►
From YouTube: 4/7/2021 - 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
C
A
He
is
on
his
way,
please
mark
and
present
when
he
arrives
and
I'll
try
to
make
note
of
it
as
well.
C
A
I
am
here
and
senator
settlemyre
has
joined
us,
so
that
means
that
all
members
are
present
and
we
are
also
joined
by
our
committee
staff,
patrick
guinon,
from
the
legislative
council
bureau
and
nick
anthony
from
the
legislative
council
bureau.
While
we
have
everybody,
because
I
understand
that
you
have
other
commitments
and
even
though
you
want
to
stay
through
the
end
of
judiciary,
you
may
have
to
go
to
other
meetings.
A
D
D
I'm
the
community
policy
analyst
by
the
way,
as
the
chair
just
mentioned,
we're
going
to
do
senate
bill
147
first,
which
excuse
me,
is
a
committee
bill
that
was
brought
on
behalf
of
the
pre-trial
release
study
and
it
was
heard
on
march
1st
of
this
year,
so
bill
147
authorizes
a
victim
to
request
that
a
prosecuting
attorney
seek
an
order
from
a
court
prohibiting
the
accused
from
contacting
or
attempting
to
contact
the
victim
or
attempting
to
have
another
person
to
contact
the
victim
prior
to
releasing
the
accused
on
bail.
D
Senator
harris
who
served
on
the
pre-trial
release
committee
has
proposed
an
amendment
to
the
bill
which
is
attached
on
the
following
pages
and
which
is
summarized
here
for
the
members
I'll
go
through
it
briefly.
The
amendment
removes
references
to
a
prosecuting
attorney
from
the
bill
instead
authorizing
the
victim
to
request
a
no
contact
order
from
the
court
and
stipulating
that
the
court
shall
consider
such
a
request.
D
It
provides
that
knowingly
violating
such
an
order
constitutes
an
unlawful
trespass
for
which
the
offender
may
be
arrested,
and
it
adds
new
language
clarifying
that
nothing
in
that
section
prohibits
a
court
from
finding
it
violating
a
no
contact
order
constitutes
contempt
of
court
and,
as
is
always
the
case,
if
I
missed
anything,
I'm
sure
senator
harris
will
be
happy
to
point
that
out
and
that's
all
I
have
chair.
A
F
I
just
have
one
question
and
that's
the
testimony
during
the
bill
suggested
that
this
doesn't
put
the
the
order,
the
no
contact
order
into
the
criminal
or
or
the
the
police
system,
and
the
trespass
is
similar
to
a
tpo
in
terms
of
its
penalty
and,
of
course,
tpos,
and
this
would
have
the
content
powers
so,
but
what
I'm
not
seeing
is
does
the
language
of
the
bill
or
I'm
sorry
of
the
amendment,
change
that
does
this
move
it
into
their
system
or
how
do
we
bridge
the
gap.
E
To
do
that
at
all,
thank
you
for
the
question
senator
pickard
to
you
through
chair
scheible.
E
So
the
intent
of
the
amendment
is
specifically
about
the
the
piece
of
reporting
to
the
central
repository
is
to
actually
make
it
a
bit
simpler
for
there
to
be
one
central
location
where
information
on
these
no
contact
orders
are
held
to
make
it
easier
for
law
enforcement
officers
to
access
that
information.
F
Thank
you
for
that,
and
do
you
know
if
tpos
are
similarly
reported
to
the
repository.
G
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
senator
harris
for
working
on
this
amendment.
Just
to
clarify
a
few
of
that.
I
had
because
I
did
want
to
make
sure
that
this
ensured
that
either
a
court
or
a
prosecuting
attorney
or
a
victim
could
request
that
a
protective
order
be
put
in
place
at
different
stages
during
litigation
either
one
or
more
those
parties
may
be
involved
in
the
in
the
litigation.
G
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
could
be
done,
and
so
I
thank
her
for
working
with
me
on
that,
and
also
on
some
on
some
clarifying
language
for
the
trespass
piece
to
ensure
that
the
reason
why
we
want
to
be
able
to
enforce
these
is
that
if
there
is
contact,
that's
happening
in
a
particularly
dangerous
situation
like
a
domestic
violence
dispute
or
perhaps
other
more
dangerous
types
of
crimes
that
that
that's
something
that
can
be
ameliorated
and
so
would
be
arrestable.
So
I
appreciate
that
as
well.
G
I
did
have
one
question
that
kind
of
came
to
me
as
I
was
looking
at
this,
and,
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure,
because,
as
I
understood
it,
when
we're
talking
about
extending
the
protective
order,
it
could
be
renewed
by
the
court.
G
It
could
be
requested
to
be
renewed
by
either
the
victim
or
the
or
the
prosecuting
attorney
as
well,
but
it
could
be
renewed,
even
if
the
victim
is
not
seeking
the
temporary
restraining
order
or
not
going
through
that
that
civil
process
and
that's
how
I
I
think
we
talked
about
it
a
little
bit
at
the
at
the
hearing
as
well
and
then
as
we're
as
reading
it.
G
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
the
intent,
and
I
don't
know
if
that
language
needs
to
be
a
little
more
specific
in
that
regard,
but
that
the
the
no
contact
order
could
remain
in
place
if
the
court,
just
the
court,
decides
either,
because
the
court
elects
to
extend
it
of
their
own
report.
G
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair
canazarro
to
you
through
chair
shy,
bull
that
is
correct.
Currently,
courts
are
able
to
kind
of
put
these
in
place
for
almost
un
determinable
amounts
of
time,
and
so
this
is
not
designed
to
limit
the
court's
ability
to
extend.
You
know,
as
we
say,
as
this
lawyer
say,
suisponte.
G
G
E
Days
that
is
correct
and
I
I'm
happy
to
maybe
switch
around
the
clause
a
little
bit
if
we
need
to
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear.
G
Excellent,
I
appreciate
that
very
much
and
thank
you
senator
harris
for
your
good
work
on
this
bill.
A
Thank
you,
and
that
also
brings
up
a
question
for
me
really
this
one,
the
language
that
says
that
this
allows
the
victim
an
opportunity
to
seek
a
temporary
restraining
order,
is
suggestive
and
not
binding,
so
that
victims
of
domestic
violence
and
sex
assault,
know
and
remember
that
they
are
still
able
to
access
that
legal
process.
A
But
technically
there
is
nothing
in
here
that
would
prevent
a
court
from
extending
the
protective
the
no
contact
order,
even
if
that
were
denied,
because
I
can,
I
could
foresee
a
situation
in
which
maybe
I
don't
qualify
for
a
temporary
protective
order
through
the
civil
process,
because
the
perpetrator
is
a
stranger
and
you
know
I
don't
know
that
that
legal
process-
or
maybe
I
just
mess
up
the
paperwork
and
it
gets
denied.
I
could
still
come
in
front
or
I
don't
need
it
at
the
time.
A
F
Yes,
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
senator
harris.
You
said
it
could
be
interminable,
but
we've
got.
One
of
the
amendments
is
to
limit
this,
as
I
understand
it,
it's
at
the
bottom
of
page,
one
where
it
cannot
exceed
120
calendar
days.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
in
the
record
is:
is
the
court
able
to
extend-
and
I'm
not
necessarily
opposed
to
this
tpo-
is
typically
enforced
for
up
to
one
year
after
which
there
has
to
be
some
really
compelling
reasons
to
extend
it?
F
We
don't
provide
under
the
tpo
section
for
an
indeterminate
restraining
order.
Would
this
open
the
door
to
a
an
indeterminate
restraining
order,
or
does
this
120
day
limitation
apply
to
all
of
these
types
of
orders?.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
pickard.
This
actually
does
not
touch
the
the
existing
tpo
process.
When
I
mentioned
that
they
they
could
be
put
forward
for
a
an
uncertain
amount
of
time.
I
was
referring
to
the
current
state
of
the
law,
where
you
may
get
a
no
contact
order
until
the
case
is
concluded
right,
some
some,
and
so
I
was.
E
I
was
explaining
that
this
is
not
meant
to
limit
the
court's
ability
to
kind
of
renew
these
as
they
see
fit,
but
we
are
putting
a
time
limit
in
there
to
make
them
a
bit
easier
to
be
enforced.
F
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
and
again
I'm
not
opposed
to
doing
as
oregon
and
washington,
for
example,
do
where
you
can
get
a
permanent
restraining
order
or
no
contact
order,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
this
record
what
this
is
doing.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
for
the
second
bite
manager.
A
Sure
I
don't
see
any
other
questions,
so
at
this
point
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
with
both
the
actually
I'm
sorry.
I
need
to
clarify
senator
harris.
Does
the
amendment
in
the
work
session
document
replace
the
conceptual
amendment
presented
at
the
time
of
the
presentation,
or
is
it
in
addition
to?
It
is
a
replacement.
A
I
J
F
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass,
sb
147
carries
and
senator
harris.
Would
you
like
the
floor
statement
all
right,
then
the
floor
student
will
be
assigned
to
senator
harris
we're
going
to
move
a
little
bit
out
of
order
today
and
move
next
to
sb
237.
A
D
Next,
chair,
patrick
garden,
again
for
the
record
sorry,
my
computer
is
doing
something
weird
again,
patrick
iron,
for
the
record.
As
the
chair
just
mentioned,
we
are
now
on
senate
bill
237,
which
is
a
bill
sponsored
by
senators.
Harrison
scheibel
that
we
heard
on
the
23rd
of
march
senate
bill
237
makes
a
legislative
decorating.
Excuse
me,
declaration,
the
lesbian,
gay,
bisexual,
transgender
and
queer
or
lgbtq
owned.
J
Definitions,
I
need
to
get
on
the
record.
What
transsexual
is
intersex,
asexual,
queer
and
non-cisgender?
E
J
Well,
in
the
absence
of
mr
anthony,
you
know,
dictionaries
are
nice,
but
we're
supposed
to
be
able
to
put
in
law
and
on
the
record
what
we're
talking
about,
for
example,
the
use
of
the
word
queer.
I
thought
that
was
a
derogatory
hateful
term,
so
I'm
a
little
surprised
to
see
it
in
law.
So
anyway,
I
I
definitely
want
some
definitions
on
those
those
five
specific
terms:
transsexual
intersex,
asexual,
queer
and
non-cisgender.
F
Which
is
the
dictionary
thank
you,
chair,
shaggle.
A
J
A
J
E
Understand,
if
I
may
I'd
just
like
to
put
on
the
record
that
while
there
is
a
limited
set
aside,
as
senator
hansen
mentioned,
there
is
always
the
opportunity
for
these
things
to
be
reassessed
and
for
that
set
aside
to
be
increased,
I
do
not
believe
that
this
is
a
zero-sum
game.
Thank
you.
H
C
J
F
A
And
with
that,
the
motion
carries
to
do
pass:
sb
237
senator
harris.
Would
you
like
this
floor
statement
as
well.
A
I
don't
see
any
so.
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
do
pass
so
moved
all
right.
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
harris.
Do
pass.
Do
we
have
a
second?
We
have
a
second
from
senator
hansen.
I
believe
that
is
a
second
okay.
Second
for
senator
hansen
and
we'll
now
move
to
discussion
on
the
motion,
and
I
will
call
on
senator
settlemyre
first.
F
C
A
K
C
F
F
A
D
Thanks
cherish
scheibel,
patrick
again
for
the
record.
We
are
now
on
senate
bill
372,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
injury
caused
by
fire.
This
is
a
bill
sponsored
by
the
senate
committee
on
health
and
human
services,
which
this
committee
heard
on
april
5th,
sb
372
limits
to
those
caused
by
an
open
flame
explosion
or
flash
fire.
The
types
of
burn
injuries
for
which
a
health
care
provider
is
required
to
report
to
either
local
or
state
fire
authorities
for
investigation
bill
also
extends.
D
The
timeline
for
submitting
such
reports
from
three
to
seven
working
days
requires
that
in
counties
with
populations
under
hundred
thousand,
such
reports
are
to
be
submitted
to
the
state
fire
marshal
on
a
form
approved
by
the
fire
marshal
and
provides
that
a
fire
department
may
rather
than
shall
investigate
such
a
report.
There
are
no
amendments,
jersey.
Well,
that's
all.
I
have.
A
Thank
you.
So
much
are
there
any
questions
on
sb
372.
A
A
All
right,
I
don't
see
any
discussion.
Will
the
secretary
please
take
a
roll
call
vote.
H
D
C
F
A
Yes,
with
that
the
motion
to
do
pass,
sb
372
passes
senator
kanazar.
Would
you
like
to
take
the
four
statement
all
right?
The
floor
statement
is
yours.
That
concludes
our
work
session
for
today.
For
now,
and
we
are
now
going
to
move
to
hearing
three
bills
today
presented
by
our
colleague
and
committee
member
senator
orrinshaw,
with
the
help
of
a
couple
of
special
guests,
I'm
sorry
senator
we
didn't
have
a
chance
to
talk
about
in
advance.
I
was
planning
to
take
them
in
numerical
order
today.
If
that
suits
you.
H
H
We
were
able
to
have
two
in-person
meetings
and
then,
after
the
pandemic,
hit
four
virtual
meetings,
and
I
I
know
I'm
belaboring
the
point,
but
I
want
to
thank
the
tremendous
work
of
the
staff,
mr
patrick
geinin
julianne
king
eileen,
o'grady
carly
o'rent,
and
I
know
that
there's
probably
a
lot
of
other
folks
who
made
made
everything,
work
and
helped
us
work
together
during
the
interim
one
of
our
recommendations
for
a
bill
draft
for
this
session
is
senate
bill
366..
H
Today
I
will
be
having
bridget
duffy
from
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
joining
to
help
me
present
senate
66
and
I'm
very
lucky
to
have
ms
duffy
here.
She
was
very
active
during
the
interim
committee's
work
in
helping
us
reach
some
of
our
our
decisions,
and
this
was
one
of
them
senate.
Bill
366
is
intended
to
ensure
that
a
juvenile
who
is
deemed
incompetent
by
a
court
during
proceedings
to
determine
whether
he
or
she
would
be
tried
as
an
adult,
could
be
placed
in
a
facility
to
receive
treatment.
H
H
First,
I'd
like
to
provide
a
brief
background
as
it
stands
today,
there
are
a
small
number
of
children
who,
when
going
through
the
process
of
being
certified
as
an
adult
to
the
adult
criminal
court
system,
are
deemed
not
competent
to
aid
in
their
defense
or
to
stand
trial,
but
who
are
also
deemed
by
the
facilities
where
such
a
child
might
normally
be
treated
to
be
too
dangerous
to
themselves
or
others
and
to
potentially
not
treatable.
H
Admittedly,
this
is
a
very
small
number
of
children,
but,
as
you
will
hear
from
ms
duffy,
there
are
als.
These
are
also
the
children
who
are
often
most
in
need
of
help
and
treatment
and
who
sometimes
pose
perhaps
the
biggest
threat
to
themselves
and
others.
This
is
the
situation
situation
that
senate
bill
366
addresses
and
madam
chair,
I
was
going
to
walk
you
through
the
bill,
but
I
believe
the
friendly
amendment
from
ms
duffy
and
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
replaces
much
of
that.
K
K
I
am
the
chief
of
the
juvenile
division
for
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
I
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
for
the
presentation
of
sb,
366
and
I'll
start
out
by
just
walking
you
through
my
amendments,
section
1
places
the
statutory
section
into
nrs62d.
That
is
our
current
competency
statute.
K
Issues
of
competency
arise
in
more
situations
than
just
certification
hearings,
so
certifications
to
the
adult
status
and
the
level
of
danger
to
the
community
may
still
also
be
high.
This
will
also
prevent
the
state
from
attempting
to
seek
certification
just
to
obtain
the
appropriate
treatment
for
a
child
who
may
be
deemed
incompetent.
K
Section
4
amends
to
ensure
that
if
a
court
orders
a
child
into
a
mental
health
commitment
facility
that
that
division
facility
has
to
accept
the
child
or
assist
in
finding
the
appropriate
placement
for
the
child
in
our
juvenile
justice
system,
we
struggle
with
getting
appropriate
treatment
for
our
kids.
I'm
sure
you've
heard
that
our
adult
jails
and
prisons
house
those
with
mental
illness
so
do
our
juvenile
facilities.
K
We
have
an
issue
with
facilities
not
being
able
to
take
our
children
because
they
do
not
seem
to
be
able
to
handle
their
needs
and
provide
the
treatment.
This
section
will
put
some
responsibility
on
division
facilities
to
assist
the
court
in
finding
the
appropriate
facility
in
their
own
expertise.
If
state
facilities
are
unable
to
meet
the
child's
needs.
K
K
So
currently,
child
welfare
agencies
can
obtain
assist
assistance
from
the
court
with
legal
obligations
when
legal
obligations
to
our
children
are
not
being
met.
So
that
concludes
the
amendments
from
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association.
K
So
for
the
past
mere
decade,
in
my
role
as
the
leader
in
clark,
county,
juvenile
justice
issues
from
the
prosecution
perspective,
I've
had
the
fortune
of
being
on
very
various
oversight
commissions,
taking
a
lot
of
steps
toward
reform,
and
I'm
also
a
voice.
You'll
always
hear
stating
that
justice
can
be
defined
as
ensuring
that
children
who
commit
delinquent
acts
receive
developmentally
proper
rehabilitative
services
to
improve
themselves,
which
in
turn,
increases
our
community
safety.
K
We
refer
to
that
in
clark
county
as
a
direct
file,
so
that
would
be
an
event
or
a
crime
that
occurs
that
ages
16
to
17
would
automatically
go
to
the
criminal
justice
system
and
there
is
currently
a
bill
in
the
assembly
that
may
be
in
your
committee
this
session
that
will
eliminate
some
of
those
categories
of
crimes
for
which
a
child
can
be
sent
directly
to
the
adult
system.
I'm
proud
to
have
supported
that
in
the
assembly.
K
However,
there
still
remains
a
void
in
our
state.
That
needs
to
be
addressed
in
a
responsible
way
for
the
safety
of
our
community
and
the
treatment
of
a
child,
and
that
is
how
sp
366
has
come
to
you
as
a
step
to
address
that
void,
currently
in
nevada.
If
a
child
is
deemed
incompetent
and
a
danger
to
the
community,
there
is
no
placement
or
facility
for
that
child
to
be
housed,
while
undergoing
treatment
to
restore
competency
and
to
protect
the
community
from
the
violent
acts.
K
This
bill
is
very
specific
that
the
court
will
find
that
it
that,
when
a
court
finds
that
a
child
is
a
danger
to
himself
or
society
that
the
court
may
require
the
division,
the
divisions,
mental
health
facilities
address
that
child's
mental
health
needs
for
the
protection
of
our
community
and
the
treatment
of
the
child.
So
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
couple
examples.
K
Currently,
if
a
child
age
13
to
17,
commits
a
mass
casualty
shooting
at
a
mall
that
child
under
our
current
statute
could
be
certified
to
the
adult
court
or
depending
on
the
age,
may
be
directly
filed
to
the
adult
court.
However,
if
that
child
is
deemed
to
be
incompetent
due
to
a
mental
illness,
there
is
no
guarantee
that
a
state
mental
health
facility
will
accept
that
child
for
treatment.
We
could
not
commit
the
child
to
a
juvenile
correctional
facility
and
we
cannot
hold
the
child
indefinitely
in
juvenile
jail.
K
K
K
K
K
K
This
bill
will
not
fix
all
of
our
needs,
not
not
really
even
close.
Well,
it
gets
us
a
little
closer.
I
should
say
that
I
am
optimistic
as
dcfs
points
out
its
written
testimony
in
nevada.
There
are
still
no
facilities
to
serve
the
developmentally
disabled
children,
and
this
bill
will
not
fix
that,
but
the
policy
is
there.
H
A
chair,
I
know
that
ross
armstrong
has
submitted
something
in
writing.
I
believe
he's
in
the
neutral
position
and
we'll
be
speaking
in
the
neutral
position,
but
may
be
able
to
answer
some
questions
about
some
of
the
state
facilities.
If
members
have
any
questions
regarding
our
state,
our
state
facilities
for
children.
J
J
She
is
really
one
of
the
unsung
heroes
in
the
nevada
criminal
justice
system
and
has
done
more
for
the
young
people
to
help
people
out
in
trouble
than
anybody
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
I
mean
that
sincerely
so
I'm
100
behind
the
bill
simply
because
bridget
duffy's
behind
the
bill
when
bridget
duffy
speaks.
I
listen
so
bridget.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Thank
you.
Senator
warren
charlotte.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
I'm
on
board
100
percent.
F
Thank
you,
church.
I
will,
and
now
what
I
suspect
bridget
duffy
is
going
to
be
appearing
in
all
sorts
of
different
bill
hearings.
I'm
just
curious.
I
too
am
supportive
of
this.
I
think
I
would
love
to
expand
this
with
a
huge
appropriation
to
actually
provide
the
services
we
need.
F
This
is
something
you
and
I
have
been
talking
about
for
years,
even
before
I
got
into
the
legislature,
but
in
any
event,
I'm
just
I
I
want
you
to
if
you
will
explain
why
we
need
this
bill
in
addition
to
the
statutory
authority
and
the
case
law
that
supports
this
effort,
because
I'd
like
to
see
if
we
can't
get
that
on
the
record.
H
And
chair
to
you
and
through
you
to
senator
pickard
and
during
the
interim
committee,
you
know
there
was
a
lot
of
you
know,
discussion
about
this
issue,
and
I
know
ms
duffy
and
joe
lee
wicks
up
in
reno
both
brought
this
concern
to
the
committee's
attention,
and
it
was
one
of
our
our
reps
that
we
decided
to
try
to
act
on.
I
hope
that
you
know.
H
Certainly
the
funding
is
another
part
of
it,
but
you
know
I'll
turn
it
over
to
ms
duffy
in
case
she
wants
to
comment
on
that,
but
but
certainly
attention
we
decided
to
act
on
it.
K
Bridget
duffy
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
pickard.
I
so
currently
the
court.
The
court
may
order
children
into
a
division
facility,
but
the
division
facility
can
deny
those
children
because
they
are
unable
to
provide
the
care
necessary
and
that
kind
of
makes
sense
right,
like
the
courts.
K
Aren't
experts
in
you
know
we
get
assessments
and
somebody
will
tell
us
what
a
child
needs,
but
if
we
send
a
child
to
a
state
facility,
they
might
not
be
able
to
provide
that,
which
is
why
I
actually
asked
to
have
that
step
that
amendment.
I
believe
it's
section,
four
that
has
them
assist
the
court
and
then
finding
the
appropriate
facility,
because
we
can't
just
say
we
can't
do
it.
K
So
we
have
nothing,
that's
that's
the
catch
we
get
into
and-
and
this
is
really
just
a
step
for
me
to
to
really
stand
up
for
what
I've
been
saying.
I
said
I
want
to
support
not
sending
kids
to
the
criminal
justice
system
I
want
to,
but
I
can't
until
we
create
this
and
I
I
know,
there's
going
to
be
a
fiscal
impact
on
it.
K
F
And-
and
thank
you,
I
guess
the
the
point
I
want
to
emphasize
is
that
you're
right
we
have
courts
and
this
doesn't
apply
just
to
juvenile
court,
but
we
have
in
dependency
and
others
where
the
order
is
for
certain
services
to
be
provided
even
casas
and
and
guardians
ad
litem
that
remain
unfulfilled,
because
the
the
those
that
are
charged
with
providing
the
services
either
don't
have
the
resources
or
don't
have
the
inclination
to
do
so
and
particularly
where
it
comes
to.
F
F
And
so
I
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
I
support
it
and
I
would
like
to
add
some
teeth
and
make
sure
that
we
put
the
responsibility
on
those
charged
with
housing
them
to
actually
house
them
and
not
kick
them
out
and
say.
No
sorry
can't
deal
with
it
that
just
gums
up
the
system
and
makes
it
hard
for
everybody
to
do
their
jobs
and-
and
that's
where
I
really
like
the
fact
that
this
bill
exists
and
and
is
trying
to
address
that.
So,
thank
you,
madam
chair
appreciate
the
opportunity.
A
Absolutely
we
will
go
next
to
vice
chair
canazaro.
G
Thank
you,
church
ibala.
I
appreciate
you
allowing
me
to
leeway
here
to
ask
a
few
questions.
I
have
one
question
just
on
this
on
the
amendment
in
section:
seven,
for
the
joiner
of
governmental
and
et
cetera,
can
you
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
the
purpose
of
that
and
what
the
intent
is
with
that
additional
language.
K
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Madam
majority
leader,
bridget
duffy,
for
the
record,
I
so,
as
I
had
stated,
we
have
that
provision
in
nrs
432-b
and
that
became
when
we
became
this
system
where
children's
mental
health
was
managed
by
the
state
and
foster
care,
then
became
managed
by
the
counties.
K
We
had
a
little
less
of
the
ability
to
ensure
that
services
were
being
put
into
place
for
our
kids.
So
then,
for
now
retired
judge
gerald
hardcastle,
assisted
in
putting
into
statute
this
ability
to
have
a
jointer
of
governmental
entities,
agencies
and
persons
into
the
432b
case,
so
that
he
could
hold
them
accountable
to
do
what
needs
to
be
done
and
the
legal
responsibilities
for
our
children.
So,
for
example,
if
a
child
is
not
receiving
their
ieps
or
whatever
they
need
from
the
clark
county
school
district.
K
That's
a
that's
a
legal
responsibility
of
a
school
district.
So
if
they
are
not
doing
their
job
for
legal
responsibility
to
a
child,
then
my
attorneys
or
legally
to
southern
nevada
can
file
a
motion
to
join
the
school
district
into
a
432b
case.
So
the
court
can
say
you
owe
this
child
an
obligation
for
this
iep.
K
We
do
not
have
that
same
pathway
in
the
juvenile
justice
system
and
we
do
have
a
lot
of
the
same
types
of
issues
within
the
juvenile
justice
system,
so
it
will
allow
us
to
be
able
to
officially
motion
to
join
in
a
governmental
entity
or
a
person
to
to
uphold
their
legal
responsibility
to
a
child.
Having
said
that,
I
want
to,
I
want
to
make
sure
we
we
right
now
have
a
good
partnership
and
relationship
with
the
state.
K
If
we
have
an
issue,
I'm
able
to
reach
out
to
the
attorney
general,
the
deputy
attorney
general
to
oversee
dcfs,
our
facilities
like
caliente
and
all
of
them.
So
I
mean
we
have
that
right
now,
but
there
is
really
no
solid
mechanism
to
do
it.
So
at
this
point,
because
we're
talking
about
holding
them
responsible
to
re
to
put
forth
the
mental
health
health
health
services,
I
believe
we
would
need
that
in
this
statute,.
G
And
I
appreciate
that
very
much
and
I
I
wanted
to
make
sure
there
was
just
further
clarification
on
the
record
for
that
and
definitely
appreciate,
I
think,
all
the
support
for
what
is
necessary
to
help
us
deal
with
some
of
the
juveniles
who
are
in
our
communities
and
find
themselves
within
the
juvenile
justice
system.
G
You
know
it's,
I
think
one
of
the
hardest
things
about
about
serving
in
the
in
the
legislature
and
certainly
for
anybody
who
is
able
to
watch
some
of
the
the
proceedings
that
we
have
here.
G
You
know
we
struggle
with
serving
and
providing
for
mental
health
services
for
other
juvenile
needs
in
the
system
for
child
welfare,
for
a
number
of
sort
of
dhhs
and
health
related
services,
simply
because
all
of
those
things
are
expensive,
they
cost
money,
and
in
this
state
you
know
we
have
a
lot
of
obligations
for
where
our
dollars
are
being
spent.
So
you
know
I.
G
I
am
hopeful
that
for
every
inclination
to
want
to
support
programs
and
wanting
to
support
these
services
that
do
in
fact
support
juveniles,
mental
health,
general
health
care,
our
juvenile
justice
system,
child
welfare.
If
there
is
an
equal,
if
they're
met
equally
with
a
response,
how
to
get
the
revenue
and
how
to
raise
that
revenue
and
with
the
conviction
to
actually
step
up
and
and
make
that
a
willing
choice,
because
I
think
that
is
always
the
backstop
right.
We
we
want
to
fund
all
of
these
things.
G
They
are
necessary
and
good
things,
yet
so
often
trying
to
find
the
conviction
to
be
able
to
actually
provide.
G
That
is,
is
hard
to
find
in
response
to
wanting
those
needs
to
be
fulfilled,
and
so
I
definitely
am
grateful
for
the
thoughtful
consideration
on
this
bill
for
acknowledging
that
we
do
have
juveniles
who
need
further
assistance,
and
I'm
hopeful
that
some
of
the
inclinations
to
support
the
policy
around
it
while
it
sounds
nicer,
also
met
with
the
responsibility
to
fulfill
those
obligations,
because
I
think
that's
the
only
way
we
ever
end
up
getting
there.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you.
H
And
chair,
if
I
could
just
briefly
comment:
yes,
go
ahead
on
majority
leaders
comment,
certainly
as
a
as
a
practitioner
in
juvenile
court,
one
of
the
most
heartbreaking
things
is
seeing
when
children
have
to
be
sent
out
of
state,
if,
let's
say,
there's
a
residential
treatment
center
or
certain
kind
of
facility
that
we
just
don't
have
here
in
nevada
and
and
then
knowing
how
how
much
you
know
the
distance
will
be.
H
You
know,
things
have
been
a
little
better
now
with
the
new
technologies
for
families
to
stay
in
touch
with
their
children.
But
but
that's,
I
think,
one
of
the
most
heartbreaking
things
that
I
I
see
when
I
represent
children
in
juvenile
court.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
any
other
questions
or
comments
from
the
presenters
all
right.
Then
we
will
go
to
testimony
and
support
of
sb
366.
L
L
C
C
C
L
C
We
support
the
rehabilitation
of
children
who
find
themselves
in
the
juvenile
justice
system
and
providing
them
with
the
support,
treatment
and
services
they
need.
The
city
of
north
las
vegas
has
been
full
support
of
senate
bill
366
and
urges
the
committee
support
and
passage.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
consideration
today.
L
C
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'd
like
to
thank
senator
orrinshaw
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
We
do
believe
that
we
need
to
make
better
strides
in
taking
care
of
our
mentally
ill
children,
and
this
bill
is
a
decent
first
step.
So
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this
forward
and
for
always
championing
children.
L
L
L
C
C
L
L
L
A
All
right,
thank
you.
So
much
do
the
presenters
have
any
further
comments.
H
Here's
tribal
just
I
want
to
thank
you
and
the
committee
for
hearing
of
the
the
measure
and
hearing
the
the
friendly
amendment
and
hope
you'll
consider
moving
it
forward
as
the
process
goes
forward.
A
C
C
A
H
H
I'm
fortunate
chair
to
have
ross
armstrong
administrator
of
the
division
of
child
and
family
services
with
me
today
to
not
only
explain
the
rationale
for
the
original
language
in
the
bill,
but
to
present
a
friendly
amendment
that
seeks
to
replace
the
language
of
the
bill
instead
creates
a
study
of
how
to
enhance
investment
in
these
programs.
The
proposed
amendment
should
be
posted
on
the
nella
system
for
your
review.
With
your
permission
chair,
I
would
like
to
turn
the
discussion
over
to
mr
armstrong.
Then
I'm
happy
to
try
and
answer
any
questions.
I
Thank
you,
chair
ross,
armstrong,
administrator
of
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
and,
as
the
senator
mentioned,
we
were
lucky
enough
to
be
able
to
work
with
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
during
the
interim
and
to
really
what
we
really
wanted
to
find
some
sort
of
mechanism
to
spark
and
invigorate
investments
in
prevention
services,
because
if
we
have
successful
prevention
and
juvenile
justice,
then
there
are
cost
savings
down
the
line
for
the
state,
and
there
are
better
outcomes
for
children
as
they
are
not
housed
in
facilities.
I
As
sb
385
was
drafted,
it
became
clear
that
there
was
a
pretty
substantial
administrative
burden
on
those
local
counties
and
the
the
way
it
was
written,
perhaps
not
as
much
investment
as
we
might
have
thought
there
wanted
to
be.
So
that
is
why
I'll
largely
refer
to
the
conceptual
amendment,
which
creates,
creates
a
study
that
the
division
and
child
and
family
services
will
conduct
rather
than
create
this
investment
trigger
right
now.
We
also
have
extraordinarily
complex
fiscal
year
and
biennium
coming
forward
with
all
the
federal
funding.
I
So
this
was
the
best
thing
to
do-
was
to
take
some
time
and
and
get
it
right
before
pulling
the
trigger
on
on
any
budget
mechanisms.
I
The
state
does
currently
fund
local
probation
departments
with
what
is
called
the
community
corrections
block
grant
in
the
2011
session
that
funding
level
was
set
at
2.3
million
dollars.
It
is
based
on
a
population
formula
that
investment
in
prevention
services
has
not
increased.
I
In
the
last
10
years,
we
also
fund
two
county
camps,
one
in
clark,
county
operated
by
clark
county
and
then
one
in
douglas
county
that
serves
all
of
the
different
counties
across
the
state,
and
so
these
are
essentially
what
these
are.
I
The
only
mechanisms
we
have
currently
really
in
terms
of
statewide
investment
in
juvenile
justice
prevention,
and
so
the
bill
would
require
the
division
to
conduct
a
study
in
consultation
with
those
local
partners,
those
regional
facilities,
the
county
camps
that
I
spoke
of
and
then
other
entities
that
might
have
special
knowledge
or
interest
in
juvenile
justice
prevention.
I
The
nevada
associate
association
of
juvenile
justice
administrators
has
agreed
to
assist
with
this
study
so
that
we
can
take
a
look
at
a
review
of
how
we've
invested
in
prevention
before
and
how
other
states
are
investing
in
prevention
now
and
then
come
up
with
recommendations
for
the
interim
child
welfare,
juvenile
justice
committee
for
the
2023
session.
Again,
the
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
take
some
time
to
really
look
at
ways
that
we
can
invest
in
prevention,
which
we
know
has
positive
outcomes
for
children
and
for
the
state
as
well.
H
Thank
you
very
much
administrator
armstrong
and
thank
you
for
all
your
help
during
the
interim.
With
all
the
work
our
committee
had
your
your
input
and
your
help
was
invaluable
and
your
staff
chair
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
bill
and
the
proposed
amendment.
A
J
All
right,
madam
chair,
actually
I
just
a
quick
comment.
You
know
the
irony
in
this
is
so
reading
the
thing
that
says
we're
looking
for
investments
in
juvenile
justice
prevention
activities
that
the
greatest
one
there
is
and
what
I've
seen
very
consistently
now
in
10
or
six
sessions,
fathers
plain
old
dads.
If
so
many
of
these
kids
come
from
broken
homes,
with
no
fathers
in
their
lives,
it's
it's
it's
remarkable!
J
A
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
mr
armstrong.
Obviously
we
are
not
a
money
committee.
We
are
here
to
evaluate
the
policy.
I
just
wanted
to
understand.
If
the
fiscal
note
that
is
reflected
on
nellis
was
for
the
original
bill
or
the
amended
bill.
I
This
is
administrator
for
armstrong,
for
the
record
that
fiscal
net
was
for
the
original
bill.
So
if
it
was
amended
and
passed
out,
there
would
be
no
fiscal
note
attached
to
this
particular
bill
and
it
was
also
it
was
a
funky.
I
know
it's
not
a
money
committee,
but
it
was
a
funky
mechanical
thing
in
terms
of
budget
mechanics
where
it
wouldn't
necessarily
take
an
additional
appropriation
for
that
funds.
It
would
be
savings
from
one
year
to
the
next,
but
again
as
amended,
there
would
be
no
physical
note
at
all.
I
That
is
correct.
I
think
we
had
a
hearing
yesterday
where
he
said
we
don't
have
the
expertise
or
capacity
for
this
particular
one,
especially
with
the
assistance
of
the
nevada
association
of
juvenile
justice
administrators.
We
do
have
the
internal
capacity
and
expertise
to
conduct
this
study.
A
Great
and
clearly
the
willingness,
so
we
certainly
appreciate
when
our
state
agencies
step
up
to
the
plate
and
take
on
those
responsibilities.
Are
there
any
other
questions?
I
don't
see
any
so
we
will
move
to
testimony
and
support
of
sb
385.
L
L
C
L
L
C
Good
afternoon
sheriff
schreibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pure
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
are
in
support
of
senate
bill
385.
We
are
big
proponents
of
having
data
and
making
evidence-based
decisions
going
forward,
so
we're
grateful
to
see
that
the
state
is
moving
in
that
direction.
Thank
you.
L
L
C
Good
afternoon
cherish
scheible
and
members
of
the
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
burchie
v-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
and
I
apologize.
I
thought
I
had
pressed
to
be
able
to
provide
my
testimony
and
support,
since
this
could
be
re-categorized
to
support.
I
would
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
C
A
L
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We
will
now
accept
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
sb385.
L
A
Okay,
thank
you
senator
orrinshaw,
do
you
have
any
closing
comments
or
mr
armstrong.
H
A
H
Thank
you
very
much
chair
scheible
james
arkham,
state
senate
district
21.,
the
last
bill
I
I'm
hoping
well.
I'm
thankful
for
the
committee's
attention
today
is
senate
bill.
398
came
out
of
our
our
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
senate
bill.
H
398
proposes
to
require
our
state
juvenile
justice
oversight,
commission
report,
information
related
to
its
five-year
strategic
planning
process
and
any
recommendations
for
future
legislation
to
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
in
august
of
2022
in
2017,
our
legislature,
with
the
great
assistance
of
former
first
lady
sandoval
and
former
nevada
supreme
court
justice,
nancy
stata
worked
very
hard
to
adopt
assembly
bill
472,
which
became
law.
That
was
a
sweeping
juvenile
justice
reform
bill
which
created
the
juvenile
justice
oversight
commission
and
set
a
host
of
very,
very
challenging
goals
for
the
commission.
H
To
achieve
I've
been
a
very.
It
was
a
great
honor
in
the
past
to
serve
as
a
member
of
the
advisory
committee
to
the
juvenile
justice
oversight
commission
and
join
a
group
of
truly
dedicated,
amazingly
talented
practitioners
from
across
the
juvenile
justice
arena
in
working
to
make
nevada's
juvenile
justice
system
a
model
for
others
to
emulate.
H
The
juvenile
justice
oversight.
Commission
will
be
nearing
the
end
of
its
first
five
years
in
2022,
and
this
bill
is
intended
to
provide
the
jjoc
with
an
opportunity
to
report
to
the
legislature
on
the
challenges
challenges
it's
faced
as
well
as
its
successes.
It
is
experienced
in
that
time,
while
looking
forward
to
the
next
five
years.
The
bill
will
also
provide
the
juvenile
justice
oversight.
Commission
the
opportunity
to
submit
recommendations
for
needed
policy
changes
to
the
legislature
for
the
2023
session,
which
will
ensure
that
we
remain
aware
of
and
engaged
with,
the
commission's
work.
H
We
had
very
many
meetings
when
I
served
on
the
advisory
committee,
and
I
think
the
one
that
remains
most
poignant
in
my
mind
was
a
meeting
where
we
heard
from
children
who
had
been
committed
to
state
facilities
and
they
they
testified
and
told
us
about
their
experiences,
both
positive
and
negative,
and
what
they
thought
might
improve
things
for
future
kids,
who
are
committed
by
the
courts
to
one
of
the
state,
youth
correctional
facilities,
and
that
was
something
that
I've
never
seen
bef
had
never
seen
before,
and
I've
never
seen
again
the
kind
of
interaction
input
we
got
with
children
who
had
some
of
them
just
months
ago,
completed
their
the
time
they'd
spent
at
one
of
our
state
youth,
correctional
facilities.
H
I
Thank
you
chair
once
again,
ross
armstrong
administrator
for
the
division
of
child
and
family
services
and
senator
orrin
shaw
talked
about
the
history
of
the
juvenile
justice
oversight.
Commission,
the
bill
in
2017
was
truly
landmark.
Reform
for
us
there's
a
letter
of
support
for
this
bill
from
the
two
juvenile
justice
oversight
co-chairs
in
up
in
nellis
there's
so
much
more.
I
We
know
about
our
system
now
than
we
did
when
that
bill
passed
in
2017
and
it's
it's
kind
of
remarkable
in
my
mind
that
we
are
approaching
the
end
of
that
first
five-year
strategic
plan.
I
The
current
strategic
plan
has
four
main
goals,
including
that
evidence-based
practices
and
programs
be
used
by
the
agencies
of
the
system
that
risk
and
needs
assessments
and
mental
health
screenings
can
be
used
to
inform
court's
decisions
that
there
be
collaboration
across
systems
that
meet
the
youth's
needs
and
that
family
engagement
plans
are
created
and
that
there
are
individualized
case
plans
for
every
child.
I
This
bill
again
asks
and
requires
the
juvenile
justice
oversight
commission
to
take
a
look
at
any
potential
improvements
for
legislation
that,
as
it
relates
to
the
five-year
strategic
plan
based
on
our
experience.
I
Working
with
it
so
far,
and
how
we
can
make
the
next
five
years
even
better
and
also
asks
for
any
legislative
requirements
for
addressing
disparities
in
the
juvenile
justice
system
related
to
race
or
ethnicity,
and
those
are
also
requirements
of
us
from
the
federal
government,
and
so
this
provision
would
help
help
us
comply
with
federal
requirements
and
then
compliance
with
other
federal
laws,
including
the
juvenile
justice
delinquency
and
prevention
act.
So
that
nevada
maintains
its
compliance
with
those
federal
laws.
Non-Compliance
can
result
in
financial
or
other
penalties.
I
I
really
see
this
bill
as
a
signal
and
a
statement
and
a
direction
from
the
legislature
that
2017
was
a
great
start
in
reforming
our
juvenile
justice
system
and
that
we
as
a
state
really
all
three
branches
remain
committed
to
continue
that
work.
A
lot
of
times
we
say
somebody's
new
strategic
plan
and
it
happens,
and
then
it
just
kind
of
goes
into
the
shadows,
passing
sb
three.
Ninety
eight
would
say:
no
we're
keeping
a
determination
and
a
focus
on
improving
the
system.
I
So
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
or
toss
it
back
to
senator
orange
hall
and
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
with
me.
I
have
leslie
biddleston
and
katherine
roos
from
the
division
of
child
expansive
services,
who
provide
as
the
key
staff
for
that
oversight.
Commission.
A
L
L
L
C
L
C
C
Want
to
thank
senator
orrin
shaw
for
spearheading
these
efforts
to
ensure
that
we
are
enacting
policy
that
is
working
towards
improving
the
lives
of
our
children
involved
in
our
system,
but
also
ensuring
that
what
we
are
doing
is
working
and
reevaluating
that
so
we
appreciate
all
the
work
from
the
sponsors
on
this
bill.
Thank
you.
L
C
L
L
A
I
This
is
thank.
I
Oh
yeah,
this
is
administrator
armstrong
and
I
would
just
say,
as
as
a
closing
remark
just
as-
and
I
would
echo
senator
hansen's
comments
about
miss
duffy,
but
just
as
miss
duffy
is
a
treasure
to
our
justice
system
at
state
nevada.
Senator
orrinshaw
has
been
a
voice
for
this.
I
These
children
and
specific,
specifically
this
population
and
as
the
executive
branch
agency
charged
with
trying
to
make
that
system
work
for
those
kids,
not
only
in
his
day
job,
but
in
his
role
as
a
senator
has
been
a
tremendous
help
as
we
move
the
needle.
H
Here,
I'm
very
humbled
by
those
kind
words
I
think
very,
not
deserving,
but
I
definitely
appreciate
administrator
armstrong's
help
help
ms
duffy
during
the
interim
and
the
the
co-chairs
of
the
juvenile
justice
oversight.
Commission,
judge,
egan,
walker
and
joey
orduna
hastings
who
worked
tirelessly
over
the
last
five
years
to
accomplish
so
many
successes
for
the
jjoc,
and
I
I
really
appreciate
everyone's
efforts,
and
I
hope
that
this
you
know
movement
towards
trying
to
make
sure
that
children
get
the
services
they
need
and
trying
to
divert
them
out
of
the
adult
criminal
court
system.
A
Thank
you,
senator
orenshall,
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
398
and
if
senator
settlemyer
still
has
any
motions
he
would
like
to
make,
I
will
entertain
them
now.
C
I
D
F
A
A
H
A
They
are
all
assigned
to
you,
and
that
leaves
us
with
only
one
thing
left
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
I'm
not
sure
if
I
have
to
close
the
work
session,
but
if
so
it's
closed
and
mr
kyle,
if
we
could
please
go
to
anybody
wishing
to
give
two
minutes
of
public
comment.