►
From YouTube: 5/14/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary, Pt 2
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,
we
are
reconvening
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary.
It
is
7
26
on
may
14th.
I
think
it's
still
2021
and
I'm
not
sure.
If
we,
I
don't
think
we
take
the
role
again
because
we're
just
reconvening
from
a
recess.
Let
the
record
reflect
all
the
senators
are
here.
Most
of
us
are
here
in
the
flesh,
and
we
have
one
present
with
us
by
zoom
senator
harris.
If
you
could
just
give
us
a
shout
or
a
wave
or
something
to
confirm.
A
C
Great
thanks
chair
for
the
record,
patrick
guynan.
As
the
chair
mentioned,
we
have
a
consent
calendar.
This
is
a
different
one
than
earlier.
This
is
a
consent
calendar
with
several
bills
that
have
amendments
on
them.
So
for
the
committee's
edification.
C
The
the
motion
for
these-
if
the
if
the
committee
is
all
still
in
agreement,
would
be
amended,
do
pass
as
presented
in
the
work
session
document
and
the
bills
are
as
follows:
assembly
bill
42
first
reprint
makes
various
changes
relating
to
criminal
law
and
criminal
procedure
assembly
bill.
104.
First
reprint
revises
provisions
relating
to
wrongful
convictions
assembly
bill
132.
First
reprint
establishes
provisions
relating
to
custodial
interrogations
of
children
assembly
bill
202
in
its
first
reprint
revises
provisions
relating
to
charitable
lotteries
and
charitable
games
assembly
bill.
C
237
first
reprint
revises
various
provisions
relating
to
real
property
assembly
bill.
251
first
reprint
makes
various
changes
relating
to
juvenile
justice
and
assembly
bill
394
in
its
first
reprint
provides
that
behavioral
health
specialists
performing
mobile
crisis
intervention
services
are
immune
from
civil
liability
under
certain
circumstances,
and
that's
it
for
the
consent.
Calendar
chair.
A
All
right
any
questions
on
the
consent
calendar
not
seeing
any.
I
will
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
these
bills.
As
read,
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
settlemeyer.
I
have
a
second
from
senator
orrin
shaw
again,
because
some
of
us
are
remote.
I
will
ask
that
we
sorry
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
B
A
A
A
C
C
This
is
a
bill
sponsored
by
assemblyman
watts
and
it
revises
provisions
relating
to
sealing
of
records.
For
summary
evictions.
This
committee
heard
it
on
the
30th
of
april.
The
bill
requires
a
court
to
automatically
seal
any
records
relating
to
any
action
for
summary
eviction
that
is
granted
during
the
covet
19
emergency.
These
provisions
apply
to
any
action
for
summary
eviction,
that's
filed
before,
on
or
after
the
effective
date
of
the
bill.
There
are
no
amendments.
C
A
E
You,
madam
chair,
I
appreciate
what
he's
trying
to
accomplish,
but
we're
talking
about
a
fairly
small
number
of
cases,
given
that
the
moratorium
was
in
place,
the
evictions
that
were
allowed
to
go
through
were
for
cause,
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
disservice
to
the
community
to
seal
the
records
when
they're
for
purposes
that
were
not
simply
because
they
couldn't
afford
it.
So
I
just
can't
support
this
so
I'll
be
a
no.
F
A
A
C
That's
my
fault
here,
I'm
a
little
out
of
order,
because
I
was
going
to
do
the
two
bills
that
we
pulled
off
the
earlier
consent
calendar
first,
so
this
would
be
another
do
pass
vote.
If
you
know,
if
the
committee
approves
it,
this
would
be
ab
398,
which
was
pulled
from
our
earlier
consent
calendar.
If
that's
right
with
you.
C
C
Excuse
me
this
bill
prohibits
a
seller's
agent
from
completing
a
disclosure
form
on
behalf
of
a
seller
of
a
residential
property
agents
not
liable
to
the
purchaser.
If
number
one.
The
seller
is
aware
of
a
defect
and
fails
to
disclose
the
defect
number
two:
the
seller
discovers
a
new
defect
in
the
residential
property
that
was
not
identified
on
the
completed
disclosure
form
or
discovers
that
a
defect
identified
on
the
completed
disclosure
forms
become
worse
than
was
indicated
on
the
form
and
fails
to
inform
the
purchaser
or
the
purchaser's
agent
of
that
fact,
as
required.
A
E
As
a,
although
currently
inactive,
as
a
broker,
I
can
tell
you
that
sellers,
when
they're
represented
by
a
licensee
are
required
or
I'm
sorry,
the
the
licensee
is
required
by
their
current
ethical
duties
to
disclose
what
they
know
about
a
property,
and
this
undermines
that
it's
going
to
create
a
problem
for
those
licensees
that
don't
because
they
would
be
subject
to
discipline
if
they
don't
disclose
what
they
know,
and
so
because
of
that
conflict,
and
because
I
I
think
it's
probably
a
mistake
to
take
them
completely
off
the
hook,
given
that
they
are
in
a
good
situation.
E
A
F
A
C
Thanks
chair,
patrick
gunning,
for
the
record
we're
now
on
assembly
bill
296,
which
was
sponsored
by
assemblywoman
wynn.
We
heard
it
here
on
the
26th
of
april
in
its
first
reprint,
it
establishes
a
civil
cause
of
action
for
dissemination
of
personal,
identifying
information
or
sensitive
information.
Under
certain
circumstances,
this
is
the
doxing
bill.
I
don't
know
if
I
need
to
read
the
whole
summary
chair.
I
think
I
can
just
go
to
the
amendments.
The
sponsor
is
has
proposed
to
amend
the
bill
as
follows.
C
C
A
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
particularly
distressed
by
the
language
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
First,
it
essentially
authorizes
doxing
of
police
officers.
E
E
You
know
I
had
a
a
circuit
court
judge
tell
me
once
that
the
judge
is
lucky
if
50
percent
of
the
litigants
dislike
them,
because
if
it's
only
fifty
percent
they're
doing
pretty
well,
usually
everybody
dislikes
them
for
some
reason,
but
it
puts
them
in
danger
it
this
bill,
essentially
by
excluding
them
implicitly
authorizes
doxing
of
them.
I
just
cannot
support
that,
so
I'll
be
a
no.
A
All
right
could
we
get
some
clarification
from
legal
on
whether
the
bill
would
protect
behavior,
that
you
know
targets
law
enforcement
officers
with
harassment
and
the
like.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
shabo,
yes,
the
bill
is
is
currently
written,
would
exclude
law
enforcement
officers
or
an
elected
officer
acting
in
official
capacity
from
the
provisions,
meaning
meaning
that
a
suit
could
not
be
brought
if
an
elected
official
or
law
enforcement
officer
was
a
victim
of
doxing.
E
A
Would
you
like
to
add
anything
some
women.
A
G
G
Yes,
nrs
189.025,
it's
important
to
note
that
law
enforcement
officers
as
well
as
district
attorneys,
as
well
as
judges
as
well
as
a
long
ever
growing
enumerated
list,
are
already
protected
by
nevada
law,
because
it
is
already
unlawful
for
them
to
share
things
like
home,
addresses
and
photographs
of
officers,
and
so
that
is
actually
already
criminalized
again.
This
is
just
a
civil
thing.
Part
of
the
concern
that
I
had
when
I
took
from
some
of
the
comments
is
I
I
disagree.
G
A
E
Name,
I'm
sure
I
think
the
distinction
is
made,
though,
in
that
any
action
that
is
brought
by
those
elected
officials
and
and
law
enforcement
for
civil
actions
are
subject
to
anti-slap
litigation,
and
it
makes
it
particularly
difficult
so
as
a
result
most
of
the
electeds,
don't
because
they
could
be
forced
to
pay
the
other
side's
attorney's
fees.
And
so
this,
I
think,
opens
a
window
implicitly
and
I
recognize
that
it
doesn't
expressly
authorize
doxing,
which
I
think
would
be
contrary
to
public
policy
anyway.
E
G
Rochelle
win
for
the
record
and
the
other
additional
change
is
taking
into
consideration
the
testimony.
I
think
that
pretty
impactful
and
emotional
testimony
from
heather
corbuck
they're
part
of
the
other
amendment,
to
like
specify
an
elected
public
official,
is
because
our
public
official
is
defined
so
broadly.
G
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
innocent
people
that
didn't
like
voluntarily
put
themselves
in
a
position
where
they
ran
for
office
or
ran
for
judicial
office
were
not
included
in
that.
Just
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
see
no
further
discussion
we'll
go
to
a
roll
call
vote
on
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
Ab296.
B
A
C
Which
this
committee
heard
on
april
27th-
this
is
a
judiciary,
assembly,
judiciary,
committee
committee,
bill
on
behalf
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission.
Excuse
me,
and
this
bill
makes
changes
relating
to
offenders.
C
Do
you
want
me
to
go
through
the
whole
summary
chair,
or
would
you
prefer
that
we
just
go
to
the
amendment?
I
think
I
can
give
you
a
brief
one
this.
This
is
a
bill
that
provides
that
the
the
board
of
parole
commissioners
will
only
be
responsible
for
establishing
a
program
of
lifetime
supervision
and
establishing
the
conditions
of
lifetime
supervision
for
an
offender
who
sentenced
before
july
1.
There
are
lots
of
other
provisions
in
the
in
the
original
bill.
C
However,
the
amendment
that
we're
looking
at
today,
which
is
based
on
negotiations
among
the
stakeholders,
is
offered
by
this
committee,
and
it
proposes
to
delete
all
but
section
one
of
the
bill
and
as
amended.
Therefore,
the
bill
would
now
require
the
board
to
conduct
a
review
of
its
standards
just
once
every
five
years
rather
than
each
odd
number
year,
and
I
would
just
note
that
the
stakeholders
are
still
in
discussions
and
they
have
committed
to
continue
negotiating,
but
they
did
want
to
go
ahead
and
approve
this
part
of
the
bill
today.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Are
there
any
questions
on
ab342
all
right,
I
don't
see
any
questions,
so
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
D
A
E
E
A
Thank
you
and
to
clarify
the
the
vote
is
to
actually
amend
it
in
a
different
way
and
to
remove
all
of
the
sections
except
for
section
one.
A
A
B
A
Yes,
with
that,
the
motion
passes
to
amend
and
do
pass
ab342
as
there
are
volunteer
to
take
the
floor
statement,
I
will
give
it
to
senator
harris
and
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
bill.
C
C
This
is
a
bill
that
makes
changes
relating
to
the
use
of
deadly
force.
I
don't
believe
that
I
need
to
go
back
to
the
summary
of
the
bill
again,
since
we
just
heard
it.
The
amendment
is
offered
by
senator
harris
and
it
would
remove
section
one
of
the
bill
completely
and
in
section
two
it
would
change
the
word
and
back
to
or
as
it
was
prior
to
the
bill
being
drafted
so
or
excuse
me
prior
to
the
previous
amendment.
So
anyway,
section
two
change
and
to
or
and
remove
section
one
completely.
A
Thank
you
and
before
I
go
to
questions
on
this
bill,
I
do
just
want
to
acknowledge
the
sponsors
I
see
we
have
the
chair
of
assembly
judiciary
here.
I
also
had
a
chance
to
speak
with
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong,
and
I
really
really
appreciate
them
coming
back
to
the
table
at
a
late
hour
to
make
an
amendment
to
the
bill
that
I
think
really
improves
it.
It
brings
me
into
support
I'm
proud
to
support
this
bill.
A
H
Thank
you
so,
with
the
amendment
it,
the
re,
everything
that's
redlined
out
now
stays
in
law
completely.
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
it's
a
lot
better
than
it
was.
I
mean
that
hearing
honestly
was
disaster
in
my
opinion
and
I'm
very
uncomfortable
with
the
bill.
I'm
still
going
to
vote
no,
but
it
seems
like
it's
made
it
to
to
where
it's
watered
down
to
such
a
point
that
it's
completely
feasible.
I
don't
think
anybody
whether
you
support
it
or
not,
wants
any
rogue
cops
out
there.
H
One
won't
have
any
excessive
levels
of
force,
but
we've
got
to
be
a
little
bit
reasonable
some
of
this
stuff
and
to
constantly
go
after
the
police,
and
you
know
essentially
constantly
make
them
so
that
they
can't
make
any
decisions
in
the
field
practically
without
feeling
like
they're,
going
to
get
an
anal
exam
when
it's
all
done
is
just
going
to
completely
harm
their
ability
to
do
their
job
so
anyway.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for,
let
me
say
have
my
say
on
that.
G
Thank
you,
chair
schreibel.
I
just
again
wanted
to
thank
everyone
for
working
on
this,
because
I
do
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
really
good
work
done
and
especially
this
committee
has
been
working
in
senate
bill
212,
which
I
think
is
a
is
a
good
bill.
G
That's
putting
in
place
the
right
kind
of
accountability
that
we
expect
from
our
law
enforcement,
while
still
allowing
them
to
do
their
jobs
and
knowing-
and
I
think
this
bill
kind
of
takes
us
in
that
step-
to
make
sure
that
where
there
is
an
imminent
threat,
they
have
the
ability
to
protect
the
public
and
also
building
in
those
additional
accountability.
Measures,
I
think,
are
exactly
what
we
have
to
do.
So
I'm
very
grateful
for
this,
and
I'm
certainly
grateful
to
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
and
sherry
yeager
as
well
I'll,
be
supporting
the
bill.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
too
am
appreciative
that
the
sponsors
were
willing
to
take
one
out.
I
still
have
an
open
question
as
to
whether
or
not
eminent
would
do
violence
to
the
intent
of
you
know
the
protection.
So
I
want
to
talk
to
some
experts
but
I'll
vote.
Yes,
but
I'll
reserve.
My
right.
A
All
right,
thank
you
and
with
that
I
think
we
are
ready
for
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
ab396.
A
F
A
Yes,
and
with
that
the
motion
carries:
is
there
a
volunteer
to
take
the
floor
statement?
All
right?
I
will
give
it
to
senator
orrinshaw,
and
that
brings
us
to
our
next
bill.
C
Thanks
chair
patrick
gunn,
for
the
record
again,
we
are
now
at
assembly
bill
400..
This
is
a
bill
that
revises
provisions
relating
to
prohibited
acts
concerning
the
use
of
marijuana.
It
is
an
assembly
judiciary,
committee
bill
that
was
presented
here
by
chair
yeager
of
that
committee
on
may
12th,
and
we
haven't
heard
this
one
for
a
while.
So
would
you
like
me
to
go
and
read
through
a
little
bit.
A
A
I
think
we
have
come
up
with
an
amendment
that
everybody
can
live
with,
and
the
amendment
would
include
the
amendments
from
the
dmv
that
are
currently
reflected
in
the
work
session
document
and
where,
as
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
assembly
member
jaeger
presented
to
us,
an
amendment
that
would
create
a
rebuttable
presumption
of
intoxication
for
felony
level.
Duis.
A
The
alternative
that
I'm
proposing
to
the
or
that
we're
proposing
to
the
committee
now
would
be
that
we
would
remove
the
per
se
levels
for
misdemeanor
duis,
but
the
per
se
levels
of
intoxication
would
remain
in
statute
for
marijuana
for
felony
duis.
For
the
edification
of
the
committee.
A
dui
is
a
felony.
A
If
it
is
the
person's
third
dui,
if
it
resulted
in
substantial
bodily
harm,
if
it
resulted
in
death-
and
I
think
those
are
the
only
circumstances
under
which
it
would
become,
it
would
be
considered
a
felony
instead
of
a
misdemeanor,
dui
and
obviously
assembly.
Member
jaeger
here
is
here
to
answer
any
questions,
as
I
am
also
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
we'll
start
with
senator
pickard.
E
E
And
so
what
what
happens
when
we
eliminate
on
a
practical
level,
what
happens
when
we
eliminate
the
per
se
levels
on
the
misdemeanor
charges?
Is
it
merely
then?
Are
they
too
impaired?
E
I
I
They
could
still
take
your
blood
and
then
there
would
be
a
number
right,
but
the
number
would
not
be
conclusive
proof
of
your
guilt,
so
at
the
trial
the
prosecutor
would
have
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
you
were
actually
impaired
at
the
time
you
were
driving,
and
so
they
would
use
all
those
factors
that
you
just
talked
about
how
you
were
driving,
how
you
reacted.
They
could
still
use
the
blood
tests
and
the
results
of
the
blood
test
to
establish
that
you
had
something
in
your
system.
E
All
right,
and
would
that
result
then,
in
the
jury
instruction
that
said
well,
the
legislature
has
taken
those
out,
and
so
we
don't
rely
on
those.
What's
the
the
impact
to
the,
because,
obviously
what
we
don't
want
to
do
is
increase
the
number
of
duis,
because
police
don't
believe
they're
going
to
be
able
to
get
the
conviction
or
I'm
sorry,
the
da's
don't
believe
they
can
get
the
conviction,
and
so
they
don't
bring
them.
And
so
we
end
up
increasing
the
number
of
duis.
I
Steve
ager
for
the
record,
I
threw
you
chair
to
senator
pickard,
so
the
the
good
news
is
the
misdemeanor.
Maybe
it's
not
good
news.
The
reality
is
misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor
duis
are
solely
bench
trials
right
now
you
don't
get
a
jury
trial,
so
it
would
be
the
municipal
court
judge
or
the
justice
court
judge.
So
there
would
need
to
be
an
instruction
given.
They
simply
would
know
that
you
know
they
can't
sort
of
rely
on
this
number.
Now
you
know.
I
Obviously
I
think
we
would
be
kidding
ourselves
if
we
didn't
think
that
judges
who
have
been
there
for
a
while
sort
of
know
what
the
number
was.
So
you
know
that's
a
factor
for
them
to
consider,
but
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
hinder
dui
prosecutions
for
the
most
part
from
what
I've
been
seeing
on
the
ground.
Most
of
the
misdemeanor
duis
tend
to
be
multiple
substances
where
you
have
alcohol
cannabis,
maybe
something
else.
I
Why
they
feel
like
they
can
drive
with
the
substance
in
their
system,
much
like
they
might
do
with
the
prescription
drug
and
ultimately
it
would
be
the
judge
who
would
decide
whether
the
state
has
proved
the
case
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
and
then,
as
just
another
matter,
which
many
committee
members
here
know.
Most
of
these
things
get
negotiated.
Very
few
of
them
actually
go
to
trial.
I
don't
think
that
would
change.
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate-
and
this
of
course
still
includes
a
dmv
amendment,
because
clearly
you
have
no
choice
when
it
comes
to
cdl,
there's
a
zero,
zero
tolerance
policy,
and
so
I
don't
know,
I
think
it's
an
interesting
compromise
between
the
laws
that
exist
for
dui.
You
know
it's
a
pretty
decent
compromise,
for
you
know
regular
drivers,
but
again
on
the
cdl's.
There
is
an
absolute
zero
tolerance
and
I
always
question
the
concept
of
creating
different
classes.
F
You
know
if
you're,
a
cdl,
okay,
here's
your
rules,
you
know,
but
we
already
do
that
in
the
realm
of
alcohol
when
it
comes
to
drivers
on
cdls.
We
also
do
the
same
thing
in
relation
to
concealed
weapons,
carry
permits
when
it
comes
to
individuals
as
well,
there's
a
whole
different
level.
So
I
don't
know
I'm.
I
appreciate
the
amendments
that
are
done.
I'm
still
trying
to
wrestle
with
it
a
little
bit,
but
not
thank
you.
A
A
Scheible,
yes,
so
the
motion
passes
to
amend
and
do
pass
ab400.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
senator
harris
and
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
bill.
C
All
right,
thanks
chair
this
is
patrick
iron
for
the
record,
we're
on
assembly
bill
424
in
its
first
reprint
now
this
revises
provisions
relating
to
pre-trial
release,
and
this
is
a
an
assembly
judiciary
committee
on
behalf
of
the
pre-trial
release
interim
study.
Ab424
removes
the
requirement.
An
arrested
person
show
good
cause
before
being
released
without
bail
and
instead
provides
that
a
court
may
only
impose
bail
or
a
condition
of
release
or
both
on
a
person.
If
the
imposition
is
necessary
to
protect
the
community
and
to
ensure
the
appearance
of
the
person
in
court.
C
There
are
a
couple
of
amendments.
The
first
was
presented
by
senator
harris
at
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
chair
needs
me
to
go
through
those
again
or
if
you
just
want
me
to
discuss
the
new
amendment.
That
was
that's
the
committee's
amendment.
Okay,
anyway,
for
the
members
and
for
those
looking
on
from
wherever
you
are.
The
first
set
of
bullet
points
is
the
amendment
that
senator
harris
described
and
that's
attached
for
your
for
your
review.
C
If
you
need
to
the
second
amendment
begins
about
three
quarters
of
the
way
down
the
page.
This
committee
proposes
a
conceptual
amendment
intended
to
conform.
The
provisions
of
this
bill
with
senate
bill
369,
which
addresses
many
of
the
same
elements
of
pre-trial
release.
The
amendment
is
drawn
from
the
mock-up
provided
by
senator
harris
and
it
is
attached.
The
additional
revisions
are
as
follows:
it
deletes
several
provisions
concerning
when
a
person
is
entitled
to
a
pre-trial
release
hearing.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
my
biggest
hang
up
has
been
the
48
hour
hearing
time,
and
I
know
that
the
second
bullet
point
says
provides
for
a
continuance
for
good
cause
shown,
and
one
of
the
things
that
was
presented
was
that
sometimes
it's
the
the
state
doesn't
have
time
to
pull
these
things
together
in
48
hours.
E
Sometimes
you
know
that
48
hour
window
will
fall
on
you
know
early
morning
of
a
weekend
and
that
sometimes
the
da's
aren't
able
to
get
in
communication
and
and
be
prepared
for
those
hearings
so
as
good
cause
shown.
What
does
that
entail?
Is
that
anybody
for
any
reason
that
it
isn't
just
a
delay
tactic
they
get
to
to
take
longer.
Does
that
require
a
hearing?
Does
that
require?
You
know
the
judge's
intervention?
A
So
that
it
would
be
a
decision
by
a
judge
to
grant
a
continuance
for
good
cause
and
good
cause
does
appear
elsewhere
in
the
nrs,
and
it
is
of
course
a
I
want
to
say
it's
a
term
that
is
interpreted
over
and
over,
and
certainly
parties
do
argue
about
what
constitutes
good
cause
and
that's
totally
appropriate,
but
from
a
process
standpoint.
A
What
that
would
look
like
would
be
either
party
communicating
with
the
judge,
and
it
could
be
in
a
formal
or
informal
manner
saying
that
we
are
requesting
some
additional
time
before
this
hearing
for
a
particular
reason,
and
then
the
judge
saying,
okay
and
providing
them
with
a
new
date,
so
that
could
be
having
all
the
parties
on
the
phone
it
could.
Honestly,
if
the
jurist
mr
anthony
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
if
the
judge
allows
it
it
could
be
via
email,
it
could
be
by
agreement
in
advance.
E
E
It's
requiring
that
the
person
being
released
signed
a
document
stating
that
they're
going
to
appear
at
the
times
and
places
required
and
on,
and
I'm
wondering
you
know,
for
those
that
really
were
worried
about
those
that
just
are
not
going
to
appear.
I'm
wondering
whether
or
not
we
have
any
data.
E
I
know
our
defense
council
are
here.
Maybe
they
can
tell
us
what
their
experience
has
been
if
the
chair
wants,
but
how
many
times
do
people
sign
these
documents
and
then
fail
to
show
it?
What
I'm
getting
at
is
this
kind
of
a
meaningless
requirement
if
these
people
aren't
going
to
show
on
a
regular
basis
or
if
this,
if
signing
a
document,
is
actually
effective.
A
So
I
can
speak
to
part
of
that
question
and
say
that
I
think
the
main
purpose
of
signing
the
document
is
ensuring
that
the
person
has
been
informed
of
the
next
time
in
place
that
they
have
to
appear
in
front
of
the
court,
so
that
there's
no
question
about
whether
or
not
they
knew
the
next
date.
If
they've
signed
a
document
stating
that
they
they
know
when
and
where
to
appear,
that
is
one
check
to
make
sure
that
they
do
know
that,
and
I
think
for
that
reason
alone,
it
is
worth
keeping
the
language.
E
Sure
and
I'm
not
suggesting
we
remove
it.
I
was
just
wondering
from
a
practical
standpoint:
how
effective
is
it
and
I
recognize
under
4.9?
It
actually
specifically
gives
the
court
grounds
for
a
contempt
under
22010,
so
there's
there's
certainly
teeth
to
it.
I
get
that
I
was
just
wondering
if
that's
even
effective
in
a
real
world
scenario,
but
that's
not
going
to
obstruct
me
from
supporting
the
bill,
but
just
wanted
to
ask
those
questions.
Thank
you.
A
I
also
think
that,
currently
everybody
has
to
sign
one
of
those
documents,
so
it
would
be
hard
for
us
to
establish
a
percentage
success
rate
because
everybody
does
it,
so
it
would
just
be
whatever
rate
at
which
people
fail
to
appear
for
court
would
be
the
failure
rate
of
people
who
sign
the
document.
You
can't
compare
to
people
who
don't
sign
the
document,
because
there
are
no
people
who
don't
sign
the
document
unless
ms
burchie
is
going
to
school
me
on
document
signatures
before
release.
G
Kendrick
with
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office,
it's
my
understanding
that
currently,
we
don't,
at
least
in
washington
county,
require
everyone
to
sign
these
documents,
it's
with
their
being
released
with
pre-trial
services.
However,
I
would
just
note
to
your
question
as
we've
spoken
to
this
committee
before
we
don't
keep
this
data.
G
This
is
why
one
of
the
recommendations
from
the
pre-trial
or
the
release
committee
was
to
actually
track
this
data
so
that
we,
I
could
sit
here
with
an
answer
for
you,
but
unfortunately
we
don't
have
that
data
and
so
that's
another
bill,
and
I
hope
that
does
pass
out
of
finance.
Thank
you.
F
F
Some
of
the
smaller
counties
that
I
deal
with
had
some
serious
concerns
and
reservations
about
that,
especially
in
relation
to
large-scale
events,
as
I
brought
up
on,
the
record
creates
a
situation
where
some
of
these
communities
maybe
have
five
cases
a
week,
yet
burning
man
produced
50
a
day
and
that
type
of
large
increase
makes
it
very
problematic
for
them
in
that
respect,
and
that's
why
they
were
kind
of
seeking
that
type
of
clarification
or
flexibility
just
based
upon
the
circumstances,
as
we've
seen
in
recent
history,
sometimes
things
happen
where
courts
get
inundated
due
to
the
actions
of
individuals
and
therefore
I
cannot
support
it.
A
All
right
other
questions,
senator
hansen.
H
Not
so
much
a
question
just
a
statement,
I
I
really
like
the
bill.
I
actually
read
valdez
jimenez
and
I
agree
completely
with
the
the
points
that
have
been
made
talked
at
length
with
senator
harris
about
it
and
was
completely
in
favor
of
it
till
I
heard
all
the
testimony
from
the
rurals
and
I
I
think,
there's
still
some
really
significant
issues
for
them.
Even
with
the
amendments
I
mean
some
of
this
just
makes
them
they
just
flat.
H
Don't
have
the
resources
to
do
some
of
this
in
the
time
frame,
and
it
seemed
to
me
too
that
the
main
testimony
indicated
that
the
bigger
problems
are
actually
in
washoe
and
clark
counties
more
so
than
in
the
rurals.
So
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
bill.
I
support
the
concept
100
percent,
but
after
hearing
that
testimony,
I
just
can't
do
that
to
the
rural
counties
they
just
flat,
don't
think
they
have
the
resources
financially.
H
So
I
will
be
a
no
reluctantly
and
I
hope
we
can
work
out
some
of
the
arrangements,
because
I
agree
completely
with
the
concept
that
you're
innocent
until
proven
guilty
and
if
you're
flat,
unable
to
afford
bail,
it
is,
in
effect
an
unfair
incarceration
and
you
have
no
ability
to
even
prepare
your
own
defenses
in
some
cases,
so
I'm
sympathetic,
but
I'm
gonna
have
to
be
no
because
of
the
impacts
on
my
rural
counties.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
All
right
majority
leader,
cannizzaro.
G
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
working
on
the
amendment
and
senator
harris
for
working
on
not
only
the
mock-up
we
got
in
committee,
but
also
the
proposed
conceptual.
I
am
still
trying,
I
think,
to
compare
these
this
one
to
369,
just
to
make
sure
that
what
we
have
makes
sense
from
a
from
a
process
standpoint
and
then
from
a
from
a
legal
standard
standpoint.
I
think
we
are
very
close.
G
A
Case
you,
my
majority
leader
and
I'll
echo,
those
comments,
and
I
also
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
many
tireless
hours
of
work
on
this,
along
with
other
stakeholders,
and
indeed
we
are
only
human.
So
as
we
move
forward
in
this
process
with
additional
reprints
and
comparisons
to
sb369,
we
will
ensure
that
they
match
each
other.
There
may
be
additional
floor
amendments
for
that
purpose,
and
also
you
know
if
anybody
else
sees
anything
in
the
bill
after
this
work
session.
I
know
the
hour
is
late.
A
I
don't
want
you
to
think
that
the
door
that
my
door
is
closed
and
with
that,
if
there
are
other,
no
other
questions
or
comments,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
a
before
24..
So
we
have
a
motion.
B
D
A
C
Excuse
me
thanks
chair.
Yes,
this
is
the
last
bill
before
the
deadline,
so
we
are
at
ab440
in
its
first
reprint.
This
is
a
committee,
an
assembly
judiciary
committee,
bill
again
on
on
behalf
of
the
pre-trial
release
study
and
this
one
relates
to
the
issuance
of
certain
citations,
and
we
heard
it
here
on
the
12th
of
may.
The
spill
requires
peace
officers
to
issue
misdemeanor
citations,
traffic
citations,
vessel
citations
and
wildlife,
citations
for
offenses
punishable
as
misdemeanors
that
do
not
constitute
repeat
offenses
or
crimes
of
violence.
C
Additionally,
the
bill
specifies
circumstances
when
a
person
must
be
taken
before
a
magistrate.
If
the
officer
has
reasonable
cause
for
believing
that
the
person
has
committed
certain
offenses.
Senator
harris
has
proposed
an
amendment
that
is
attached.
The
amendment
replaces
references
throughout
the
bill
to
quote-unquote
crime
of
violence
with
the
term
prohibited
crime,
and
it
defines
prohibited
crime
as
a
violation
of
a
temporary
protective
order,
driving
under
the
influence
stalking
and
includes
the
current
definition
of
a
crime
of
violence.
C
A
G
Thank
you,
church
rival,
and
I
wanted
to
thank
senator
harris
for
working
through
some
language.
On
some
of
the
amendments,
I
appreciate
what
the
bill
is
trying
to
do.
I
did
think
that
there
was.
G
There
were
some
some
cases
where
I
don't
think
that
a
citation
is
appropriate
in
in
a
lot
of
those
instances,
and
so
this
would
allow
for
that
to
still
be
something
that
could
be
a
rest
things
like
violating
protective
orders,
stalking,
some
of
those
other
misdemeanor
crimes
that
I
think
are
can,
I
think,
actually
be
more
inherently
dangerous
than
than
some
of
the
other
ones,
and
so
I
think
for,
for
the
purposes
of
this
conceptual
amendment,
making
sure
that
we
can
include
those
and
and
make
sure
that
we
we
have
the
ability
to
mitigate
what
can
often
escalate
into
very
dangerous
situations
ahead
of
time
before
they
become
more
serious.
G
I
think,
is
important
and
then
also
when
we
were
looking
through
the
language
some
of
this,
because
of
the
way
that
the
the
traffic
statutes
are
written
was
applying
to
some
things
that
I
think
probably
wasn't
intended
to
for
citations.
Where
we
don't
just,
we
don't
issue
citations
for
certain
felonies
and
other
things,
and
I
appreciate
her
willingness
to
talk
about
things
like
dui
and
vehicular
manslaughter,
mostly
because
I
think
the
victim
families
should
be
part
of
those
conversations
before
we
do
something
where
you
could.
G
You
know,
go
negotiate
or
plea
in
the
case
on
a
system.
I
think
those
conversations
are
important
for
those
victim
families.
So
I
appreciate
the
conceptual
amendment
and
just
wanted
to
thank
senator
harris
for
including
that
and
I'll
be
a
yes
on
the
motion.
A
Thank
you
so
much
any
other
discussion.
Senator
pickard.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
you
know
it's.
I
completely
agree
with
everything
majority
leader
just
said,
but
I'm
on
the
other
side
of
the
fence,
so
I'll
be
in
no.
For
those
reasons,
until
I
can
see
the
language.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
senator
hansen
did
you
have
discussion?
Okay,
seeing
no
further
discussion,
we
will
go
to
a,
we
didn't,
have
a
vote
or
we
did
have
a
motion
right.
Okay,
we
will
go
to
a
vote
on
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
Ab440.
A
E
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
to
amended
to
pass
ab440
passes
and
I
will
also
assign
this
floor
statement
to
senator
harris.
A
I
believe
that
takes
us,
oh
to
the
end
of
our
meeting,
except
that
we
still
have
to
accept
public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
public
comment?
I
don't
see
anybody
there
be
a
public
comment,
so
we
will
go
to
the
phones.
They
might
want
to
give
public
comment.
Mr
actually,
I
think
we
have
ms
ferguson
with
us.
A
B
B
B
B
B
Over
the
years,
nevada
has
created
some
wonderful
legislation
on
criminal
justice
reform.
There
are
still
some
areas
where
the
law
needs
to
be
revised,
starting
from
the
ground
up.
These
areas
deal
with
district
attorneys,
the
district
attorney's
office
and
their
qualified
immunity
prosecutors
committing
brady
violations
without
having
any
repercussions
for
them.
B
When
a
prosecutor
withholds
evidence
at
the
expense
of
an
innocent
person,
they
must
be
held
accountable
for
their
actions
and
not
protected
by
their
own.
Another
area
of
criminal
justice
reform
revision
needs
to
be
changing.
The
statute
of
limitations,
particularly
dealing
with
perjury
if
perjury
is
committed
and
a
person
is
convicted,
incarcerated
and
continues
to
be
incarcerated
or
dies
while
being
incarcerated.
B
The
statute
of
limitations
do
not
apply.
Charges
should
be
brought
against
them
when
a
public
official,
including
the
district
attorney,
hinders
or
delays
an
investigation
that
results
in
no
formal
charges
being
filed
against
the
person
who
has
committed
perjury
that
resulted
in
the
person's
incarceration
or
continued
incarceration
will
be
held
accountable
for
their
actions.
B
B
B
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
this
session,
I
have
asked
you
to
hold
police
accountable,
and
some
of
the
bills
passed
out
of
this
committee
are
a
step
in
that
direction.
I
would
like
to
see
the
focus
next
session
remain
on
police
reform,
but
also
consider
holding
prosecutors
accountable
for
their
actions.
We
need
to
take
away
qualified
immunity.
B
I
have
listened
to
not
only
this
committee's
hearings
but
others
over
the
session
and
over
and
over.
I
have
heard
the
da's
response
that
we
have
a
policy
for
that
to
any
type
of
legislation
that
would
provide
oversight
of
them.
Policy
isn't
learned
it's
much
easier
to
say.
We
are
following
our
policy
than
to
have
mandated
legislative
oversight
when
brady
violations
were
brought
up
in
one
hearing.
The
da's
representative
acknowledged
that
there
are
no
true
consequences
when
da's
withhold
evidence.
Basically
what
the
response
was
is
well.
We
just
never
would
do
that.
B
We
would
never
defy
a
supreme
court
order.
The
personal
assurance
from
other
da's
that
nobody
from
their
office
would
do
anything
to
jeopardize
their
good
standing,
just
isn't
sufficient
insurance
sufficient
insurance
for
the
community.
That
justice
is
truly
just
in
fear.
The
resistance
is
concerning.
I
personally
know
of
a
case
that
a
court
appointed
attorney
in
the
post-conviction
hearing
provided
poor,
inadequate
performance.
He
did
not
notify
the
defendant.
He
was
representing
that
he
had
accepted
a
job
within
the
appellate
division
at
the
washout
da's
office.
B
The
attorney
attended
the
hearing
he
accepted
the
job
weeks
before
the
judge
issued
the
order.
The
attorney
went
to
work
for
the
very
unit
the
defendant
was
going
up
against
at
the
hearing.
That
is
unacceptable.
I'd
like
to
see
legislatively
mandated
wrongful
conviction
units
the
warshaw
county
cic
has
reviewed
one
case
since
inception
and
chose
to
only
look
at
court
orders
when
they
should
be
looking
at
the
defendant's
pleadings
if
the
cic
lead
member
stated.
B
In
that
case,
the
civ
cannot
offer
a
more
thorough
assessment
of
your
claim
than
the
12
citizens
that
served
on
a
jury,
a
jury
that
didn't
get
to
see
all
of
the
evidence
by
the
way.
So,
if
that's
their
position,
why
even
have
a
cic,
it
appears
to
be
a
dog
and
pony,
show
and
further
proof
as
to
why
we
need
legislation
on
this.
If
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
meeting.
I
will
be
very
quick.
There
are
just
a
couple
of
people
that
I
want
to
thank
for
getting
us
through
to
this
deadline
day
and
actually,
I
hope
ms
brown
and
ms
grant
are
still
around,
because
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
are
all
dedicated
to
doing
good
in
our
own
way
and
they
choose
to
join
us
in
these
meetings
almost
every
single
day
and
I'm
very
impressed
that
at
this
late
hour,
both
of
you
have
continued
to
follow.
A
What's
going
on
in
the
legislature,
you're
not
elected
to
do
it
you're
not
paid
to
do
it.
You
do
it
because
you
believe
in
something-
and
I
think
that's
admirable,
and
I
thank
you
for
engaging
in
this
process
with
us,
and
that
is
only
possible
because
we
have
amazing
staff
here.
I
have
kept
the
legislative
police
here
late
tonight.
I
have
kept
the
sergeant-at-arms
here
late
tonight.
Our
committee
council,
nick
anthony,
is
here
late
tonight.
Our
secretary
gina
lakasha
is
here
patrick
guyan.
A
Our
committee
manager,
beth
reichers,
has
been
working
really
really
hard
all
day
on
her
feet.
Getting
things
done
for
us
plus,
we
have
amazing
staff
at
broadcast.
Sierra
ferguson,
jen
wells
and
bryce
kyle
have
all
been
here
for
over
12
hours
now
to
help
us
get
through
this
deadline.
So
my
deepest
gratitude
to
all
of
you
and
my
committee.
I
know
that
you
have
been
working
hard
here
in
judiciary
and
elsewhere
in
the
building
and
it's
an
honor
to
serve
with
you
we're
not
done
yet.