►
From YouTube: 4/5/2021 - 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
A
Here-
and
we
have
everybody
present
on
this
lovely
monday
afternoon,
including
our
two
fantastic
lcb
staff
members,
patrick
guynan,
our
policy
analyst
and
nick
anthony
our
committee
council.
We
have
three
bills
up
for
hearing
today
and
I
will
start
I
will
go
in
numerical
order,
which
is
also
the
order
list
on
the
agenda,
starting
with
sb
358.
A
C
Excellent
and
thank
you,
cheers
members
of
the
committee.
I
will
begin
the
presentation,
then,
with
senate
bill
number
358,
which
deals
with
the
lawful
intercept
of
wire
communications.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
nicole
canisaro.
I
currently
represent
senate
district
six
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
with
you
this
afternoon
for
my
brief
introductory
remarks
on
senate
bill
358,
it
proposes
to
establish
that
it
is
not
unlawful
to
intercept
a
wire
communication
in
certain
circumstances.
C
I
have
with
me
as
well
meet
chio
from
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
and
matt,
or
excuse
me
and
chair
schreibel.
With
your
permission,
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
walk
through
the
bill
and
provide
some
brief
comments
and
then
turn
it
over
to
lieutenant
geo
for
some
additional
remarks,
and
then
we
would
both
be
able
to
stand
ready
to
answer
questions
that
the
committee
have.
C
By
way
of
background
information,
telecommunications
carriers
maintain
facilities
that
allow
law
enforcement
to
intercept
communications
under
a
court
order,
which
is
also
known
as
a
lawful
interception
senate
bill
358
proposes
to
expand
the
scope
of
lawful
interception
to
include
certain
emergency
situations
involving
hostages
or
where
an
individual
has
barricaded
himself
or
herself,
and
law
enforcement
does
not
have
the
ability
to
timely
obtain
a
warrant.
This
bill
expands
parameters
that
allow
for
the
recording
of
wire
communication
without
consent
under
existing
law.
The
interception
or
attempt
to
intercept
communications
is
only
allowed
in
emergency
circumstances.
C
If
the
person
has
created
a
hostage
situation,
as
you
can
imagine,
these
types
of
situations
can
often
be
not
only
dynamic
in
nature,
but
also
complicated
and
potentially
dangerous
for
those
who
are
involved
and
senate
bill.
358
is
needed
to
ensure
that
law
enforcement
personnel
are
not
criminally
or
civilly
liable
for
intercepting
or
attempting
to
intercept
those
communications
when
they
are
involved
in
those
situations
involving
a
barricaded,
individual
or
hostages.
C
This
is
this.
Bill
is
done
in
an
effort
to
ensure
that
we
can
not
only
safely
address
these
situations
but
can
also
timely
address
them.
I
mean
I
am
going
to
at
this
point.
Chair
schreibel
turn
the
presentation
over
to
lieutenant
geo,
who
will
be
able
to
provide
some
additional
remarks
and
some
background
on
the
purpose
and
and
the
reasons
why
senate
bill
358
is
a
necessary
piece
of
legislation,
lieutenant
geo
when
you're
ready.
D
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
My
name
is
lieutenant
nate
cheo
last
name
is
chio,
I'm
currently
a
lieutenant
with
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
hoyt
here
for
the
last
25
years.
My
current
assignment
is
the
lieutenant
of
the
special
investigations
section,
and
I
am
also
the
crisis
negotiation
team
leader,
which
is
the
unit
that
responds
with
the
lvlpd
swat
teams
on
barricaded
suspects,
armed
suicidal
subjects,
hostage,
crisis
situations
and
also
terroristic
threats.
D
The
reason
that
we
are
in
support
of
this
bill
and
the
reason
why
we
have
brought
this
bill
forward
is
that,
in
a
attempt
for
transparency
for
the
police
department,
we
want
to
be
able
to
record
these
conversations
so
that
there's
no
misunderstandings
and
there's
no
miscommunications
between
the
negotiators
and
the
suspects
that
may
be
barricaded
or
have
taken
hostages.
D
It
is
critical
for
the
as
a
cnt
member
to
be
able
to
during
the
event
multiple
times
the
suspect
may
hang
up
and
communication
has
to
be
re-established
at
a
later
time.
But
during
that
time,
having
a
recorded
conversation,
we
can
review
that
statement
and
those
conversations
to
try
to
get
some
insight
on
how
to
gain
rapport
and
how
to
better
communicate
with
the
suspect
or
the
barricaded
suspect
inside
the
residence
in
an
effort
for
transparency
once
the
event
is
over.
D
The
problem
that
we
have
seen
in
my
experience
as
a
negotiator,
I
was
on
the
negotiator
team
for
several
years
prior
to
my
promotion,
to
lieutenant
and
have
just
recently
taken
over
as
a
team
leader
was,
as
you
are,
trying
to
establish
communication
with
these
suspects.
That
is
the
hardest
challenge.
Usually
the
people
that
are
barricaded
or
that
have
taken
hostages
are
in
a
state
of
crisis,
which
means
that
their
their
rational
reasoning
is
at
a
state
right
now,
where
they
do
not
have
their
their
they're
based
on
emotion.
D
So
try
to
establish
communication
is
very
hard
when
the
first
thing
that
you
have
to
say
because
of
the
wire
the
current
law
is
hello.
This
require
this
conversation
is
being
recorded.
That's
right
there.
There
have
been
instances
that
I
have
been
part
of
where
the
suspect
immediately
hangs
up,
because
of
that.
Prior
to
this
legislative
session,
it
was
not
worth
the
risk
of
not
being
able
to
establish
the
rapport
of
having
that
disclaimer.
D
Putting
that
out
there
to
the
suspect,
because
that
is
our
main
goal
is
to
try
to
establish
that
communication.
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
say
that
this
bill
is
not
going
to
get
rid
of
a
single
party
con
or
dual
party
consent.
It
is
just
for
these
emergency
situations
that
are
high
crisis
and
very
critical,
and
each
time
we
go
on
one
of
these
situations
and
there
is
a
life
in
the
balance
and
a
chance
to
save
a
life
for
our.
C
Team
in
closing
matt
in
closing,
chair
scheimel
and
members
of
the
committee.
We
want
to
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
this
brief
presentation
on
senate
bill
358
and
now
stand
ready
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
or
members
of
the
committee
may
have.
B
B
Is
that
because
what
I
don't
understand
is
this
all
seems
totally
reasonable.
Why
does
the
poor
lieutenant
have
to
ask
permission
basically
to
record
a
conversation
in
a
situation
like
that?
So
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
does
metro
have
some
kind
of
policy
now
that
does
not
allow
them
to
use
stingray
type
technologies
to
to
both
find
the
people
and
then
listen
to
their
conversations.
D
D
I'm
sorry
lieutenant
nate
cheo
from
the
las
vegas
midpoint
police
department,
carpenter
via
the
u.s
dealt
with
cell
site
location
information,
which
basically
meant
that
the
police
department
had
to
gain
a
warrant
to
get
the
location
of
a
suspect
using
cell
site
information
in
this
instance.
The
reason
why
we
have
to
ask
for
permission
is
because
of
the
current
nevada
law
that
says
that
both
parties
must
consent
absent
a
wiretap
order
for
their
conversation
to
be
recorded.
B
Okay,
so
this
is,
this
is
a
nevada
state
law.
This
is
nothing
to
do
with
carpenter
versus
us,
then
okay.
Well,
I
just
want
to
get
get
that
that
on
on
the
record,
because
you
know
I
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
constant
expansion
of
surveillance
techniques,
the
electronic
surveillance
stuff,
that's
becoming
increasingly
sophisticated
and,
frankly
kind
of
tempting
for
law
enforcement
to
probably
use
without
a
search
warrant.
So
thank
you
madame
vice
chair,
too,
the
bill
seems
completely
reasonable,
chair
scheibel.
E
Thank
you
madame
or
madam
chair.
I
I
agree.
This
seems
reasonable.
I
guess
I
had
a
different
take
on
nrs
200
620,
because
I
thought
that
you
had
a
72
hour
window
at
in
well
once
the
emergency
has
identified,
it
was
my
understanding
that
under
sub
1b,
you
had
the
ability
to
capture
these
conversations
without
the
consent.
That's
required.
The
two-party
consent
that's
required,
and
then
I
think
it's
sub-three
that
talks
about
a
72-hour
window.
E
D
From
a
practical
standpoint,
sir,
you
are
absolutely
correct.
There
is
a
a
a
subsection
in
the
current
law.
I'm
sorry
at
this
lieutenant
ago
from
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
There
is
a
current
exception
in
the
law,
where
you
have
a
72
hour
ratification
period.
However,
within
that
law,
that
ratification
can
be
affirmed
or
denied,
and
it
also
with
that
time
period,
the
cnt
team
is
a
part-time
auxiliary
position.
D
I
have
a
full-time
job
as
a
special
investigation
section
and
then
in
my
I
also
lead
the
cnt
team
on
these
high-end
high
incident
crisis
and
for
every
member
of
my
team.
They
also
have
full-time
jobs
either
as
detectives
supervisors.
Things
like
that.
So
as
with
that
72-hour
window,
it's
just
a
little
bit
of
a
challenge
for
us
at
times.
If
we
are
to
declare
an
emergency
and
have
that
ratification
period
to
get
it
within
the
72
hours
because
of
what
may
be
going
on.
D
For
instance,
last
year
we
had
to
deal
with
the
civil
unrest
and
everybody
was
at
work
for
long
periods
of
time,
and
the
other
part
that
is
a
challenge
is
that
it
may
be
denied
a
later
time.
If
someone
decides
that
it
wasn't
really
an
emergency
at
this
point,
so
there
is
a
chance
that
it
could
be
challenged
and
overturned
so,
which
is
why
we're
just
asking
for,
in
this
very
narrow
instance
and
in
circumstances
that
we
are
allowed
to
just
record.
E
And
I
appreciate
that
I
guess
when
I
was
looking
at
this,
I'm
thinking
you
know
I'm
I
I
know
well,
one
district
court
judge
who's
regularly
on
the
warrants
and
and
tpo
rotation,
so
she's
awakened
at
the
odd
hours
of
the
morning,
sometimes
to
issue
these
kind
of
warrants,
and
so
I
I
don't
think
that
there's
a
a
problem,
at
least
on
the
judicial
side
of
this
equation,
and
it
was
always
my
impression
that
the
the
review
process
that
72-hour
window
was
a
check
against,
maybe
and
not
that
metro
ever
applies
or
requests
these
warrants
without
justification.
E
But
you
know
if
there
maybe
wasn't
really
the
emergency
that
they
expected
it
does
you
know
it's
a
check
on
that
system.
So
if
I
understand
your
statement,
then
this
is
limited
to
barricaded
the
barricade
situations
or
hostage
situations
where
you
don't
want
the
possibility
of
that
that
check
coming
back
and
invalidating
the
the
recording,
which
would
then
make
it
unusable
in
the
proceedings.
Is
that
correct.
D
That
is
correct,
sir.
In
an
example
a
real
life
example.
D
I
can
give
you
right
now
is
two
days
ago
we
were
involved
in
an
armed
barricade
with
a
homicide
suspect
this
homicide
suspect
had
fired
rounds
from
inside
the
the
house
at
police
officers
and
at
us
during
that
conversation,
although
he
would
not
because
of
some
technical
difficulties,
we
weren't
able
to
capture
the
the
conversation
because
he
had
shot
at
the
robot,
but
if
this
barricade
had
gone
on
and
we
had
captured
that
conversation
and
it
was
later
challenged
in
court
that
may
jeopardize
the
ensuing
murder
trial
or
anything
like
that.
E
Sure,
but
are
you
suggesting
that
the
judge
would
probably
have
invalidated
that
that
that
didn't
constitute
an
emergency
such
that
it
only
took
the
the
the
officer
and
the
the
affidavit
and
the
request
within
72
hours?
I,
I
would
imagine
in
that
circumstance
the
the
judge
would
readily
grant
it.
D
I
I
would
hope
so,
sir,
but
after
25
years
of
law
enforcement,
nothing
seems
to
surprise
me
anymore.
A
Sure
and
lieutenant
troy.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
myself.
The
first
one
is
about
how
often
this
occurs.
I
think
metro
keeps
those
stats.
I'm
just
wondering
how
many
barricades
the
team
runs
into
in
an
average
year.
D
Average
we're
one
of
the
busiest
cnt
teams
in
the
country.
Usually
we
average
anywhere
between
50
to
60..
This
year
was
particularly
busy
since
january.
First,
we're
already
at
23.
A
Wow
and
my
next
two
questions
are
about
the
recording
itself.
I
noticed
that
in
on
lines
41
through
44
on
page
number,
two,
it's
the
beginning
of
the
new
language.
It's
obviously
nested
within
a
section
about
peace
officers,
but
it
actually
says
that
it's
not
unlawful.
A
If
the
person
is
intercepting
the
communication
of
a
person
who
has
and
then
spells
out
the
sub
sections-
and
I'm
wondering
if
that's
because
you
guys
do
employ
crisis
negotiators
and
other
professionals
who
might
not
actually
be
peace
officers
but
who
are
engaged
in
these
conversations
with
with
subjects.
D
Yes,
so
within
our
cnt
team,
we
do
have
civilians
on
my
team
right
now
I
have
a
civilian
psychologist
as
part
of
the
team.
I
have
another
civilian,
that's
a
trained
mental
health
professional,
although
she's
not
a
psychologist,
she
is
a
mental
health
professional
and
I
have
also
another
civilian
that
is
an
investigative
specialist
who
is
a
civilian
counterpart
of
a
detective.
A
And
so
that
brings
me
to
my
last
question,
which
is
that
it
just
occurs
to
me
that
it
seems
like
this
could
also
be
a
great
training
tool
to
be
able
to
have
these
conversations
recorded.
For
you
know
future
crisis
negotiators
and
I'm
wondering
if
that's
something
that
you
already
do
or
would
consider
doing
with
these
recordings
or
if
I'm
off
base.
D
D
In
fact,
later
on
this
month,
we
are
having
a
negotiator
basic
school
to
try
to
bring
new
candidates
up
to
the
team
and
a
lot
of
our
case
studies
are
using
some
of
those
recorded
conversations
that
are
just
face
to
face
or
ones
where
the
suspect
has
called
into
9-1-1
and
where
we
are
able
to
record
those,
because
he
has
called
into
the
9-1-1
system.
But
you
are
absolutely
correct.
This
is
a
great
training
tool
for
us
to
use.
A
F
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
question.
I
was
just
kind
of
curious
within
this
aspect.
If
you
obtain
any
information
and
it's
utilized
also
what's
the
penalty,
so
let's
say
that
you
know
you
think
it's
for
a
barricade
or
something
like
that
and
ends
out.
You
know
you
obtain
other
information
and
somehow
it
gets
leaked.
You
know
to
the
general
public
and
it
causes
damage.
You
know
somebody
said
something
inappropriate
or
of
that
nature.
D
Lieutenant
hgo
from
my
understanding,
this
actual
200.4620
or
I'm
sorry,
200
0.620.
It's
a
felony
to
to
break
this
law,
so
there
are
consequences
for
that.
What
I
will
say
is
we
don't
take
barricaded
subjects
in
situations
lightly.
D
Usually
my
team
and
the
swat
team
does
not
get
called
out
to
a
barricaded
suspect
for
at
least
an
hour
or
so
into
the
event,
and
as
only
after
the
patrol
officers
and
everyone
have
tried
every
kind
of
diffusing
de-escalation
technique
that
they
can
to
convince
this
person
to
come
out
the
only
time
that
we
get
deployed
there
in
the
four
years
as
a
crisis,
negotiation
team
member
and
in
the
last
four
or
five
months
that
I've
been
the
crisis
negotiation
team
leader,
I
could
say
in
my
practical
experience-
there's
never
been
a
situation
where
it's
not
an
actual
barricaded
suspect,
and
this
law
does
clearly
define
what
a
barricaded
suspect
is.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
curious.
Let
me
be
a
little
more
frank,
so,
in
other
words,
I'm
thinking
of
the
old
argument
of
fruit
for
the
poisonous
tree
with
evidence.
Is
this
information
necessary
to
get
individuals
out
of
harm's
way,
or
would
this
information
also
be
admissible
in
a
court
of
law
in
order
to
convict
someone
of
crimes
or
someone
else's
crimes
in
that
matter?
Or
is
this
only
information
pertinent
and
only
usable
to
defuse
the
situation.
D
Lieutenant
natrio
to
an
answer
to
that
question
anytime,
that
we
are
going
to
be
using
this
and
making
a
recording.
We
are
creating
evidence,
so
it
is
something
that
would
be
used
in
the
proceeding
or
the
the
judicial
process.
Afterwards,
we
would
be
every
time
we
do
a
recording
or
anything
like
that.
Even
our
reports
are
all
discoverable.
We
turn
them
over
to
the
case
agents
and
they
are
discoverable
to
the
defense.
A
All
right,
I
see
senator
pickers
hand
back
up.
We
have
time
so
I'll.
Let
you
do
a
second
round
go
ahead.
E
Thank
you,
church
scheible.
That
question
just
spurred
a
question
in
my
mind,
but
this
would
necessarily
create
a
presumption
of
admissibility
for
evidence
that
the
the
judge
in
the
criminal
trial
felt
was
truly
fruit
of
the
poisonous
tree.
E
Just
because
we're
removing
this
from
the
criminal
statute
as
to
the
interception,
it
doesn't
mean
that
that
it
would
deprive
the
court
of
discretion
to
if,
if
the
court
felt
that
it
was
inappropriate
that
the
emergency
didn't-
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
likely,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
through
the
the
logic
that
the
court,
the
criminal
court
could
then
say.
No,
I
don't
agree.
This
wasn't
an
emergency
we're
going
to
exclude
this
evidence
if
the
judge
thought
that
was
the
right
thing
to
do.
E
This
wouldn't
create
a
presumption
in
that
respect.
Would
it.
D
Lieutenant
nature
I'll
I'll
have
to
defer
to
senator
canozzaro
on
those
kind
of
legal
questions.
I
don't
think
so
from
my
understanding
as
a
law
enforcement
professional,
but
I
would
I
would
defer
to
someone
that
practices
law
and
and
has
a
law
degree
on
that
one.
C
C
Generally,
that
happens
in
motion
practice.
Typically,
you
know
you
may
see
that
in
a
defective
warrant.
For
example,
if
there
was
an
actually
probable
cause
and
the
court
would
later
defined
that,
then
anything
that
had
been
found
as
a
result
of
the
execution
of
that
warrant
would
be
deemed
fruit
of
the
poisonous
tree.
So
evidence
of
a
crime
that
had
been
committed
would
be
suppressed
in
in
the
court
of
law.
C
What
this
is
saying
is
that
that
actual
wire
interception
which
we're
seeking
to
to
allow
to
happen
in
these
very
narrow
circumstances,
where
there's
a
barricade
or
where
there
is
a
hostage
situation
that
those
wire
interceptions-
it's
not
unlawful
for
them
to
obtain
the
wire
interceptions.
Now,
if,
in
the
course
of
that
there
were
some
other
intervening
instances
that
might
arise,
potentially
you
have
a
an
argument
under
the
fourth
amendment
or
under
some
other
statutory
provision
that
it
should
be
excluded,
and
nothing
about.
C
C
C
But
what
this
is
saying
is
that
it's
not,
I
don't
know
if
I
would
call
it
a
presumption
necessarily,
but
that
obtaining
this
wirecep
in
and
of
itself
is
not
an
illegal
user
of
some
kind.
Although
I
don't
know
if
I
would
characterize
it
that
way,
this
wouldn't
prevent
a
court
from
obviously
litigating
some
of
those
other
issues.
But
realistically,
I
think,
that's
in
part.
C
A
decision
for
this
committee
to
make
is
whether
or
not
these
situations
are
of
such
a
nature,
that
we
would
want
to
make
sure
that
they
are
recorded
if
there
was
evidence
of
a
crime
that
occurred,
or
this
particular
intercept
provides.
Evidence
of
a
crime
that
occurred
certainly
likely
would
want
to
be
admitted
admissible
at
trial,
and
there
could
always
be
motion
practice
to
suppress
that
on
grounds.
That
would
ultimately
be
up.
E
All
right,
thank
you.
I
just
you
know
and-
and
I
I
defer
to
you
on
this-
obviously
you
practice
in
this
area.
I
just
was
going
back
to
the
thought
that
that
72-hour
ratification
was,
in
my
view,
the
check
on
the
ability
of
law
enforcement
to
step
over
that
line,
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
still
had
a
check
in
place.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
that.
Thank
you
for
your
response
and
thank
you.
Church
idol.
G
G
B
Thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
mike
cathcart
c-a-t-h
c-a-r-t,
representing
the
city
of
henderson.
First,
I
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
sponsoring
this
legislation
and
the
metropolitan
police
department
for
assisting
with
the
presentation.
We
believe
this
would
be
a
a
good
tool
for
law
enforcement
and
we
are.
G
B
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorneys
association,
that's
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s!
We
too
want
to
thank
senator
leader
canezaro
for
bringing
this
bill.
Sb
358
provides
a
very
narrow
exception
to
our
wire
intercept
statute
in
very
serious
volatile
situations,
and
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
G
G
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley
e-r-I-c-s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y,
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
358
and
appreciate
the
majority
leader
bringing
this
important
bill
today.
We
also
thank
metro
for
the
great
presentation
and
information
and
this
committee
for
considering
this
bill.
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,.
G
G
F
G
G
I
Good
afternoon
cherish
eyeball
vice
chair
countazaro
and
members
of
the
pitts
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
corey
soltarino
at
c-o-r-e-y
last
of
s's,
and
sam
o-l
f
is
in
frank
e-r-I-n-o
and
I
represent
the
washington
county
sheriff's
office.
We
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
senator
canezaro
for
bringing
this
piece
of
legislation
forward
and
we
encourage
your
support
of
sb
358.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
G
G
J
The
primary
reason
we're
in
opposition
of
sb
358
is
it's
entirely
unnecessary.
Police
already
have
the
power
to
do
this
when
there
is
an
emergency
situation
that
exists.
It's
interesting
that
lieutenant
theo
described
and
used
the
word
emergency
in
in
letting
us
know
why
this
is
necessary.
J
G
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
I
will
go
back
to
our
sponsor
and
presenter
vice
chair
hanazar.
Do
you
have
any
closing
remarks.
C
I
think
one
of
the
important
pieces
of
this
is
that
these
hostage
and
barricade
situations
are
not
only
are
not
only
dangerous
but
also
very
dynamic,
in
that
they
are
often
met
with,
as
you
heard,
from
lieutenant
chio
a
number
of
individuals,
some
of
whom
are
law
enforcement,
some
of
whom
are
law
or
mental
health
professionals
and
the
ability
to
make
sure
that
there
are
recordings
of
what
is
happening
in
these
situations.
C
Not
only
protect
all
of
the
parties
involved
on
the
law
enforcement
side
and
those
involved
from
a
medical
professional
standpoint,
but
also
from
the
individuals
who
are
involved
in
these
situations
as
well
to
ensure
that
everything-
that's
that's
happening
with
respect
to
these
departments
in
the
mental
health
professionals
and
the
other
individuals
who
may
be
part
of
these
situations
really
are
what
we
expect
of
of
them
in
those
situations.
C
A
All
right,
in
that
case
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
358
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
sb
359,
which
is
also
being
presented
by
our
vice
chair
of
judiciary
and
majority
leader,
senator
cannizzaro.
C
Thank
you,
chair
scheinball,
and
members
of
the
committee
again
for
the
record.
My
name
is
nicole
cannasaro.
I
currently
serve
as
a
senator
from
senate
district
six,
which
is
located
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley.
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
today
to
present
for
your
consideration
senate
bill
359,
which
establishes
and
enhanced
establishes
enhanced
penalties
for
illegal
drug
manufacturing
that
results
ultimately
in
a
fire
or
explosion.
C
Senate
bill
359
is
a
fairly
simple
bill.
It
establishes
an
enhanced
penalty
for
those
manufacturing
or
compounding
a
controlled
substance
other
than
marijuana,
and
includes
language
that
if
a
fire
explosion
occurs
as
a
result
of
the
manufacturing
or
compounding
of
a
controlled
substance,
in
addition
to
those
other
those
other
penalties
in
law,
those
individuals
are
also
guilty
of
the
crime
of
arson,
depending
on
the
degree
that
is
contained
within
the
nrs.
Currently
chair
schreibel.
C
I
will
note
that
I
have
with
me
today
dan
heenan,
who
is
the
assistant
fire
chief
with
the
clark
county
fire
department,
who
can
further
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
issue
and
the
reasons
why
senate
bill
359
are
and
the
reasons
why
we
need.
We
believe
that
through
senate
bill,
359
is
a
necessary
piece
of
legislation,
and
I
did
want
to
note
for
members
of
the
committee
that
I
did
receive
some
correspondence
from
the
from
john
piero
from
the
public
defender's
office
today.
C
That
was
indicating
some
just
some
requests
to
ensure
that
the
bill
was
one
not
meant
to
get
at
current
legal
marijuana
manufacturers.
I
wanted
to
ensure
the
committee
that
we'll
and
we'll
make
sure
that
the
bill
is
not
sort
of
touching
on
those
particular
industries.
I'm
certainly
not
our
intent
to
include
some
of
that
and
then
also
to
in
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
over
clarity
of
which
degree
of
arson
in
senate
bill
359.
C
It
does
indicate
that
it
would
be
the
degree
of
arson,
205
and
the
varying
degrees
of
arson.
It
does
depend
on
what
type
of
property
is
if
it's
abandoned
or
it's
occupied.
If
it's
a
structure,
if
it's
personal
property-
and
so
I
believe
that
that
is
what
the
bill
is
intending
to
get
at
when
it
refers
to
the
proper
degree
of
arson-
that
it
would
be
dependent
upon
the
same
factors
that
you
already
see
in
chapter
205.
C
So
I
did
want
to
note
that
for
the
record,
because
I
I
did
receive
some
communication
with
mr
pirro
and
have
not
had
a
chance
to
make
sure
that
that
is
clear
in
the
bill.
But
with
your
permission,
chair
schreiber.
What
I
would
like
to
do
at
this
point
is
to
turn
it
over
to
chief
keenan,
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
reasons
for
senate
bill
359.
And
then
we
would
be
willing
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
or.
K
Members
good
afternoon,
maybe
again,
okay,
good
afternoon
senators.
Thank
you
very
much
for
allowing
me
a
little
a
few
minutes
to
speak
on
this
topic
and
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
cannon
zero
for
introducing
this
bill
where
we
have.
The
reason
behind
this
bill
is
that,
obviously,
throughout
nevada's
history
we've
had,
especially
in
the
last
decade
or
so,
we've
had
problems
with
illegal
drug
manufacturing,
specifically
back
in
the
day.
Methamphetamine
and
methamphetamine
production
is
exceedingly
dangerous.
K
It's
exceeding
dangerous
in
how
they
produce
it,
because
there's
so
many
volatile
chemicals.
We
now
see
it
reoccurring
in
this
va
in
the
valley,
las
vegas
valley
and
throughout
the
state,
with
the
illegal
production
of
marijuana
grows
and
then
the
illegal
production
of
butane,
hash,
oil
and
I'll
speak
to
each
one
of
those
separately.
If
I
may
step
back
for
a
second,
my
my
position
here
is
the
assistant
fire
chief
of
the
clark
county
fire
department
and
I
oversee
the
fire
investigations,
division
commonly
referred
to
as
the
arson
arson
unit.
K
So
that's
the
genesis
and
the
background
of
of
where
I
come
from
this
speaking
specifically
to
this
bill
right
now
throughout
the
throughout
the
las
vegas
valley,
specifically,
but
throughout
the
state,
when
somebody
does
an
illegal
marijuana
grow
and
I'm
not
referring
to
the
the
legal
manufacturing
that
we
now
allow
in
the
state.
But
the
illegal
manufacturing
still
exists
black
market
manufacturing
and
in
many
times
what
someone
will
do
is
they'll
lease
a
house
they'll
rent
that
house
and
plant
marijuana
plants
throughout
the
whole
the
whole
the
whole
structure.
K
Anything
over
12
is
illegal,
12
plants,
no
matter
the
maturity
of
those
plants
is
illegal
and
these
people
are
planting
upwards,
2,
3,
4
500
plants
in
here.
In
order
to
sustain
that,
though,
you
need
a
lot
of
power,
you
need
a
lot
of
heat
lamps
and
you
need
a
lot
of
water
irrigation.
So
what
they're
doing
is
they're
circumventing
the
meter
and
they're
going
right
to
nv
energy's
main
supply
and
they're
tapping
in
on
that
so
they're,
basically
stealing
power
from
nb
energy.
K
This
creates
an
issue
when
the
the
house
isn't
structurally
designed
or
wattage
and
current
of
that
nature.
So
we
we
have
a
fire
develop
in
the
house
when
the
fire
department
gets
there.
One
of
their
first
missions
is
to
secure
the
power
so
that
they're
not
introducing
water
into
a
system
or
structure
that
has
electricity
in
it,
unbeknownst
to
them.
The
power
was
circumvented
and
coming
from
the
main
distribution
feed.
K
So
the
fire
department
goes
in
with
active,
hose
lines
to
put
this
fire
out
and
they
have
they
have
an
energized
compartment
that
they're
that
they're
working
in.
So
it's
a
very
dangerous
position
for
the
firefighters,
secondarily,
butane
hash
oil
has
become
bigger
and
bigger,
especially
the
illegal
manufacturing
butane
hash
oil
leads
to
massive
explosions,
and
those
explosions
result
in
thermal
injuries
to
the
person
producing
them,
but
oftentimes
to
people
outside
of
that
compartment.
K
So
outside
of
that
apartment,
maybe
an
adjoining
apartment
or
somebody
walking
by
the
most
common,
and
that's
why
it's
referred
to
butane
hash
oil.
The
most
common
is,
the
use
of
butane
and
butane
is
put
through
the
resins
of
the
marijuana
and
it
drips
down
and
produces
what's
called
wax
or
shatter,
and
some
of
this
can
be
up
to
90
thc.
So
there's
a
big
demand
for
this.
The
problem
is
butane,
hash
oil
is
exceedingly
explosive
and
it's
heavier
than
air.
K
So,
as
these
people
are,
are
pouring
the
butane,
the
butane
through
the
tube,
the
vapors
collect
at
the
ground
and
then
any
spark
or
or
accidental
ignition
source
like
a
cigarette,
a
lighting
of
a
cigarette
or
spark
from
a
refrigerator
or
an
ac
unit.
Will
then,
if
you're
in
the
explosive
limits,
create
a
massive
explosion
in
which
people
are
injured
and
killed.
K
I
was
speaking
a
few
months
ago
in
california,
at
an
arson
investigators
conference
and
the
speaker
that
followed
me
is
from
davis,
california,
where
they
also
have
legal
marijuana,
and
he
stated
somewhere
around
40
of
the
people
in
the
davis
burn
center
are
now
there
because
of
butane
hash
oil
explosions,
so
that
creates
fewer
people
in
the
in
fewer
hospital
beds
for
first
responders
or
other
people.
This
is
why
we
like
this
right
now.
Arson
is
defined
as
a
willful
and
intentional
willful
malicious.
K
So
we
have
to
prove
that
the
person
willfully
committed
this
act
to
be
charged
with
arson,
there's
no
methamphetamine
user
or
manufacturer
or
legal
drug
person
that
will
intentionally
blow
up
their
lab,
but
the
resulting
danger
is
massive
to
the
first
responders
and
the
community
at
large.
K
So
we
wanted
to
add
that
when
some
gross
negligence
like
this
is
occurring
that
if
there
is
an
arsenal
or
explosion,
it
results
in
whatever
degree
that
senator
cannizzaro
spoke
about
of
arson,
would
would
be
predominantly
there,
and
that's
all
I
have
at
this
point
but
I'll
answer.
Questions
when
asked.
C
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
that
I
was
just
kind
of
curious.
This
still
wouldn't
prevent
an
individual,
let's
say
who
had
marijuana
or
hemp
that
ended
up
not
being
able
to
be
harvested
either
due
to
the
fact
that
it
was
so
low.
It
was
not
advantageous
or
so
high
that
it
was
hemp
was
ruled
too
high,
which
puts
it
in
the
marijuana
category
a
lot
of
them.
You
know,
say
you
have
to
plow
it
back
in,
but
this
wouldn't
preclude
someone
from
spraying
the
field
and
burning
it
before
plowing
it
correct.
K
K
I
I
don't
think
that
would
that
would
even
come
close
to
reaching
the
concept
behind
what
we're
doing
we're
looking
at
illegal
manufacturing
and
production,
normally
within
a
structure,
because
that's
where
you're
going
to
get
the
explosive
limits.
If
people
do
stuff
like
this
outside,
I
can't
imagine
where
you
would
have
an
explosion,
but
there
could
be
a
fire,
but
I
don't
think
that
fits
the
concept
of
what
we're
looking
for
in
this
one.
F
Okay,
just
wanted
to
get
down
the
record.
I
was
specifically
looking
at
the
last
page
page
four.
In
addition,
any
other
punishment
that
would
be
imposed
if
you
manufacture,
grow
plant,
cultivate
harvest,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
again,
it's
not
considered
arson
as
long
as
it
is
your
own
property
and
it
was
strictly
for
agricultural
purposes
anyways
just
making
sure,
because
I
don't
want
to
see
that
particular
section
of
law
change
anyway.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair.
G
G
B
Thank
you
chair
shy,
bull
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorneys
association,
that's
j,
o
h,
n,
j,
o
n
e
s.
We
are
here
in
support
of
sb
359
and
want
to
thank
leader,
canazarro
and
assistant
chief
henan
for
bringing
the
bill.
Thank
you.
G
G
G
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
and
we
are
in
opposition,
but
we
do
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
hearing
some
of
our
concerns,
because
arson
involves
willful
and
malicious
conduct
and
there's
four
different
degrees
of
arson.
We're
concerned
about
how
arson
is
referenced
here.
I
will
point
the
committee.
However,
there
is
a
statute.
I
G
G
G
J
S-A-R-A-H-H-A-W-K-I-N-S,
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
nevada
attorneys,
for
criminal
justice
in
opposition
of
sb
359.
For
a
couple
of
reasons.
First
and
foremost,
this
kind
of
conduct
is
already
covered
by
the
myriad
statutes
contained
in
chapter
453
of
the
nevada,
revised
statutes.
It
defines
manufacturing.
J
J
In
addition
to
that,
it
poses
some
danger
to
hold
folks
responsible
who
don't
have
any
responsibility
for
the
fire
that
occurs.
Let's
say,
for
example,
you
have
a
person
who
is
running
a
lab,
which
is
a
dangerous
situation
we
will
acknowledge,
but
that
person
goes
out
is
going
about
their
business
and
a
competing
drug
dealer
sets
fire
to
the
lab.
J
Now,
all
of
a
sudden,
the
person
who
owns
the
building,
who
was
in
charge
of
the
lab,
has
an
arson
charge
on
top
of
everything
else,
even
though
that
person
did
not
engage
in
that
criminal
conduct,
we
should
never
be
in
a
position
where
we
are
punishing
someone
for
something
they
did
not
do.
We
should
not
be
supporting
strict
liability.
Crimes
like
this
would
be.
J
G
G
J
J
G
A
Thank
you
very
much
majority
leader
cannizzaro.
Do
you
have
any
closing
remarks.
C
C
We
have
definitely
heard
some
of
the
points
in
opposition
and
are
going
to
reach
out
to
those
parties
trying
to
see
if
we
can
come
to
some
sort
of
consensus
and
definitely
appreciate
assistant
chief
heaton
being
here
to
help
present
the
bill
and
hoping
to
come
back
with
something
that
will
make
sense
and
help
us
to
target
individuals.
Who
really
are,
I
think,
putting
our
community
at
risk.
So
thank
you
for
giving
us
the
time.
A
C
Thank
you,
church,
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
your
indulgence
on
this
this
third
bill
today.
I
definitely
appreciate
it
again
for
the
record.
My
name
is
nicole
canazzaro.
I
am
the
senator
from
senate
district
six
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
here
to
present
to
you
at
this
time
senate.
C
Healthcare
providers
work
in
conjunction
with
fire
departments,
to
report
specific
levels
and
types
of
burns,
as
outlined
in
nrs
629.045.
The
clark
county
fire
department,
for
example,
is
the
seventh
busiest
fire
department
in
our
country
and
its
personnel
serve
as
first
responders
to
aid
in
many
of
these
burn
victims
every
year.
C
As
a
brief
bill,
summary
chair,
scheible
before
turning
it
over
to
dan
hayden,
and
we
also
have
representatives
from
umc
here
as
well
to
shed
some
light
on
this
issue
and
the
reasons
for
bringing
senate
bill
372..
C
I
would
like
to
walk
just
briefly
through
a
very
a
brief
introduction
of
the
bill
as
written,
because
firearm
apartments
in
nevada
are
busy
with
numerous
responsibilities
senate
bill,
372
refines
the
reporting
process
for
burn
injuries,
while
not
all
injuries
are
attributed
to
arson.
There
is
still
some
level
of
investigation
that
is
required
in
each
case.
This
bill
establishes
steps
that
need
to
be
followed
after
a
burn.
Injury
occurs.
Primarily,
it
extends
the
necessary
time
frame
from
three
to
seven
working
days
to
report
an
injury
to
the
state
fire
marshal.
C
It
also
limits
the
type
of
burns
required
to
be
reported
by
the
health
care
provider
after
treating
a
burn
victim.
Ultimately,
this
will
facilitate
more
focused,
in-depth
investigations
into
only
those
incidents
that
require
it,
while
lessening
the
burden
on
healthcare
providers
and
first
responders
to
report
some
incidences
unnecessarily
here.
Schreibel
at
this
point
in
time,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
heenan
to
provide
some
additional
remarks
before
moving
on
to
our
folks
joining
us
from
umc.
K
Thank
you
senator
and
thank
you
again
senators
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
My
name
is
dan
heenan
h-e-e-n-a-n
and
I'm
the
assistant
fire
chief
with
the
clark
county
fire
department.
I've
been
here
for
three
years
and
prior
to
that
I
was
a
special
agent
for
the
department
of
justice
bureau
of
alcohol,
tobacco
and
firearms
for
30
years.
K
The
reason
we
brought
this
I
asked
senator
kennedy
zero
and
had
meetings
with
her
about
bringing
this
bill
forward
is
that
the
current
bill
is
is
overly
broad.
I've
had
numerous
sit-down
meetings
now
with
the
doctors
at
the
umc
burn
center,
who
are
going
to
be
here
to
speak
today
and
then
the
burn
manager
of
the
umc
burn
center.
It's
the
only.
I
don't
want
to
say
recognized
because
I
know
there's
other
burn
centers,
but
it's
only
certified
burn
center
in
the
state
of
nevada.
K
One
of
the
things
that
happens
under
the
current
the
current
statute
is
that
certain
burns
are
required
to
be
reported
within
three
days
and
three
days
is
a
quick
turnaround,
especially
for
the
number
of
victims
that
they're
seeing
in
their
burn
center.
So
one
of
the
conversations
we
had
was
that
if
we
could
do
it
every
seven
days,
that
would
help
them
push
this
out.
K
The
other
thing
is
that
currently
we
have
to
use
the
nevada
state
fire
marshal's
form,
which
here
in
the
in
a
city
of
or
in
a
valley,
southern
valley
we
like
to
go
to
an
electronic
forum,
so
we've
sat
down
with
umc
and
developed
our
own
form,
that's
going
to
be
that's
agreed
upon
by
henderson
fire
department,
north
las
vegas
fire
department,
clark,
county
fire
department
and
las
vegas
fire
and
rescue
that
will
alleviate
this.
The
hospitals
from
having
to
create
different
forms
for
everybody.
K
We'll
just
have
one
forum
valley-wide
that
we
can
work
on.
This
was
profit
through
the
southern
nevada
arsenal
task
force
that
we
formulated
down
here,
in
which
we
bring
all
the
fire
investigation,
fire
investigation,
divisions
together
and
work
toward.
The
final
thing
is
that
under
nrs
475.125,
it's
mandatory
reporting
that
if
the
umc
burn
center
or
any
other
burn
center
reports,
an
injury
to
us,
we
are
mandated
to
investigate
that.
What
we'd
like
to
do
is
change.
K
The
word
shall
to
may
and
then
allow
the
manager
of
the
fire
investigation
division
to
determine
whether
that
really
needs
investigating
a
lot
of
times.
What
we
do
is
we
rely
upon
the
nurses
and
the
doctors
in
the
in
the
burn
centers
to
tell
us
that
the
burn
injuries
that
are
being
reported
match
the
description
and
story
presented
by
the
victim
when
they
don't
that's
time,
for
the
investigators
to
come
in
and
do
their
interviews
and
do
their
background.
K
We
don't
believe
this
warrants
an
investigation,
so
they
can
still
send
that
information
to
us,
we'll
categorize
it
and
we'll
have
it
in
case
there
was
a
subsequent
injury,
but
for
the
most
part,
that'll
allow
us
to
manage
our
our
time
and
only
respond
to
those
fires
where
we're
actually
actually
needed.
It's
also
overly
broad
about
what
type
of
injuries
it
is.
K
So
we
want
to
change
it
to
open
flame
and
flash
fires,
because
the
way
it's
written,
it
could
be
construed
that
if
somebody
will
have
a
massive
third
degree
or
a
massive
sunburn
over
five
percent
of
their
body,
that
that
would
have
to
be
reported.
So
I'll
defer
to
the
doctor
to
speak
about
some
of
the
other
aspects
of
what
should
and
shouldn't
be
reported
in.
In
our
opinion
and
I'd
like
to.
Thank
you
guys
for
allowing
me
to
make
my
statement.
L
Thank
you
sheriff
schreible
vice
chair
canizaro,
chief
heenan
and
dr
sakib.
My
name
is
jason
conaway,
I'm
a
registered
nurse
with
over
11
years
experience
in
burn
care
and
I'm
currently
the
burn
program
manager
at
the
lions
burn
care
center
here
at
university
medical
center
in
southern
nevada,
in
las
vegas.
L
We
are
fully
verified
by
the
american
burn
association,
the
governing
body
for
burn
care,
which
also
sets
forth
guidelines
and
best
practices.
Advanced
practices
is
why
we're
here
today,
the
changes
proposed
today
will
provide
a
more
targeted
reporting
on
burn
injuries
caused
by
flame,
flash
and
explosions.
L
Currently,
the
bill
does
not
delineate
any
mechanism
of
injury
as
chipping
mentioned
earlier.
It
requires
reporting
of
all
types
of
burn
injuries,
including
scald
contact
burns
and
friction
burns.
So
the
person
making
hot
soup
that
spills,
the
pot
of
boiling
water
on
themselves
and
sustains
a
burn
gets
reported.
L
L
For
some
perspective,
on
how
many
reports,
with
the
current
verbiage
in
the
spill
out
of
the
1396
patients
who
served
in
2020,
there
were
290
patients
that
met
criteria
for
reporting
under
the
proposed
language.
The
number
would
drop
to
140
patients
representing
over
a
50
decrease
in
reporting.
What
does
that
mean
on
the
front
line?
It
will
allow
for
more
efficient
utilization
of
resources
at
umc.
For
instance,
we
have
a
multi-period
process
for
identifying
and
extracting
information
for
this
report,
which
can
take
upwards
of
one
to
two
budgeted
hours
per
day.
L
Another
change
for
quotes
in
this
bill
include
the
use
of
the
of
an
approved
form
by
the
local
fire
departments.
As
gpn
mentioned,
the
update
the
updated
form
would
integrate
seamlessly
with
the
change
stated
earlier,
allowing
for
standardization
flexibility
and
cooperation
and
coordination
amongst
affected
parties.
L
Given
the
many
benefits,
I
strongly
encourage
you
all
to
consider
passage
of
the
revised
provision
of
this
bill.
Doing
so
means
you
will
be
making
a
direct
positive
impact
on
how
we
use
public
resources,
provide
outreach
and
education
work
within
particular
budget
restraints
and
benefit
the
health
and
well-being
of
all
nevadans
and
visitors.
H
Thank
you.
Oh
yes,
man
good
afternoon,
my
name
is
syed
sakeet
s-a-q-u-y-b.
H
Thank
you,
chair
shaibal
advice,
chair
canazaro
and
members
of
the
committee
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
for
you,
I'm
an
acute
care
surgeon
in
las
vegas.
For
almost
five
years,
I'm
the
medical
director
for
umc
alliance
burn
care
center
nevada's
personally
verified
birth
center.
Our
burn
center
is
one
of
the
oldest
in
the
nation,
providing
comprehensive
burn
care
for
people
of
all
ages
and
serving
our
state
and
communities
for
over
50
years.
H
With
regard
to
the
matter
at
hand,
this
legislation
would
improve
the
current
statute,
which,
as
it
stands,
is
very
broad.
The
statute
was
designed
as
a
mechanism
to
identify
possible
cases
of
arson
that
would
be
investigated.
The
current
statute
has
written
requires
reporting
of
many
burn
injuries
that
are
not
related
to
arson
to
the
fire
department.
So,
for
example,
skull
burns
from
the
spilling
hot
tea
they've
been
burned
from
walking
on
or
falling
onto
hot
pavement
during
the
summer
time
a
road
rash
burns
from
a
motorcycle
or
motor
vehicle
collision.
H
H
This
bill
will
standardize
documentation
and
paperwork
needed
for
reporting
such
incident
and
promote
better
coordination
in
between
the
involved
parties.
I
respectfully
and
strongly
encourage
the
committee
to
pass
the
revised
divisions
as
well
as
it
will
substantially
improve
how
we
utilize
resources
for
the
benefit
and
well-being
of
all
residents
of
nevada,
and
thank
you
again
for
the
time
and
the
opportunity
to
speak
before
you.
C
Cherish
eyeball
members
of
the
committee
that
does
conclude
our
presentation
of
senate
bill
372
and
would
love
to
stand
open
for
any
questions
that
members
of
the
committee
may
have.
A
G
G
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
help
and
thank
you,
majority
leader
cannizzaro
and
your
guests
for
joining
us
today
to
present
this
bill.
Do
you
have
anything
you
want
to
say
in
closing.
A
Fantastic,
this
now
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
372.
That
brings
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
If
there
is
anybody
wishing
to
give
public
comment,
you
will
have
two
minutes
and
mr
kyle,
would
you
please
cue
them
to
queue
up
now.
G
G
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
help.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
joining
us
for
this
meeting,
and
that
brings
us
to
a
close.
We
will
be
meeting
again
tomorrow
at
the
same
time,
at
1
pm.
Until
then,
we
are.