community.
O
What
the
architectural
elements
of
that
community
are.
I
believe
that
this
bill
does
that,
appropriately
with
with
the
terms
in
subsection
two,
but
also
the
the
default
being
the
existing
tried
and
true
statute
that,
I
believe,
has
been
on
the
books
since
1991
in
regards
to
insurance
coverage.
For
those
other
elements
that
you
named.
D
E
E
Commission
who
worked
on
the
common
interest
ownership
act,
and
I
appreciate
your
efforts
and
trying
to
make
sure
nevada
statutes
stay
uniform
with
the
rest
of
the
country
that
has
adopted
that
act.
So
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
trying
to
keep
us
uniform
where
we've
adopted
a
uniform
act.
Thank
you.
E
N
N
All
right,
then,
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
testimony
here
on
senate
bill
2
57.
If
you
are
here
to
testify
on
senate
bill
257,
we
will
proceed
with
support
and
then
we
will
move
to
opposition
and
end
with
neutral.
I
am
going
to
turn
it
over
to
our
very
capable
broadcast
production
services
staff
who
will
flag
for
those
of
you
waiting
to
testify
to
go
ahead
and
get
in
line
with
that.
So
please
pay
attention
to
their
directions
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
support.
H
H
L
Eva
s,
e
g
s-e-g-e-r-b-l-o-m,
on
behalf
of
nevada
justice
association,
we
are
in
support
of
the
conceptual
amendment.
Unfortunately,
I
think
it's
wrong
on
nellis,
but
it
is
the
one
that
the
last
one
that
mr
walker
sent
to
the
committee
that
has
the
disclosure
language
in
section
3,
rather
than
a
notice
language.
L
We
believe
that
this
bill
protects
homeowners
and
associations,
and
that's
why
we're
in
support
of
it.
We
also
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
diligently
working
with
us
on
many
many
drafts
of
this
bill,
and
we
are
happy
with
again
the
latest
conceptual
amendment
that
has
the
disclosure
language
in
section
three,
which
will
hopefully
be
corrected
on
nellis.
Thank
you.
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
E
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
and
committee
members,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
charvez,
foger
spelled
c-h-a-r-v-u-v
last
name
folger
f-o-g-e-r
and
I
am
the
ombudsman
representing
the
nevada,
real
estate,
division,
common
interest
communities
and
condominium
hotels.
Thank
you.
H
N
Hey,
thank
you
so
much
for
those
of
you
who
are
joining
us
online
as
well.
I
know
there
was
mention
of
the
amendment
that
the
committee
had
received.
I
believe
we
all
received
the
correct
amendment.
I
believe
the
correct
amendment
is
also
posted
on
malice.
You
may
need
to
refresh
your
nellis
page
in
order
for
that
new
amendment
to
pop
up,
since
it
had
been
uploaded
while
we
were
still
in
the
hearing,
so
we
will
double
check
that
we
will
make
sure
that
the
right
one
does
appear
on
nellis.
N
I
do
know
that
all
members
of
the
committee
did
have
the
right
amendment
and
it
sounds
like
most
of
the
folks
who
we
have
had
testifying
today
have
also
seen
the
same
amendment
that
we've
all
been
looking
at,
so
I
think
we're
all
working
from
the
same
page,
but
we
will
double
check
that
and
for
those
of
you
watching
online,
you
may
just
need
to
refresh
that
nellis
page
in
order
to
see
the
newest
version
of
that
amendment.
N
A
N
So
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
257
and
thank
you,
chair
scheibel,
mr
hunt,
mr
walker,
for
being
here
to
walk
us
through
the
bill
today,
and
I
am
going
to
turn
the
proverbial
gavel
over
to
chair
scheible
for
the
remainder
of
the
meeting.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
canazaro.
This
is
actually
a
temporary
transfer
of
power
just
for
the
purposes
of
our
work
session.
I
believe
we
have
all
of
our
members
here
at
this
point.
A
If
you
all
just
want
to
give
me
a
wave,
let
me
know
that
you're
still
here
awesome.
I
appreciate
that
you're
all
humans-
and
you
know
sometimes
you
have
to
step
out,
and
I
can't
see
that
we're
going
to
move
to
the
work
session
now
I
want
the
committee
to
know
that
it
is
my
fault
that
you
got
the
work
session
documents
late,
our
staff
diligently
prepared
them
and
it
was
my
oversight
in
not
getting
them
uploaded
to
nellis
earlier.
A
For
that
reason,
I
have
amended
our
work
session
to
include
only
bills
that
have
no
amendments.
So
I'm
hopeful
that
the
committee
is
comfortable
moving
forward
with
sb
32,
161
and
258
the
work
session
documents
are
on
nellis.
You
can
view
them
right
now
and,
like
I
said
there
are
no
amendments
to
those
bills.
So
if
there
are
any
concerns,
let
me
know
otherwise.
I
will
hand
it
over
to
mr
guyan
to
walk
us
through
each
of
these
bills.
P
Thanks
chair
scheible
for
the
record,
patrick
gainen,
and
I'm
the
committee
policy
analyst
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
three
bills
the
chair
just
mentioned.
As
she
said,
none
of
them
have
amendments
so
I'll
do
brief
summaries
of
them.
First
one
is
senate
bill
32,
which
is
a
excuse
me.
A
committee
bill
that
we
brought
on
behalf
of
the
department
of
corrections
and
heard
on
february
9th
senate
bill
32
updates
language
concerning
offenders
with
substance
use
or
co-occurring
co-occurring
disorders.
P
It
eliminates
the
term
therapeutic
community
as
well
as
a
requirement
that
the
director
of
the
department
of
corrections
established
those
communities
for
offenders
with
substance
use
disorders,
and
it
instead
requires
the
director
to
establish
treatment
programs
for
offenders
with
these
disorders
and
defines
the
terms
accordingly.
It
also
revises
the
term
substance
use
disorder
to
conform
with
the
fifth
edition
of
the
diagnostic
and
statistical
manual
of
mental
disorders.
P
Three
more
provisions.
The
bill
also
authorizes,
rather
than
requires
the
director
to
segregate
offenders
who
are
assigned
to
programs
from
those
who
are
not
authorized
as
offenders
assigned
such
programs
to
be
taken
outside
of
a
correctional
institution
or
facility
for
treatment.
It
revises
the
required
period
of
participation
in
a
program
of
treatment
of
aftercare
from
one
year
to
a
minimum
of
five
months
for
treatment,
and
a
minimum
of
three
months
for
aftercare
as
deemed
appropriate
and
language
regarding
the
development
of
programs
to
provide
continuing
treatment
is
updated
accordingly,
with
the
rest
of
the
bill.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
have
somebody
from
the
department
of
corrections
here
to
answer
questions
are
your
questions
on
the
bill
or
emotion,.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
orrinshaw
to
pass
sb
32.
Is
there
a
second
second,
there
is
a
second
from
senator
harris
and
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
F
D
A
P
Thanks,
excuse
me
thanks
church
shuttle,
again
patrick
gein
and
for
the
record,
we're
at
senate
bill
161.
Now
this
committee
sponsored
this
bill
on
behalf
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission.
We
heard
it
on
march
26th
this
bill
eliminates
the
advisory
committee
to
study
laws
concerning
sex
offender
registration
and
transfers
those
duties
to
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice,
as
well
as
transferring
any
funds
remaining
in
the
committee's
account.
P
There
are
no
amendments
to
the
bill
and
I
just
remind
the
committee
that,
in
testimony
we
had
representatives
of
the
attorney
general's
office
go
through
the
bill
and
explain
that
they're
happy
to
take
this
on
as
their
part
of
the
advisory
committee
on
the
administration
of
justice.
So
that's
all
I
have
yeah.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
guidance.
Any
questions
on
the
bill
or
perhaps
emotion,.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
pickard
do
pass.
We
have
a
second
from
senator
hanson
and
senator
harris
and
senator
orrinshaw
any
discussion
on
the
motion
not
seeing
any.
We
will
move
to
roll
call
vote.
Please.
O
D
A
P
Thanks
sheriff's
rival,
again
patrick
guyan,
for
the
record
we're
now
at
senate
bill
258.
This
bill
is
sponsored
by
the
chair
and
we
heard
it
on
march
29th
and
the
bill
relates
to
corrections.
It
requires
the
director
of
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
to
adopt
the
approval
of
the
board
of
state
prison
commissioners
regulations
prescribing
standards
for
each
ndoc
institution
and
facility
for
the
supervision,
custody,
care,
security,
housing
and
medical
and
mental
health.
A
Thank
you
so
much
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
on
the
bill,
I'm
not
seeing
any.
I
would
like
to
ask
mr
anthony
you
had
provided
to
me
an
explanation
about
the
definition
of
transgender
in
the
nevada
by
statutes.
Would
you
mind
sharing
that
with
the
rest
of
the
committee.
Q
Thus,
it
would
be
given
its
plain
and
ordinary
meaning
the
reason
some
terms
are
defined
in
that
in
the
bill
like
gender
non-binary,
gender
non-conforming,
those
are
defined
because
they
do
not
appear
anywhere
else
in
the
nrs
and
do
not
necessarily
have
a
plain
meaning
transgender
does
appear
approximately
21
times
in
the
nrs
and
it's
a
fairly
well-known
common
term
and
would
be
given
its
common,
ordinary
and
plain
meaning
by
a
court
interpreting
the
bill.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
mr
anthony
any
other
questions
on
the
bill
or
a
motion.
P
A
F
I
think
it
was
indicated
there
was
something
like
four
or
five
people
within
the
state.
So
in
that
respect
I
don't
think
I
can
support
this
legislation,
because
I
think
it
puts
us
in
a
situation
where
we're
actually
micromanaging
situations
that
we're
not
necessarily
familiar
with,
as
well
as
the
individuals
who
are
dealing
with
it.
So
for
that
reason
I'll
be
opposing
it
today,.
E
Thank
you
ben
also,
a
note
today,
I
think
we're
putting
way
too
much
of
a
burden
on
the
department
of
corrections
trying
to
come
up
with
a
lot
of
these
things
did
a
little
research
too.
Several
states
have
had
similar
type
bills
passed
and
policy
changes
that
resulted
in
some
significant
problems
when
it
came
to
men's
and
women's
prison
issues.
So
I
I
will
be
a
no
thank
you.
Madame
pierre.
R
A
That
concludes
our
work
session,
which
allows
me
to
hand
the
gavel
back
over
to
the
vice
chair
for
our
last
bill
hearing,
which
is
on
sb
369.
It
is
another
bail
bill.
N
Thank
you,
chair,
schreibel,
and
welcome
again
to
the
committee
we're
pleased
to
have
you
here
and
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
hearing.
N
N
A
You
so
much
good
afternoon
again,
committee
vice
chair
canazaro,
for
the
record.
I'm
melanie
scheibel,
representing
senate
district
9
in
clark
county,
I'm
honored,
to
come
before
you
today
to
present
senate
bill
369,
which
was
requested
by
the
interim
committee
to
conduct
a
study
of
issues
relating
to
pre-trial
release
of
criminal
defendants.
A
This
bill
brings
together
two
recommendations
brought
before
the
committee
by
members
of
both
the
defense
bar
and
the
prosecutorial
bar
jointly.
The
recommendations
address
a
recent
nevada
supreme
court
ruling
about
the
temenas
versus
the
8th
judicial
district
court,
which
found
various
statutory
provisions
regarding
bail,
pre-trial
release
unconstitutional
I've
posted
summaries
of
the
two
recommendations
on
nellis
for
the
committee's
review,
and
they
are
listed
as
recommendation
number
five
and
recommendation
number
six
in
that
exhibit
by
way
of
background
valos
jimenez.
A
It
involved
his
in
valdez
committees.
The
court
held
that
requiring
an
arrested
person
to
show
good
cause
in
order
to
be
released
without
bail
violates
that
person's
constitutional
right
to
non-excessive
bail.
For
a
few
reasons,
one,
the
court
doesn't
have
to
consider
less
restrictive
conditions
of
release
before
deciding
to
bail
as
necessary,
and
two
the
state
is
effectively
relieved
of
its
burden.
To
prove
that
bail
is
necessary
in
order
to
protect
the
community
and
ensure
the
arrested
person
will
appear
in
court.
A
What
this
bill
does
is
seeks
to
correct
this
flaw
and
ensure
nevada
law
comports
with
the
constitution.
By
doing
a
few
things
first,
section
3
strikes
the
provisions
that
were
found
unconstitutional
regarding
the
defendant
having
to
show
good
cause
to
be
released
without
bail
and
section
four
makes
a
conforming
change.
A
Third
section
three
requires
a
prosecutor
who
seeks
to
impose
a
bail
or
other
condition
of
release
upon
a
person
to
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
the
imposition
is
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary
to
protect
public
safety
and
ensure
the
person's
appearance
in
court.
A
court
is
required
to
consider
the
prosecutor's
request
before
imposing
bail
or
any
other
condition
of
release.
That
is
the
substance
of
the
bill.
Vice
chair,
I
believe
this
legislation
moves
us
forwards
towards
a
more
equitable
and
consistent
pre-trial
release
process
that
is
based
on
the
least
restrictive
mean
standard.
A
N
N
N
What
I
do
have
some
questions
about,
and
I
I
see
that
there
was
sort
of
a
reordering
here
where
it
talks
about.
In
section
three
subsection
four,
the
court
may
impose
any
reasonable
condition
of
release
pursuant
to
subsection
two,
including
without
limitation,
and
then
there's
a
a
list
that
was
previously,
and
you
can
see
stricken
in
section
two
of
the
bill
under
nrs
178
484,
and
it
includes
it,
includes
in
there
as
a
particular
condition
that
the
person
who
was
arrested
may
have
to
surrender
the
court
any
passport
he
or
she
possesses
previously.
N
That
was
a
separate
section
of
nrs
that
merely
allowed
the
court
to
do
so
if
the
person
had
been
arrested
for
a
felony,
and
so
I'm
wondering
why
we're
removing
it
from
that
portion
of
the
nrs
and
placing
it
here
as
a
condition
that
then,
is
subject
to
all
of
these
other
things,
because
to
me
a
passport
surrender
seems
very
much
in
the
realm
of
what
we
would
consider
some
of
the
the
most
least
restrictive
means,
because
that
is
actually
leaving
the
country.
Not
simply
going
to.
N
You
know,
visit
your
friend
in
california,
which
I
I
guess
you
can
do.
While
you
are
out
of
custody
as
well.
But
to
me
that
just
seems
like
something
that
was
within
the
court's
discretion,
where
somebody
is
resting
on
a
felony
and
now
we're
putting
it
in
this.
A
So
melanie
scheibel
for
the
record
and
my
reading
of
the
the
statute
didn't
quit
the
new
way.
The
way
that
the
bill
organizes.
It
wouldn't
change
the
ability
of
the
court
to
impose
that
condition.
I
think
that
they
were
allowed
to
impose
it
before
they're
allowed,
to
impose
it
now
and
I'm
reading
it
simply
as
moving
it
to
a
different
section
of
the
nrs
that
contains
the
more
relevant
other
provisions.
N
They
have
to
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
the
defendant
is
a
danger
to
the
community
or
there
is
a
risk
of
flight
and
then
also
must
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
whatever
that
request
is
is
the
least
restrictive
means,
whereas
under
the
statute
as
it
is
currently
written,
a
court
even
at
arraignment
can
say
well
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
surrender
passports.
A
I
see
what
you're
saying
and
I
would
be
open
to
an
amendment
to
the
bill
that
retains
the
course
discretion
for
the
passport
specifically,
and
we
can
definitely
follow
up
on
that.
N
And
then
in
here
as
well,
it
makes
clear-
and
I
I
don't
know
if
I'm
maybe
parsing
things
out
again-
I'm
familiar
with
the
val.
Does
him
in
his
decision.
In
a
lot
of
cases,
we'll
have
courts
that
will
consider
bail
prior
to
the
opportunity
for
an
adversarial
hearing,
and
they
may
do
things
like
set
a
bail
amount
or
impose
conditions
that
happens
prior
to
whenever
that
hearing
may
occur.
If
it's
48
hours,
if
it's
72
hours
or
if
we're
talking
about
instances
where
bail
had
been
addressed.
N
But
then
the
court
is
going
to
maybe
address
it
again
to
me
here
when
we're
striking
out-
and
I
know
the
upon
the
showing
of
good
cause-
a
court
may
release
without
bail.
The
good
cause
part
portion
was
fundamental
to
the
valdez
jimenez
decision
right
because
we
know
that
we're
asking
for
a
defendant
to
prove
good
cause
before
they
may
be
released,
which
speaks
to
their
liberty
interest
versus
when
we
may
have
to
show
additional
mechanisms
here.
N
It
seems
to
be
removing,
though,
entirely
not
just
the
good
cause
piece
which
makes
sense
to
me-
and
I
understand
why
is
in
this
bill,
but
also
a
court's
ability
or
to
ever
set
bail
or
to
set
any
conditions,
because
we
are
now
premising
that
portion
of
the
nrs,
which,
with
only
if
a
prosecuting
attorney,
is
asking
for
now.
I
I
think
we
should
also
obviously
allow
for
prosecuting
attorneys
to
ask
for
bail
and
for
conditions
of
release.
That
happens
very
often
at
initial
arraignment
and
at
pre-trial
hearings.
N
But
in
these
instances
where,
even
if
a
court
were
to
maybe
hear
part
of-
let's
say
a
preliminary
hearing
and
following
the
preliminary
hearing
and
some
additional
information-
that's
come
to
light,
they
would
they
believe
that
there
should
be
an
additional
condition
set.
It
seems
here
that
absent
a
request
from
a
prosecuting
attorney.
The
court
has
no
authority
to
either
issue
bail,
set
a
condition
you
set
a
higher
bail,
maybe
set
additional
conditions
absent.
That
request.
G
So
vice
chair,
cannizzaro
I'll,
take
a
crack
at
that,
and
I'll
also
be
tagging
in
mr
anthony,
who
was
the
legal
counsel
for
for
the
interim
committee.
G
So
I'm
not
sure
if
I
read
this
as
prohibiting
but
more
talking
about
when
it
is
the
prosecuting
attorney
requesting
what
must
happen,
I
I
think
I'm
we're
definitely
all
open
to
ensuring
that
the
court
has
the
ability
to
kind
of
sue
esponte
put
into
place
reasonable
restrictions,
and
I
I
believe
that
is
what
we
have
under
section
three
subsection
four,
so
I
you
know,
I
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
to
to
ensure
the
court
still
has
its
ability,
but
we're
talking
about
when
the
prosecuting
attorney
for
the
most
part
is
moving
to
impose
restrictions.
N
No-
and
that
makes
sense
to
me-
obviously
I
think
valdez
jimenez
is
pretty
clear
in
that
you
have
to
have
that
clear
and
convincing
evidence.
We
obviously
want
to
have
adversarial
hearings
where
we
can
present
evidence
when
we're
talking
about
veil.
N
I
just
don't
want
it
to
be
read
as
though
we
are
stripping
some
of
the
court's
own
rights
either
in
setting
that
before
that
hearing
occurs
or
in
making
changes
as
a
case
develops,
that
happens,
and
sometimes
it's
not
the
request
of
the
prosecuting
attorney,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
courts
still
have
discretion
when
it
comes
to
those
decisions.
G
Understood
I
think
there
there's
a
way
to
clarify
that
and-
and
the
intention
of
the
bill
is
by
no
means
to
limit
the
court's
ability
to
keep
folks
safe.
N
Got
it
additionally,
I
saw
that
there
was
a
a
strikeout
here
in
section
two,
it's
the
last
little
paragraph
here
in
red
under
section
15.,
it's
on
page
seven
of
the
bill
that
eliminates
the
extradition
costs.
If
someone
were
to
flee
the
jurisdiction
and
the
state
will
have
to
pay
to
bring
that
individual
back
to
the
state
of
nevada
that
we're
eliminating
the
ability
to
seek
extradition
costs.
I
did
not
see
that
up
here
in
another
place
with
in
this
bill,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to.
Q
Thank
you
senator
harris
and
to
senator
canazzaro
through
chair
scheible.
I
believe
it's
in
section
three
sub
nine,
that
language-
it's
not
all
blue,
but
some
of
it
was
already
existing.
So
we
didn't
repeat
it
in
bill
drafting,
but
it's
there
on.
Let's
see
about
7
8
of
the
way
down
on
page
nine.
N
Yep
no,
thank
you,
mr
anthony.
As
always,
you
are
much
smarter
and
more
depth
than
I
and
it
is
there,
so
I
do
appreciate
that
I
had
seen
it
in
the
strikeout
language
and
did
not
touch
it
in
that
language.
So
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
N
This
doesn't
touch
on
because
I
see
that
we
had
re
reinstated,
some
of
the
language
here
from
portions
of
the
nrs
pertaining
to
when
somebody
is
arrested
for
first-degree
murder
and
they
may
be
admitted
a
no
bail
status.
There
are
other
instances
where
someone
may
be
on
a
nobel
status,
for
example,
they're
on
parole
or
probation
and
they've.
N
I
didn't
see
that
like
sticking
out
in
this
bill,
but
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
still
part
of
what
we
are
doing,
because
I
do
think
there
is
a
very
different
situation
for
somebody
who
is
currently
being
supervised
and
parole
on
probation,
who
then
is
arrested
for
a
new
offense
or
violates
that
probation
to
be
held
without
bail
until
they
can
have
a
hearing
with
the
court
and
discuss
whether
they
would
be
reinstated
or
revoked
those
kinds
of
things.
A
A
And
it
says
that
they
will
not
be
admitted
to
bail,
so
I
think
that
addresses
it
at
least
in
part,
but
I
can
also
you
know
more
generally
confirm
your
understanding
is
correct,
that
it
is
not
our
intention
to
remove
that
language
or
to
change
that
statute
either.
If
it's
not
contained
within
the
bill
it
it
should
remain
as
it
is.
Q
Sheriff
schreibel
nick
anthony
for
the
record.
Yes,
you
and
center
kansas
are
absolutely
correct.
It
was
not
the
intention
to
change
any
of
that;
rather
it
was
just
for
simplicity's
sake
in
bill,
drafting
and
streamlining
the
process,
so
that
all
appears
in
one
section.
N
And
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you,
church
rival
and
mr
anthony.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear
for
the
record,
because
we
were
seeing
some
of
that
language
in
here
that
we
weren't
inadvertently
doing
that
as
well.
N
And
then
I
I
have
just
a
sort
of
a
question
for
the
committee,
and
I
don't
know
that
I
I
don't.
I
don't
know
if
folks
would
be
open
to
having
this
discussion.
N
I
think
that's
probably
what
it
is
is
a
discussion
and
we'll
be
happy
to
have
that
with
you,
chair,
schreibel
and
senator
harris,
because
some
of
the
things
that
have
come
up
in
the
context
of
the
valdez
jimenez
case
and
in
some
of
those
arguments
in
the
salerno
case
that
is
mentioned
in
there
as
well,
is
when
we
have
individuals
who
are
committing
offenses
with
firearms
with
guns
and
whether
there
should
be
some
additional
language,
because
I
do
believe
that
those
are
more
dangerous
than
a
lot
of
other
places,
and
I
think
that
would
surprise
nobody
that
I
have
said
that
I've
supported
a
lot
of
legislation
in
this
in
this
legislature.
N
Very
much
believe
that
we
have
to
do
everything
we
can
to
ensure
that
guns
that
gun
violence
is
not
ravaging
our
communities.
It
is
a
big
issue
and
I
think
that
individuals
who
are
committing
crimes
with
weapons
definitely
pose
a
much
bigger
danger
than
someone
who
is
is
is
in
a
bad
situation
because
of
drugs
or
is
making
or
choices
because
of
some
of
the
other
things
going
on
in
their
lives.
N
And
I
don't
know
if
there
would
be
an
appetite
to
have
that
conversation
of
whether
we
could
do
something
to
delineate
that
so
that
that
is
treated
maybe
a
little
bit
more
seriously,
and
that's
not
to
say
that
somebody
who
commits
an
offense
with
a
firearm
shouldn't
necessarily
be
out
on
their
own
recognizance
or
that
there
might
not
be
non-monetary
prohibitions
that
would
ensure
the
safety
of
the
community,
but
maybe
including
some
language,
that
there
should
be
some
additional
considerations
from
the
court.
N
Where
someone
does
commit
offen
an
offense
with
a
firearm
and,
like
I
said
I
would
be
happy
to
have
those
those
conversations.
I
just
think
they're
much
more
dangerous.
I
think
we
have
to
do
what
we
can
to
protect
the
community
from
gun
violence
and
that's
something
that
we
we
see
a
lot
in
nevada,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
there
is
an
appetite
but
happy
to
have
those
conversations
necessarily
a
question
that
definitely
wanted
to
throw
that
out.
There.
G
And
vice
chair
ken
azar,
if
I
may
I'll
I'll
just
say
you
know,
that's
not
something
that
we
discussed
during
the
the
interim
committee
as
part
of
the
process.
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
you
that
those
offenses
are
a
bit
different
and
should
be
possibly
considered
a
bit
differently,
but
also
note
that
you
know
courts
always
have
the
the
the
authority,
the
ability
to
take
that
into
consideration
and
I'm
sure
they
would
given.
G
You
know
the
elegant
eloquent
arguments
for
it
by
prosecutors
like
yourself,
but
the
the
bill
is
in
this
committee
now,
and
so
I
see
absolutely
no
reason
why
we
can't
have
that
discussion.
N
And
I
appreciate
that
and
I
and
I
do
think
that
that
is
an
important
point
too-
that
the
courts
do
have
that
discretion
as
well,
but
would
love
to
just
have
maybe
a
few
more
conversations
around
that
and
then
see
if
there's
an
appetite
for
it.
A
Melanie
scheibel
for
the
record,
I'm
absolutely
open
to
that
discussion,
and
I
think
that
it
is
very
appropriate
in
discussing
this
bill
and
the
other
mail
measures
that
we're
hearing
over
the
course
of
this
session
to
perhaps
codify
some
of
the.
N
I
don't
have
any
additional
questions,
hopefully
oh.
If
anybody
else
has
questions,
I
don't
see
you
in
the
zoom
with
hands
up,
so
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
video
waving
their
hands.
So
I
am
going
to
thank
you,
chair
schreibel,
for
your
presentation
and
thank
you
senator
harris
as
well,
for
not
only
being
able
to
kind
of
come
in
and
answer
some
of
our
questions,
but
for
your
work
on
the
interim
committee.
I
think
it's
a
an
important
issue
and
there
was
very
good
work
done
by
the
canadians.
N
N
We
will
turn
it
over
first
to
support.
Then
we
will
move
to
opposition
and
we
will
end
with
neutral
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
our
broadcast
production
services
and
let
them
begin
to
facilitate
our
support
testimony.
So,
if
you're
waiting
in
support,
please
pay
careful
attention
so
that
we
can
get
your
testimony
on
the
record.
H
H
H
E
You
know
that
bail
has
been
an
issue
that
we
have
fought
out
in
the
legislative
legislature
quite
a
bit,
and
then
the
supreme
court
delivered
the
decision
of
valdez
hyman
hymnet
valdez
jiminez
took
what's
known,
it's
axiomatic
that
liberty
is
the
norm
and
bail
or
restrictions
on
liberty
is
the
carefully
delineated
exception,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it
stays
that
way.
People
who
are
accused
of
a
crime
are
innocent
until
proven
guilty,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
courts
treat
them
that
way.
E
Valdez
jimenez
also
made
sure
that
some
prosecutors
couldn't
use
monetary
bail
as
a
clandestine
way
to
hold
people
in
custody
simply
because
they
were
too
full
poor
to
afford
bail.
It
sets
ground
rules
for
the
hearings
and
how
to
argue
and
what
to
argue
for,
as
well
as
the
standard,
clear
and
convincing
evidence.
E
H
H
R
R
As
mentioned
prior
in
a
different
testimony,
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
were
incarcerated
at
this
summer's
protest
and
the
I
was
incarcerated
the
first
day.
So
what
happened
was
I
got
hauled
off
in
a
bus
to
ccdc
and
I,
I
honestly
didn't
know
the
process,
but
I
was
in
a
holding
cell.
R
I
thought
I
was
going
to
be
able
to
be
released
and
I
was
told
that
we
weren't
going
to
be
released
on
or
which
is
our
own
recognize
and
I
had
to
pay
a
thousand
dollars
bill
or
I
wouldn't
be
released,
and
I
didn't
know
what
that
would
look
like
for
me
and
for
the
first
time
ever
being
incarcerated.
R
It
was
really
confusing
because
I
was
told
a
plethora
of
different
things
like
you
can
or
but
we
were
restricted
from
oring
and
then
also
a
thousand
dollars
was
is
not
something
I
regularly
have
access
to,
and
luckily,
due
to
the
support
of
my
boyfriend
and
some
co-workers,
I
was
able
to
be
bailed
out,
but
that's
not
a
blessing
that
everybody
else
has,
which
is
why
I
stand
in
support
of
this
bill
so
that
we
can
really
in
cash
bell
and
make
sure
that
people
who
can
be
in
the
free
world
are
able
to,
especially
if
they
can't
afford
something
like
a
hundred
dollars
bill
or
a
thousand
dollars
to
pay
their
whole
bill
off.
H
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
holly
welborn
policy
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada
testified
testifying
in
support
of
this
legislation.
As
written
every
year,
thousands
of
people
are
arrested
required
to
pay
money
bail.
They
cannot
afford
separated
from
their
families
and
loved
ones
or
subjected
to
long
periods
of
incarceration
based
on
the
mere
accusation
of
a
crime.
J
The
valdez
humanist
decision
made
clear
that
nevada's
system
of
using
cash
bail
for
ransom
to
keep
poor
people
in
jail
is
blatantly
unconstitutional.
Nevada
law
should
reflect
the
decision
and
we
must
keep
working
to
fully
end
wealth-based
detention.
We
encourage
the
committee's
report
our
support.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
H
H
K
Hi,
jim
hoffman
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
Nacj
supports
sb
369..
This
is
a
simple
bill.
It
is
not
changing
how
anything
would
actually
work
in
practice.
The
provisions
of
this
bill
are
all
already
a
part
of
our
law
under
the
supreme
court's
decision
and
valdez
him
in
it.
Moreover,
that
decision
was
based
on
the
fifth
amendment
requirement
of
due
process,
so
the
provisions
in
this
bill
are
all
required
under
the
u.s
and
nevada
constitutions.
K
Again,
this
is
not
new.
This
is
just
taking
some
of
that
constitutionally
required
case
law
and
putting
it
into
statute.
While
nacj
believes
that
we
should
be
doing
more
to
address
this
issue,
that
is
a
conversation
for
a
different
bill.
The
current
bill
is
simply
bringing
nevada
statute
into
compliance
with
the
constitution.
H
H
E
B-R-A-N-D-O-N-S-U-M-M-E-R-S,
I'm
a
resident
and
native
of
las
vegas
and
I've
been
calling
I'm
calling
in
support
of
sb369.
My
relationship
with
the
criminal
justice
system
began
in
2013
after
I
was
arrested
following
a
misdemeanor
citation
related
to
street
performing
and
without
getting
into
the
weeds
of
issue
street
performers
face
in
las
vegas.
I
wanted
to
be
clear
that
my
situation
as
a
musician
who
performs
in
public
forums
is
not
unique.
E
E
E
E
H
J
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
canezaro
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
want
to
again
thank
the
members,
the
senate,
who
are
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
who
participated
in
the
interim
committee.
The
intern
on
pre-trial
release
had
robust
discussions
regarding
the
various
issues
that
the
stakeholders
have
seen
regarding
bail.
I
would
note
that
this
bill
only
addresses
some
of
the
issues
and
we
did
support
those
issues
that
we
support
the
bill
as
written.
J
What
this
bill's
really
doing
is
codifying
certain
sections
of
the
valdez
jimenez
order,
which
came
out
which
addresses
bail,
which
provides
regularity
and
a
lot
of
just
additional
information
for
our
clients
and
their
families
to
know
what
happens
when
they're
arrested,
as
we've
discussed
several
times
before.
It
is
one
of
our
bedrock
and
hallmark
principles
that
a
person
is
innocent
until
proven
guilty,
and
we
believe
that
this
really
sets
forth
that
framework
and
helps
allow
individuals
to
know
the
process
of
what's
going
to
occur.
J
What
the
bail
hearing
is
like
and,
more
importantly,
if
they
are
released,
what
that
system
is
like
for
how
long
they
would
remain
in
custody
until
pending
their
release.
So
we
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
regarding
the
different
issues
we're
facing
on
our
current
bail
system
and
urge
your
support.
Thank.
H
H
I
Hello:
everyone,
my
name,
is
leslie
turner,
l-e-s-l-I-e-t-u-r-n-e-r
and
I'm
calling
in
support
of
ab.
I'm
sorry
sb
369
and
I
just
want
to
first
thank
the
interim
committee
for
the
work
that
was
done
and
the
the
hearings
and
the
conversations
that
were
had
to
bring
us
to
this
point.
I
think
that
it's
really
important
that
all
systems
that
are
involved
in
the
criminal
justice
system
are
investigated
so
that
we
can
alleviate
the
inevitable
harms
that
are
within.
I
I
want
to
just
point
out
that
the
bail
bonds
industry,
because
phone
from
the
committee
brought
this
up
during
sb
401
that
hearing
when
someone
goes
through
a
bail
bonds
like
they
don't
get
that
money
back.
So
if
you
post
up
post
the
full
bond
directly
to
the
court
or
directly
to
ccdc,
that's
money,
that's
returned
to
you
when
you're
hearing
you
know
when
your
case
is
resolved
and
a
lot
of
the
times
these
cases,
as
the
caller
before
me
told
his
story.
I
You
know
that
case
was
dismissed,
but
he
didn't
get
that
money
back.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we're
that
we
understand
the
bail
bonds.
Industry
is
a
for-profit
industry,
that's
profiting
off
of
bail
they're,
not
a
part
of
the
actual
system
itself,
so
we
have
to
look
at
the
system
itself
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
equitable,
equitable,
regardless
of
who's
making
money
off
of
it.
So
that
is
the
point,
and
I
want
to
just
again
thank
the
committee
for
bringing
this.
I
I
support
support
the
bill
as
written,
and
I
think
that
you
know
the
supreme
court
spoke.
You
know
last
legislative
session
we
had
ab325,
which
was
a
bill
we
were
told
was,
you
know
crazy,
you
know
it
got
switched
over
to
ab125
and
then
it
died,
and
then
we
got
the
study
bill,
and
so
basically,
everything
that
was
in
that
bill
was
in
the
supreme
court
decision.
So
it
wasn't
crazy.
I
It
was
actually
what
needed
to
be
done,
so,
let's
get
it
codified
and
let's
move
forward
on
real
bail
reform
to
make
pre-child
detention
equitable
for
the
community.
Thank
you.
H
E
E
E
The
first
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
assembly
bill
424,
currently
pending
in
front
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
contains
the
bulk
of
the
procedural
recommendations
from
the
pre-trial
release
interim
committee.
Some
of
the
changes
made
in
sb
369
are
different
than
the
changes
in
ab-424
and
we
feel
that
sb
369
should
be
merged
with
that
bill.
E
E
H
H
J
J
I
want
to
first
start
just
by
stating
that
we
at
the
coalition
understand
the
need
for
bail
in
criminal
justice
reform,
but
as
we
do
with
everything,
we
approach
fail,
reform
through
a
victim-centered
lens
and
that's
why
we're
here
neutral
today.
Victim
survivors
of
domestic
violence,
sexual
assault,
harassment
and
stalking
deserve
the
peace
of
mind
of
safety,
knowing
that
their
perpetrator
is
being
held
in
jail
or
knowing
that
they
were
released
with
certain
conditions
of
bail,
provides
the
victim
survivor
with
the
comfort
in
knowing
that
they
are
safe.
J
Every
case
of
intimate
partner
violence
is
unique
and
requires
a
unique
response
to
keep
that
victim
survivor,
their
children
and
their
families
safe.
While
we
agree,
the
burden
of
proof
should
rest
with
the
state.
Our
concern
is
that,
by
establishing
the
burden
of
proof
at
clear
and
convincing
evidence
for
all
crimes
may
increase
the
safety
risk
of
victims
of
sexual
violence
and
domestic
violence.
In
some
cases,
there
is
little
time
for
victims
to
be
heard
by
the
prosecutors
as
to
their
concerns
for
safety.
J
J
H
H
F
Good
afternoon
mark
keeble
here
again,
m-a-r-c-e-b-e-l,
I'm
the
director
of
legislative
affairs
for
aladdin,
bail,
bonds
and
also
it's
affiliated
surety
we're
here
in
the
neutral
position
today,
and
I
want
to
start
out
by
thanking
interim
study
chair
harris
for
all
the
hard
and
important
work
done
over
the
interim
on
this
on
this
topic
and
all
these
issues
as
well
as
continue
to
come
and
engage
and
talk
about
these
issues
going
all
the
way
back
to
the
to
the
previous
session.
F
We're
neutral
today,
because
let
me
start
by
saying
we
first
have
always
supported
reforms
to
the
pre-trial
process
that
maximize
the
goals
of
the
pre-trial
process,
that
being
to
ensure
the
maximum
amount
of
people
achieve
pre-trial
release
under
the
least
restrictive
means
possible,
while
also
ensuring
judicial
integrity
and
public
safety.
We
do
have
some
concerns,
specifically
m369.
They
are
really
encapsulated
by
vice
chair
conozaro
and
the
da's
around
section
three
and
protecting
the
initial
discretion.
F
We
hope
to
be
including
the
process
going
forward
on
the
bill
and
again,
thank
you
to
senator
schreibel
and
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
And
if
there
are
no
questions,
I
will
yield
the
rest
of
my
time.
Thank
you.
G
A
A
Well,
thank
you.
We
will
move
then
to
public
comment.
If
there's
anybody
wishing
to
give
public
comment,
you
will
have
two
minutes
and
mr
kyle,
if
you
go
ahead
and
keep
them
up.