►
From YouTube: 2/25/2021 - 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
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
will
now
open
the
february
25th
meeting
of
the
nevada
senate
judiciary
committee.
Would
the
student
secretary
please
call
the
role.
C
E
Madam
or
excuse
me
cherish
this
is
patrick
and
community
policy
analyst,
and
I
believe
that
I
am
the
only
staff
member
with
us
today.
I
think
mr
anthony
has
been
pulled
to
draft
some
bills,
so
he
will
not
be
joining
the
meeting
in
person
today.
Although
I
imagine
he's
monitoring.
A
All
right:
well,
we
are
glad
to
have
you
with
us,
mr
gainen,
and
I
we
have
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
to
do
today.
I
wanted
to
let
you
all
know
that
I
have
endeavored
to
publish
the
agendas
for
the
next
two
weeks.
You
will
see
most
or
all
of
those
going
up
on
nellis
in
the
next
day
or
so.
A
The
housekeeping
item
that
I
wanted
to
address
is
that
we
are,
you
know,
moving
a
lot
of
different
pieces.
At
the
same
time,
those
agendas
may
change.
I
want
everybody
in
this
committee
and
everybody
who
may
be
watching
this
committee
to
know
that
a
change
in
the
agenda
is
not
a
reflection
of
my
personal
feelings
about
a
bill
or
about
a
sponsor.
A
A
So
with
that,
I
have
like,
I
said,
tried
to
publish
agendas
for
the
next
two
weeks
so
that
you
all
can
plan
and
people
can
be
prepared
to
testify
in
case
you
are
not
familiar
yet
with
our
virtual
testimony
here
in
the
nevada
state
senate.
Through
the
legislative
website
nellis,
you
can
navigate
to
any
one
of
our
judiciary
meetings,
there's
an
option
to
click
on
a
participate
button
when
you
click
on
that
button,
you'll
be
asked
for
your
name
and
affiliation.
A
The
position
in
which
you
wish
to
speak
and
on
what
item
you
wish
to
speak
and
when
you
do
that,
you
will
receive
information
on
joining
us
in
order
to
give
that
testimony
at
the
appropriate
time.
Right
now,
I
am
going.
We
have
a
work
session
on
our
calendar
today
and
we
also
have,
as
always
public
comment,
I'm
going
to
take
these
items
out
of
order
and
go
to
public
comment.
First.
D
A
A
A
And
if
the
record
could
please
reflect
the
presence
of
vice
chair
majority
leader
canazaro,
and
thank
you
to
the
committee
for
your
indulgence.
While
I
took
care
of
some
other
matters
that
were
pending
before
we
could
get
to
our
work
session
now
that
we
have
those
taken
care
of,
I
think
we
have
everybody
back.
A
It
looks
like
senator
hansen
is
labeled
as
senator
harris
today.
So
that's
a
fun
new
thing
for
you
guys
and
I
bathroom.
A
I
know
it
is
very
easy
to
do.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
mr
senator
suttlemaier
is
also
with
us.
A
A
I
see
nodding
heads
perfect
and
I
would
ask
that
you
all
open
up
the
work
session
document
and
follow
along
with
mr
gainen
and
those
are
also
available
on
ellis
to
the
public
for
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
follow
along
and
in
case
you
had
not
noticed.
We
do
have
several
of
our
subject
matter-
experts
here
from
the
bills
that
are
on
our
work
session
today.
A
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
there
will
be
a
time
for
you
to
raise
those,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
guidance
to
walk
us
through
the
work
session.
E
Thanks
jerry
schreibel
again
patrick
geinin,
for
the
record,
we
have
four
bills
on
the
work
session
today:
sbs
9,
21,
62
and
71-
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
them
in
numerical
order,
starting
with
senate
bill
9..
E
The
bill
sets
forth
conditions
and
advisor
must
meet
in
order
to
qualify
and
sets
forth
the
advisor's
duties
and
disclosures
and
reporting
requirements
and
also
provides
a
means
whereby
an
advisor
can
become
compliant
with
the
law
if
they
lose
their
licensure
within
90
days
of
becoming
ineligible.
I
won't
go
through
the
full
summary
jericho.
There
are
no
amendments
to
the
bill.
I
believe
we
have
a
representative
from
the
lieutenant
governor's
office
on
hand.
If
there
are
any
questions-
and
that's
all
I
have
thanks.
A
D
A
I
don't
see
any
discussion,
so
we
will
do
a
roll
call
vote
for
the
clarity
of
the
record
and
I'm
going
to
ask
the
secretary
to
please
call
that
roll
call
vote
now.
D
D
F
D
H
H
D
A
Oh,
thank
you
senator
harris.
Did
you
guys
catch
the
part
where
I
said
that
we
voted
unanimously
to
pass
the
bill
all
right,
and
now
we
will
move
on
to
senate
bill
number
21
or
the
next
part
of
our
work
session
document
thanks
jericho,.
E
Patrick
record
again
I
was
told
I
was
a
little
quiet,
so
if
I'm
yelling
at
you
now,
please
just
let
me
know
and
I'll
try
to
back
down,
but
we're
now
on
senate
bill
21,
which
is
another
bill
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
which
we
heard
on
february
3rd.
This
bill
revises
requirements
relating
to
background
investigations
conducted
by
certain
institutions,
agencies
and
facilities
that
serve
children.
E
Essentially,
this
bill
revises
and
standardizes
specified
crimes
for
which
any
of
these
institutions
or
agencies
that
serve
children
are
required
or
authorized
to
deny
an
application
for
employment
across
all
three
of
those
entities.
So
agencies
are
required
to
conduct
background
checks,
including
fingerprint
reviews
to
determine
whether
an
employee
or
a
potential
employee
has
charges
pending
against
him
or
her
or
has
been
convicted
of
the
specified
crimes
are
listed
here,
and
I
would
just
add
that
the
application
can
be
denied
or
the
employment
terminated
respectively
if
they
have
been
convicted
of
such
a
crime.
E
If
the
charge
is
pending,
the
applicant
or
the
employment
may
be
denied
or
terminated,
respectively,
and
applicants
are
allowed.
The
opportunity
to
correct
information
that
they
believe
is
incorrect
in
their
record
committee
will
remember
that,
during
the
discussion
on
the
bill,
there
was
an
amendment
discussed
that
was
being
put
together
by
the
division
of
child
family
services
in
consultation
with
several
stakeholders.
E
That
amendment
has
been
submitted
and
is
attached
on
the
following
pages,
and
I
will
just
summarize
it
briefly
here:
it
removes
prostitution
as
an
exclusionary
crime
for
applicants
and
employees
for
applicants.
It
requires
agencies
to
adopt
a
weighing
test
whereby
they'll
consider
certain
factors
in
determining
whether
to
waive
an
exclusionary,
criminal
conviction.
E
An
agency
may
not
waive
the
exclusionary
conviction
without
applying
the
test,
and
an
agency
decision
is
not
appealable.
A
review
of
the
relevant
data
must
be
conducted
every
two
years
to
determine
the
efficacy
and
identity.
Excuse
me
identify
implicit
bias
and
regarding
employees,
the
bill
defines
criminal
charges
pending.
As
from
the
time
an
arrest
has
been
made
until
a
determination
of
guilt
or
innocence
at
trial
or
by
plea.
The
term
does
not
include
if
the
prosecuting
agency
determines
to
decline,
charges
or
to
proceed
on
charges
that
are
not
exclusionary.
E
Pursuant
to
this
act,
bill's
effective
date
has
been
moved
out
to
january
1
of
2022
to
allow
for
research
in
the
adoption
of
the
objective
weighing
test
that
I
just
described
above,
and
I
would
also
note
this
bill
requires
a
two-thirds
majority
vote,
but
I
want
to
make
it
clear
for
the
committee
that
that
that
does
not
involve
the
committee.
That's
the
two-thirds
majority
vote
for
any
final
action
to
be
taken
on
the
floor
of
the
senate
on
this
bills.
E
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
gunnan
senator
pickard.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
have
a
quick
question
as
to
the
exclusionary,
the
removal
of
the
exclusionary
crime.
Can
someone
explain
on
a
practical
basis
what
that
means,
what
the
removal
means?
What
what's
the
result
of
the
removal.
H
Yeah
ross
armstrong
for
the
record
administrator
division
of
atomic
family
services.
What
that
means
is
that
that
would
be
a
crime
where,
if
it
popped
up
on
the
background
check,
the
agency
would
not
necessarily
would
not
need
to
do
the
weighing
test
in
order
to
waive
it.
In
talking
with
many
of
the
stakeholders,
they
were
concerned
based
on
how
the
charge
of
prostitution
is
used.
A
Any
other
before
I
ask
for
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee,
I
should
have
told
you
at
the
very
beginning
that
mr
anthony,
our
legal
counsel,
is
also
on
stand
by.
If
we
really
really
need
him,
we
can
take
him
away
from
his
drafting
with.
That
being
said,
are
there
any
other
questions
on
this
bill
or
a
motion.
A
A
D
C
G
A
Yes,
all
right
and
with
a
unanimous
vote,
we
have
voted
to,
amend
and
do
pass
senate
bill
21..
We
also
need
to
assign
the
floor
statement
on
this.
Do
we
have
any
volunteers
not
seeing
any
volunteers?
Oh
senator
orenshall.
Thank
you.
So
much.
E
Thanks
churchill,
patrick
again
for
the
record,
we're
now
on
senate
bill
62.
If
you're
following
along
in
your
work
session
document,
that
would
be
page
six
senate
bill
62.
Is
another
committee
sponsored
bill
on
behalf
of
the
attorney
general?
It
revises
provisions
relating
to
solicitation
contributions.
We
heard
it
on
february
17th.
E
D
E
Aware
and
familiarize
with
this
bill
also
make
some
technical
changes
to
reflect
that
these
entities
may
not
be
required
to
registers
tax-exempt
organizations
with
the
irs
or
be
organized
as
entities
that
file
with
the
secretary
of
state.
Similarly,
the
bill
revises
information
required
to
be
disclosed
in
solicitations
made
by
these
organizations.
It
makes
they're
subject
to
laws
governing
deceptive
trade
practices.
G
Yes,
ma'am
chair
my
question
regards
section
two.
If
you'll
recall,
I
had
asked
a
question
about
the.
G
G
G
Contributions
they're
patriotic,
which
would
involve
pacs
and
we're
changing
the
language
to
require
ultimately
or
we're
changing
contribution
to
mean
those
contributions
made
in
response
to
a
solicitation,
and
my
understanding
is
that,
with
this
change
in
the
language,
it
means
that
if
there
was
not
a
direct
solicitation
made,
then
it's
not
considered
a
contribution,
and
I
think
that
flies
in
the
face
of
the
the
intent
of
the
bill.
So
ms
adair
suggested
they
would
consider
an
amendment.
G
But
since
that
wasn't
put
forward,
I
think
I'm
going
to
have
to
be
a
no
on
this
bill
without
that
response.
Otherwise
it
it
obviates
the
need
for
the
distinction
between
contribution,
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
we're
limiting
contribution
to
just
those
that
are
made
in
response
to
a
solicitation,
I
think
that
undermines
the
bill.
A
G
Well,
I'm
sorry,
the
question
was:
was
there
an
intent
to
bring
a
an
amendment
before
we
have
a
floor
vote.
A
Okay,
if
the
sponsors
would
like
to
answer
that
question,
I
will
give
them
that
opportunity.
But
of
course
it's
not
you
know
it
can
still
be
amended
on
the
floor,
whether
we
pass
it
or
regardless
of
what
you
say
here
today.
D
I
A
F
Thanks
chair,
actually
I'll
wait
till
they
have
the
discussion
on
the
amendment.
The
only
question
I
had
in
addition
to
that
one.
This
was
the
secretary
of
state.
I
don't
think
they
testified
on
the
bill.
Are
they
do
you
know
if
they're?
Okay
with
this,
it
does
add
a
little
bit
of
work
to
them?
I
wonder
if
anybody
heard
from
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
A
Great,
I
saw
senator
settlemyre
also
raise
his
hand.
Please
go
ahead.
D
Thank
you
chair
and
again
that
discussion
with
secretary
of
state's
office.
They
did
not
oppose
a
bill.
They
were
neutral
and
indicated
that
there
was
no
fiscal
note
which
I
found
fascinating
because
they're
taking
on
additional
work
with
no
fiscal
note.
So
to
me
that
off,
in
my
opinion,
if
you
want
to
take
on
more
work,
you're,
obviously
in
approval
of
it,
otherwise
you
would
have
given
it
the
appropriate
fiscal
number.
D
G
D
B
We
would
maybe
want
to
pass
on
today,
so
we
can
actually
get
an
answer
to
the
amendments
and
the
way
that
I
was
looking
at
was
this:
wouldn't
this
wouldn't
necessarily
obviate
the
actual
rules
and
regulations
regarding
hack
contributions,
because
those
exist
in
a
separate
interest.
B
So
while
this
might
also
talk
about
contributions
in
the
form
of
solicitations
or
pacs,
they're
also
still
subject
to
all
the
same
nrs
requirements
and
filing
requirements
for
tax
as
those
separately
exist,
and
I
guess
if
that's
the
case,
I
don't
know
that
that
an
amendment
might
be
necessary
unless
folks
on
the
committee
would
feel
that
is.
That
is
that
that
is
the
case,
but
maybe
if
we
can
get
an
answer
to
that,
I
don't
think
there's
any
opposition
from
my
for
myself.
B
If
there's
an
amendment
needed
to
clarify
that,
but
I
don't
think
this
would
undo
the
the
other
pieces
of
nrs
that
that
require
for
pacs
to
meet
certain
reporting
requirements
and
and
filing
requirements
and
other
establishment
requirements
for
pacs.
This
just
would
also
note
that
anything-
that's
that's
done
in
solicitation
would
be
part
of
that
as
well.
I
So
let
me
respond
to
please
vice
chair.
Yes,
you,
you
are
correct.
That
is
a
correct
reading.
Vice
chair
canizarro,
regardless
of
the
whether
or
not
an
entity
holding
itself
out
as
a
charitable,
solicit
charitable
organization,
solicited
contributions,
they
would
still
be
required
to
register
with
the
secretary
of
state
under
a
section
one
of
the
bill
section
two
then
further
just
defines
contribution
in
response
to
a
solicitation.
I
I
find
it
difficult
to
think
of
a
situation
in
which
a
contribution
would
have
been
made
absent
a
solicitation,
particularly
particularly
when
we're
discussing
these
scam
organizations
that
are
constantly
soliciting
contributions
to
that
organization.
However,
I
I
do
think
that
senator
pickard's
point
is
well
taken
and
if
the
committee
wishes
to
amend
the
bill
to
remove
that
in
response
to
the
solicitation
language,
we
would
not
be
in
opposition,
but
I
think
the
vice
chair's
point
is
is
correct,
that
it
doesn't
obviate
the
intent
of
the
bill
or,
I
think,
for
all
practical
purposes.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
dare,
and
I
think
that
this
has
been
a
healthy
discussion
at
this
point
in
time.
I
will
commit
to
you
guys
that
if
we
want
to
pass
this
bill
today
without
any
amendments,
I
will
remain
open
to
an
amendment
if
it
is
indeed
necessary
in
order
to
effectuate
the
purpose
of
the
bill
at
this
time.
I
do
not
believe
it
is,
but
of
course
I
could
learn
new
information
that
would
change
that
impression.
So
at
this
point
in
time
I
will
accept
a
motion
to
pass
senate
bill.
62.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
I
said
before,
I
I
agree
that
the
intent
is
was
made
clear
in
the
original
presentation.
G
I
do
believe
that
there
are
enough,
shall
we
say,
clever
people
in
their
interpretations,
that
they
would
read
this
as
a
modification
to
the
definition
of
contribution,
so
I'll
be
a
no
today
and
would
request
that
the
verbiage
in
response
to
a
solicitation
be
stricken,
and
if
so,
then
I
would
probably
be
in
support
on
the
floor.
Thank
you.
F
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
I
honestly
in
that
one
I
don't
know
if
the
amendment's
necessary
or
not,
but
I'm
I'm
gonna
support
it
out
of
committee,
but
I
I
think
that's
something
there
should
be
a
little
discussion
on.
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
good
bill
if,
in
fact,
as
senator
pickard
points
out,
some
clever
lawyers
figure
out
a
way
to
kind
of
make
that
mean
something
that
we
need,
and
we
can't
hurt
anything
to
have
that
amendment.
But
I
will
support
the
measure
to
get
out
to
me.
Thanks
chairman.
A
C
F
G
B
A
A
E
Thanks
chair
again,
patrick
guyan,
for
the
record
senate
bill.
71
is
yet
another
bill
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
state
treasurer.
It
was
heard
in
our
committee
on
february.
3Rd
bill
revises
various
portions
of
the
uniform
unclaimed
property
act
and
I
won't
go
through
this
bullet
list,
and
the
committee
is
familiar
with
the
bill.
It
addresses
virtual
currency
and
excludes
some
currencies.
E
In
response
to
suggestions
from
members
of
the
committee
and
working
with
members
of
the
committee
state
treasurer
has
proposed
an
amendment
for
the
bill.
It's
attached
on
the
following
pages
of
the
word
session
document,
I
would
just
note
that
it
makes
no
revisions
to
the
original
bill
text
as
drafted,
except
by
adding
new
language
in
various
sections,
and
that
is
in
order
to
incorporate
portions
of
the
revised
uniform
unclaimed
property
act
and
very
quickly.
Those
are
as
follows.
E
E
It
adds
new
language
in
128.5,
regarding
what
information
must
be
contained
in
a
report
of
abandoned
property
and
it
revises
and
adds
new
language
in
128.590,
concerning
when
a
property
holder
who
has
paid
money
or
delivered
property
to
the
administrator,
may
file
a
claim
for
reimbursement,
and
I
believe
we
have
representatives
available
to
answer
questions
for
our
amount
of
chair.
That's
all
I.
A
Have
all
right,
thank
you.
It
looks
like
we
have
a
comment
or
a
question
from
senator
orenshall.
C
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
just
want
to
thank
treasurer
conan,
the
deputy
treasurer
and
the
administrator
of
unclaimed
property.
His
staff
have
been
really
great
to
work
with
we've
been
working
on
trying
to
bring
the
nevada
statute
closer
to
the
revised
uniform
unclaimed
property
act.
The
acronym
r-u-p-a
rupa-
and
this
is
one
of
those
bills
where
uniformity
across
state
lines
really
is
to
everyone's
benefit.
When
there
is
unclaimed
property.
Such
I
want
to
thank
the
treasurer
for
working
with
the
uniform
law
commission
on
this
amendment.
A
C
G
D
A
A
I
see
two
volunteers.
I
am
going
to
assign
this
one
to
senator
orrinshaw
because
we
still
have
to
go
back
and
assign
the
floor
statement
for
sb9
senator
harris.
Would
you
like
to
take
that
one?
A
Thank
you
so
much
and
with
that
I
believe
we
have
concluded
our
work
session.
We
have
passed
all
of
our
bills,
two
of
them
with
amendments
and
all
of
them
have
been
assigned
a
floor
statement.
I
know
we
did
public
comment
earlier
today,
but
now
that
the
public's
had
a
chance
to
watch
us
do
our
work.
I
will
open
it
up
once
again
for
a
public
comment.