►
From YouTube: 4/2/2021 - 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
A
We'll
forgive
you
this
time
and
with
that
we
are
ready
to
get.
This
meeting
started
we're
going
to
take
the
work
session
first,
while
we
have
everybody,
we
have
two
bills
on
work
session
today
the
work
session
document
was
uploaded
earlier
and
I
think
we
are
ready
to
dive
in
mr,
oh
I'm
sorry,
we
do
have
mr
gainen
patrick
guyan
and
nicholas
anthony
with
us
from
lcb
today.
If
the
record
could
please
reflect
their
presence,
and
with
that
I
would
like
to
move
on
to
the
work
session.
Mr
guidance.
E
E
108
requires
persons
employed
in
the
criminal
justice
system
in
nevada
to
complete
at
least
once
every
two
years,
training
and
instruction
relating
to
implicit
bias
and
cultural
competency,
and
it
also
requires
the
attorney
general
to
adopt
regulations
concerning
training
in
those
areas,
and
the
bill
also
requires
that
any
person
who
files
a
court
petition
must
commence
to
commence.
A
juvenile
proceeding.
E
Excuse
me
must
file
an
affidavit
certifying
that
every
person
involved
in
the
decision
to
file
the
petition
and
who
is
required
to
complete
such
training
has
done
so
and
that
the
petition
is
not
being
filed
as
the
result
of
any
inappropriate
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
any
protected
class
or
characteristic,
and
a
court
is
prohibited
from
accepting
any
petition
to
commence
a
proceeding.
That
is
not
accompanied
by
such
an
affidavit.
E
In
response
to
some
concerns
voiced
during
initial
hearing
and
in
consultation
with
several
stakeholders,
the
sponsors
have
proposed
an
amendment
which
is
attached
on
the
following
page.
That
amendment
narrows
the
scope
of
the
bill
to
the
juvenile
justice
system
and
those
who
have
routine
contact
with
juveniles
within
the
scope
of
their
employment,
including
employees
and
regional
facilities
for
treatment
and
rehabilitation.
E
And
finally,
the
amendment
provides
that
the
portions
of
the
bill
requiring
training
are
effective.
Nine
months
after
the
adoption
of
the
regulations
developed
by
dcfs
and
that's
the
sum
of
the
amendment
chair,
scheible
and
I
believe
mr
mccormick
from
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts
is
with
us
today
to
answer
any
questions
that
committee
may
have,
as
I
believe
he
assisted
in
drafting
the
amendment.
That's
all
I
have
thanks.
F
I
do
I
was
able
to
reach
out
to
after
seeing
the
amendment
to
representative
from
jjs.
They
said
this
is
already
in
place.
I
was
not
able
to,
however,
to
get
a
hold
of
any
of
the
judges.
I'm
wondering
if
mr
mccormick
can
tell
us
if
this
is
already
in
place
for
the
judicial
officers.
C
Excuse
me,
thank
you,
senator
pickard,
john
mccormick
for
the
record.
We
are
currently
actually
in
process
of
delivering
training
in
this
area
to
all
the
district
court.
Judges
in
the
state
and
that'll
happen
on
may
25th.
I
believe
and
it'll
be
part
of
our
ongoing
training
regime
going
forward.
C
Masters
will
have
opportunity
to
catch
up
with
that
later
on,
after
we
post
it
on
our
our
distance
education
website,.
F
D
Thanks
man,
my
take's
quite
different
frankly,
I
didn't
bring
up
anything
during
the
hearing
because
the
youth
legislator,
legislators
were
bringing
in
it
didn't
feel
comfortable
to
challenge
a
bunch
of
teenagers.
But
there
was
a
bunch
of
statements
in
there
that
really
disturbed
me
and
I
want
to
get
them
on
the
record
now.
One
trayvon
martin
was
not
murdered.
In
fact,
george
zimmerman
was
acquitted
and
when
the
civil
rights
aspects
of
it
were
brought
up,
the
department
of
justice
actually
dismissed
that
entirely.
So
the
very
premise
that
that
kid
started
with
was
wrong.
D
The
other
thing
is
this
whole
bias.
Training
I've
been
working
with
these
juvenile
justice
people
for
six
sessions.
Now,
and
I
know
nobody
in
this
state.
Frankly,
that
cares
more
about
all
juveniles
than
all
races
and
colors
than
people
like
bridget,
w,
okay.
So
this
concept
of
implicit
bias
in
this
system,
it
is
biased
itself.
I
mean
the
the
version
of
american
history
that
these
people
are
looking
at
is
basically
the
howard
zen
version.
Now
we're
essentially
everything.
D
That's
bad
is
all
we
focus
on
and
we
completely
suppress
any
of
the
positive
things
that
have
occurred
in
american
history
and
the
idea
that
we're
going
to
force
all
the
people
in
the
criminal
justice
system
every
two
years
to
go
through.
Basically,
a
re-indoctrination
program
is
just
wrong
and
it's
based
on
a
false
premise
that
there's
a
systemic
problem
in
the
system,
which
I
totally
100
percent
reject
after
years
of
personal
observation.
So
I
just
want
to
get
that
on
the
record,
because
I
didn't
want
to
back
when
the
kids
were
doing
their
presentation.
D
Just
I
wouldn't
be
comfortable
with
that,
but
I
do
want
to
to
know
why
I'm
voting
no
today,
because
I
reject
the
concept
that
the
criminal
justice
system
in
nevada
has
an
implicit
bias
and
in
fact
I
think
the
people
that
are
pushing
the
bias
training
are
the
ones
with
bias,
so
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Noted
for
the
record
any
other
questions
on
sb108,
not
seeing
any.
I
will
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
orenshall
seconded
by
senator
harris
any
discussion
on
the
motion
not
seeing
any.
We
will
move
to
a
roll
call
vote.
Please.
H
F
F
D
F
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
carries
is
there
somebody
who
would
like
to
take
the
for
statement
senator
harris
the
floor
statement
is
yours,
and
that
concludes
our
work
session
on
sb108
and
takes
us
to
our
work
session
on
sb
212.
Mr
gainen.
E
Thanks
again,
jericho,
patrick
guyan,
for
the
record,
we're
now
on
senate
bill
212,
which
is
a
bill
sponsored
by
senator
harris
who
is
a
member
of
this
committee.
We
heard
it
on
march
25th
senate
bill
212,
prohibits
the
use
of
restraint
chairs
by
law
enforcement
and
also
prohibits
a
peace
officer
who
is
responding
to
a
protest
or
demonstration
from
discharging
a
kinetic
energy
projectile
indiscriminately
into
a
crowd
or
targeting
the
head
pelvis
or
back
of
a
person
prior
to
using
a
chemical
agent.
E
An
officer
must
first
declare
that
the
protester
demonstration
constitutes
an
unlawful
assembly,
provide
orders
to
disperse
an
egress
route
and
reasonable
time
to
disburse
bill
requires
a
peace
officer
to
employ
de-escalation
techniques
and
other
alternatives
consistent
with
his
or
her
training,
before
resorting
to
higher
levels
of
force
to
effect
an
arrest.
If
an
officer
uses
a
higher
level
of
force,
the
officer
is
to
identify
himself
or
herself
if
this
can
be
done
safely
and
is
to
use
the
objectively
reasonable
amount
of
force.
E
Only
excuse
me,
the
objectively
reasonable
amount
of
force
necessary
to
safely
accomplish
a
lawful
purpose.
Law
enforcement
agencies
are
required
to
adopt
written
policies
on
the
threat
posed
by
certain
persons
to
peace,
officers
and
others,
and
are
required
to
report
data
on
the
use
of
force
to
the
attorney
general,
who
is
required
to
review
the
data
and
report
the
findings
to
the
governor
and
the
legislature.
E
The
data
collected
may
not
be
used
against
a
peace
officer
during
any
criminal
proceeding
after
the
initial
hearing
on
the
bill,
senator
harris
put
together
a
new
amendment
which
is
proposed
today
and
which
is
attached
to
the
following
page
of
this
document.
Briefly,
the
proposed
amendment
removes
references
to
the
attorney
general
from
the
bill
regarding
law
enforcement
agencies,
reporting
use
of
force
data
and
replaces
those
with
appropriate
references
to
the
central
repository
of
the
nevada
records
of
criminal
history.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
orenshall.
Is
there
a
second
and
a
second
from
majority
leader
canizaro?
Any
discussion
on
the
motion?
D
D
I
think
that
when
you
study
these
issues,
particularly
the
case
when
we
mentioned
people
shooting
randomly
into
crowds,
we
seem
to
forget
that
we
had
a
police
officer
that
was
shot
in
the
back
of
the
head,
can't
think
it
was
the
first
name
of
michelana's
in
in
the
very
incidents
that
raised
this
that
we
haven't
been
said
boo
about,
I
think,
we're
once
again
going
after
the
good
guys
and
using
this
bias,
training
false
philosophy
to
further
handicap
the
ability
of
our
law
enforcement
officers
to
do
their
job.
D
I
think
they
already
do
everything
reasonably
under
the
sun
to
try
to
keep
this
sort
of
stuff
in
check.
When
you
see
the
1.3
million
instances
that
the
police
officers
in
clark
county,
for
example,
did
in
one
year
and
the
tiny,
tiny,
tiny
sliver
of
issues
that
they
have,
this
sort
of
legislation
is
wrong
and
I'm
voting.
No.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Along
that
same
vein,
I
think
that,
with
the
amendment
it
just
more
solidly
places
this
in
the
position
that
law
enforcement
already
finds
themselves.
They're
already
doing
most
of
these
things,
I
think.
As
a
result,
and
particularly
given
the
presentation
and
the
testimony
that
we
received,
I
think
this
is
an
affront
to
police.
It's
completely
unnecessary
and-
and
I
just
cannot
support
this
kind
of
action-
police
react
to
what
they
find.
They
don't
create
the
problems
and
say
what
you
will
about
implicit
bias.
I
Canazarro,
thank
you,
chair
schreibel.
I
I
wanted
to
just
thank
again
senator
harris
for
the
amendment
here
and
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
again
as
someone
who
has
worked
in
law
enforcement
for
nearly
a
decade
and
who
works
with
officers
every
single
day
prosecuting
violent
crimes
and
working
with
those
officers
who,
I
know,
do
a
really
fantastic
job
and
take
a
lot
of
pride
in
their
work.
I
I
don't
see
anything
in
this
bill
that
would
prevent
an
officer
in
the
event
of
being
in
a
situation
where
somebody's
life
was
at
danger,
where
their
life
was
at
danger
from
using
deadly
force.
If
that
was
what
the
situation
called
for,
but
also
putting
in
there
some
parameters
to
our
community
to
say
you
know
when
you
are
calling,
and
it's
not
that
situation
you
don't
have
to
be
fearful
of
the
police.
I
I
think
we're
giving
them
the
appropriate
mechanisms
and
I
think
we're
creating
the
right
kind
of
accountability,
and
so
for
me,
the
fact
that
we
are
doing
some
of
these
things
already
creating
uniformity
across
the
board
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
and
I
think
that
this
is
something
that
actually
gives
some
direction
and
some
guidelines
for
law
enforcement,
which
is
always
helpful
and
again
we
have
a
lot
of
really
great
men
and
women
in
uniform
who
do
a
wonderful
job.
I
I'm
always
proud
to
work
with
them
in
my
day
job,
and
I
think
that
this
this
helps
to
ensure
that
the
community
can
have
that
same
kind
of
confidence
in
the
job
that
they
do
every
day
so
I'll
be
supporting.
I
will
be
supporting
the
bill
and
the
amendment.
Thank
you,
chair.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
believe
that
the
law
enforcement,
the
vast
overwhelming
majority
of
them
are
great
people,
are
doing
great
things,
sadly
like
in
all
professions.
Sometimes
there
are
a
few
bad
actors,
and
I
really
wish
we
could
find
a
way
to
target
those
bad
actors
rather
than
legislation
that
potentially
is
burdensome
for
those
individuals
that
are
already
doing
great
jobs,
as
we've
heard,
most
departments
are
doing
this
already,
but
I
think
each
department
is
different.
I
think
every
aspect
of
our
state
in
that
respect
can
be
quite
different.
F
Some
of
the
smaller
sheriff's
departments
may
find
these
type
of
rules
burdensome.
So
in
that
respect,
I
just
necessarily
can't
endorse
it
at
this
time.
This
type
of
a
concept,
especially
in
light
of
the
testimony
when
we
have
individuals
that
come
into
this
body
and
blatantly
fabricate
and
date,
we
should
not
support
it.
A
But
looking
very
pointedly
at
the
language
of
the
bill,
it
does
exactly
what
we're
supposed
to
do
as
lawmakers,
which
is
ensure
to
every
citizen
of
nevada
that
they
are
insured
certain
rights
and
certain
safety,
especially
when
it
comes
to
the
use
of
force.
It's
not
overly
burdensome.
It
matches.
Metra's
current
policy
and
the
use
of
force
frankly
should
not
be
different
across
law
enforcement
agencies.
A
People
in
nevada
should
know
that
wherever
they
go
in
nevada,
even
if
they
are
committing
a
crime
weren't
suspected
of
committing
a
crime,
they
should
know
that
they're
going
to
be
approached
and
responded
to
with
respect
and
dignity
and
a
reasonableness
that
doesn't
put
them
in
fear
of
a
serious
bodily
harm
or
death.
I
and
I
agree
with
the
majority
leader
that
that
is
what
our
officers
do
every
day.
They
respond
in
a
reasonable
fashion.
A
They
respond
with
respect
and
they
uphold
the
safety
and
the
laws
of
the
state
of
nevada,
and
we
are
simply
putting
that
into
statutes
so
that
there
is
no
question
about
what
that
means
and
how
that
is
supposed
to
be
done.
I'm
proud
to
support
this
bill
I'll
also
be
a
yes,
and
with
that
secretary,
I
ask
that
we
move
to
roll
call
vote.
A
F
F
D
The
young
officer's
name
I
want
to
get
on
the
record
for
as
108
for
sb-108
shea
michelanas
29
years
old,
shot
in
the
back
of
the
head
by
one
of
the
protesters
and
who
is
paralyzed
from
the
neck
down.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Understood
with
that,
we
will
close
the
work
sessions.
That
leads
us
to
our
bill
presentation
from
our
very
own
majority
leader
and
vice
chair.
I
have
to
present
a
bill
on
another
committee,
so
I'm
going
to
hand
the
gavel
over
to
the
very
capable
chair
orange
hall
to
conduct
this
hearing
in
my
absence,
but
I
hope
to
be
back
before
you're
finished.
Thank
you.
H
I
Thank
you,
chair,
orrin,
shaw,
members
of
the
committee.
It
is
my
pleasure
to
be
here
in
front
of
the
judiciary
committee
being
able
to
present
a
bill
one
of
my
favorite
committees
in
the
legislature,
which
I
think
is
a
secret
to
no
one.
Thank
you
again
for
having
me
for
the
record.
My
name
is
nicole
canozzaro.
I
For
those
of
you
who
are
not
readily
familiar
with
how
courts
handle
fines
and
fees
today
driver's
license
suspensions
are
a
frequently
used
tool
to
enforce
the
collection
of
what
I
will
refer
to
as
criminal
justice
debt
and
that
refers
to
the
accumulation
of
fees
and
fines
that
a
defendant
acquires
while
being
processed
through
the
justice
system.
These
fees
and
fines
can
be
imposed
as
administrative
fees.
I
These
are
often
used
to
prevent
to
act
as
a
deterrent
from
future
wrongdoing,
but
they're
also
imposed
as
administrative
assessments
on
defendants
when
combined
with
other
costs
of
living.
Of
course,
these
can
sometimes
fall
by
the
wayside.
We
think
of
rent
and
mortgage
payments.
Credit
card
debt,
insurance
payments,
child
support,
other
things
that
come
as
a
result
of
daily
life
and
the
additional
cost
of
criminal
justice
debt
can
be
difficult
or
impossible
to
pay.
I
One
estimate
by
the
united
states
census
bureau
in
2012
puts
fees
and
fines
collected
by
state
and
local
governments
at
more
than
15
billion
dollars
per
year,
and
this
is
a
chunk
of
that.
This
is
when
collection
enforcement,
such
as
the
suspension
of
a
driver's
license,
is
introduced
when
people
lose
their
driver's
license.
They
of
course
also
often
lose
their
job
or
have
trouble
finding
work
and
therefore
unable
to
satisfy
the
debt,
because
people
need
to
drive
to
go
to
work,
to
get
to
a
doctor's
appointment
or
to
provide
transportation
to
their
children.
I
Now
I
want
to
be
clear
that
fines
and
fees
are
one
way
in
which
we
may
assess
individuals
a
a
particular
punishment
for
having
committed
a
particular
crime
because
they
pled
guilty
because
they
were
found
guilty.
This
can
also
include
things
like
community
service
stay
out
of
trouble
orders.
Sometimes
they
have
to
do
additional
counseling
those
types
of
things
and
we're
not
saying
in
this
bill,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that-
that
courts
couldn't
assess
fines
or
fees
for
criminal
involvement,
be
that
for
traffic
citations
or
for
misdemeanor
events.
I
But
what
we
are
saying
is
that
when
it
is
strictly
an
inability
to
pay,
so
not
someone
who
is
out
committing
additional
crimes
who
are
violating
these
orders,
who
aren't
doing
the
other
things
that
we
ask
of
them
while
they
are
out
of
custody
and
completing
their
out-of-custody
sentences
or
who
are
just
frankly
unable
to
pay
those
fines
and
fees
that
what
we're
not
trying
to
do
is
impose
yet
another
reason
for
them
to
continue
to
incur
fines
and
fees
and
also
take
away
one
of
the
main
ways
in
which
an
individual
may
be
able
to
actually
pay
back
those
fines
and
fees.
I
By
being
able
to
drive
to
work
by
being
able
to
gain
employment
and
to
come
back
to
court
and
to
fulfill
those
obligations.
I
I
think
that
there
are
other
ways
that
we
can
ensure
that
people
are
taking
responsibility
for
their
actions
and
also
ways
in
which
we
can
ensure
the
safety
of
the
community
that
don't
result
in
this
never-ending
cycle
of
debt
and
that's
what
senate
bill
219
is
seeking
to
get
at.
It
is
an
effort
to
curb
that
same
cycle
of
debt
that
can
sometimes
be
acquired
and
reduce
the
burden
on
court
dockets
as
well.
This
bill
aims
to
stop
the
suspension
of
a
driver's
license
based
on
an
individual's
inability
to
pay
section.
I
One
of
this
bill
removes
the
authority
of
a
court
to
suspend
a
driver's
license
of
a
defendant
or
prevent
a
defendant
from
applying
for
a
driver's
license
when
senate
bill
219
goes
into
effect.
According
to
the
language
that
we
have
in
the
bill
on
october,
1st
of
2021
section
4
would
require
that
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles
immediately
reinstate
a
driver's
license
or
the
ability
to
apply
for
a
driver's
license
for
individuals
subject
to
a
suspension
of
their
driver's
license
because
of
delinquent
fines
and
fees,
section
4,
also
states.
I
There
has
been
similar
legislation
introduced
in
several
states
to
include
north
carolina,
tennessee
virginia,
mississippi,
montana
and
new
york
that
eliminates
the
practice
of
suspending
or
revoking
driver's
licenses
simply
for
unpaid
court
imposed
fines
and
fees.
I
have
had
some
conversations
with
stakeholders
and
I
would
note
for
the
committee
that
those
conversations
are
still
ongoing.
I
Thankfully,
and
I'm
very
grateful
for
delve
into
some
of
those
numbers
to
get
a
better
idea
of
what
that
is,
I'm
very
grateful
to
the
representatives
from
the
department
of
motor
vehicles,
who
I
know
have
had
a
really
tough
job
over
the
course
of
this
pandemic
and
have
done
a
wonderful
job
of
helping
to
keep
everybody
on
track.
I
And
so
I
know
that
they
need
just
a
bit
more
time
to
kind
of
work
through
some
of
those,
and
so
that
is
an
ongoing
process
as
well,
and
I'm
thankful
for
them
coming
to
the
table
to
work
with
me
on
that.
I
also
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
some
of
the
judges
of
limited
jurisdiction
as
well,
and
they
addressed
some
concerns
that
they
have
over
the
ability
for
a
court
to
have
discretion
over
when
to
suspend
a
driver's
license,
because
under
the
current
law
as
well.
I
I
In
addition
to
another
bill
over
in
the
assembly
being
carried
by
assemblywoman,
win
that
deals
with
the
transfer
of
traffic
tickets
to
civil
infractions
and
the
interplay
between
these
two
bills
to
ensure
that
we
can
still,
you
know,
get
our
fines
and
fees
for
traffic
tickets,
but
not
inadvertently
either
suspend
our
driver's
licenses
or
turn
those
into
criminal
infractions
and
how
those
two
things
would
work
together.
I
So
we're
still
working
on
the
language
there
to
make
sure
that
this
can
be
a
tool
that
can
be
used
in
conjunction
with
that
bill
and
how
the
interplay
would
work.
That
is
an
amendment
that
I
would
anticipate
as
we
get
a
little
further
towards
our
deadlines
in
committee
that
we
can
hope
to
figure
it
out
so
that
it
makes
sense
in
accordance
with
that
bill
as
well.
I
In
addition,
I
wanted
to
again
have
an
opportunity
to
just
thank
the
committee
and
reiterate
the
point
that
driver's
license
suspension
really
does
nothing
for
public
safety
in
in
the
broad
sense,
and
it
creates
unnecessary
burdens
on
the
courts
with
defendants
who
are
just
simply
guilty
of
driving
while
poor
right.
They
can't
pay
those
fines
and
fees
and
now
we're
imposing
additional
ones.
I'm
hoping
that
we
will
gain
some
support
for
senate
bill
219
as
we
strive
for
a
more
equitable,
unfair
administration
of
justice.
I
Mr
chair,
I
would
like
to
at
this
point
turn
it
over
to
ms
mosley
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
what
the
impact
is
of
these
kinds
of
laws
that
help
to
sort
of
further
that
continued
cycle
than
I
discussed
earlier.
If
that
would
be
okay
with
the
committee.
H
Certainly
majority
leader-
and
I
see
good
afternoon
ms
mosley
good-
to
see
you
and
I'll
take
questions
after
your
presentation,
so
please
be
patient
senator
hansen.
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
joining
us.
J
Well
good
afternoon,
chair
orrin,
shaw
and
committee
members,
and
I
am
lisa
mosley
state
director
for
the
fines
and
fuse
justice
center
nevada
state
director
for
the
fines
and
abuse
justice
center
and
first
I
want
to
just
thank
the
majority
leader,
madam
nicole
canazzaro,
for
extending
an
opportunity
to
me
to
co-present
this
bill
with
her.
J
This
legislation
is
something
that
is
very
close
to
my
heart,
not
only
in
my
capacity
as
the
state
director
for
the
fines
and
peace
justice
center,
but
also
in
a
personal
capacity,
as
I
myself
have
been
affected
by
this
legend,
this
this
practice
in
the
past
and
have
many
people
that
are
close
to
me
that
have
also
been
affected
by
the
practice
of
getting
their
license
suspended
for
debt
based
infraction
debt
based
for
outstanding
fines
and
fees.
I
should
say
forgive
me,
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
this.
J
I
want
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
about
who
this
affects
now.
Madam
majority
leader
did
talk
a
little
bit
about
minority
communities,
but
I
also
want
to
just
highlight
who
this
affects
and
also,
as
she
mentioned,
provide
some
additional
data
on
other
states
that
may
have
that
have
ended
this
practice
and
also
how
this
practice
affects
residents
of
the
state.
J
J
Now
many
of
these
citations
result
in
these
residents
getting
their
driver's
license
suspended
simply
because
they
cannot
pay.
They
cannot
afford
to
pay
the
fines
and
fees
that
come
with
that.
This
is
a
practice
that
just
traps
people
in
a
cycle
of
poverty
and
it's
nearly
impossible
to
get
out
of
it's
a
practice
that
suspending
for
outstanding
traffic
dead.
It's
related
to
its
premise.
I
should
say
on
the
belief
that
people
who
have
outstanding
debt
just
simply
don't
want
to
pay
like
their
scoff
laws.
J
J
Now
I
did
mention
earlier
that
some
of
the
zip
codes
that
have
the
highest
number
of
highest
concentration
of
black
and
brown
people.
These
are
also
some
of
the
zip
codes
that
have
some
of
the
highest
rates
of
food
insecurity
and
unemployment.
So
you
know
there's
no
coincidence
here
that
these
are
also
the
zip
codes
that
have
the
highest
numbers
of
citations
and
driver's
license
suspensions.
J
J
This
also
just
highlights
the
disproportionality
in
which
this
practice
affects
mostly
black
and
hispanic
communities
in
new
york,
some
of
the
10
highest,
the
10
zip
codes
that
have
the
highest
concentration
of
black
and
brown
people
had
four
times
the
suspension
rates
of
zip
codes
that
had
higher
concentrations
of
non-black
and
brown
residents,
in
other
words,
white
residents
in
new
york,
where
76
percent
of
the
drivers
are
white.
J
I
also
want
to
just
offer
a
paint,
a
picture
of
the
number
of
suspensions
that
we
see
here
in
nevada
between
july
2017
and
june
of
2019
data
that
we
have
from
the
dmv
here
show
that
over
38
000
nevadans
had
their
license
suspended
for
unpaid
traffic,
fines
and
fees
they
had
their
license
to
spend
it
simply
because
they
were
not
able
to
pay
outstanding
fines
and
fees
and
the
research
that
we
have
shows
that
it
doesn't
make
it
easier.
It
does
states,
don't
collect
some
of
this
money.
J
It
makes
it
harder,
in
fact,
for
people
who
have
their
licenses
suspended.
It
presents
them
with
an
impossible
choice.
They
either
stop
driving
and
lose
the
ability
to
take
their
children
to
work,
take
families
to
doctors,
appointments
and
things
like
that,
or
keep
driving
and
risk
the
possibility
of
getting
more
fines
and
fees
getting
arrested
and
even
incarcerated,
which
we
have
seen
that
happen
in
many
cases
and
for
the
most
part
it
doesn't
result
in
people
actually
paying
their
court
debt.
J
We
do
have
data
that
shows
that,
in
in
jurisdictions
in
states
that
have
stopped,
suspending
collection
rates
have
actually
gone
up,
for
example
in
california,
and
I
know
we
don't
always
like
to
use
california
or
nevada,
but
they've
stopped
this
practice
and
they
have
some
really
great
data
that
came
out
of
that,
so,
for
example,
in
california,
when
they
stopped
suspending
licenses
for
unpaid
traffic
debt,
their
one-time
payments
actually
increased
by
eight
point
nine
percent.
J
Now
we
also
know
that
there
have
been
some
concerns
from
jurisdictions
about
what
what's
going
to
happen
with
their
revenue.
Are
they
going
to
see
their
revenue
decrease,
but
in
san
francisco,
when
they
stopped
suspending
licenses,
they
actually
saw
an
increase
in
their
revenue
as
a
result
of
not
suspending
driver's
license
in
the
year
when
they
stop
that
practice
now.
J
Another
good
example
that
I
have
cited
before
is
texas,
now
texas
of
all
places
but
texas
in
some
jurisdictions,
suspend
and
in
some
that
some
jurisdictions
don't
a
good
example
of
that
is
dallas
and
fort
worth
now.
These
jurisdictions
are
right,
next
to
each
other,
dallas
still
suspends
driver's
licenses
for
unpaid
fines
and
fees.
J
Personally
for
residents
who
have
their
licenses
suspended.
They
see
the
fact
that
they're
not
able
to
drive
around.
We
talked
about
that
early.
It
decreases
their
mobility,
but
arizona
has
a
program
where
they
actually
reinstated
licenses
for
some
residents
who
had
had
their
licenses
suspended
for
unpaid
traffic
debt
and
those
folks
said
they
saw
an
increase
in
their
mobility.
J
They
saw
an
increase
in
the
ability
to
drive
their
family
members
around,
but
I
think
one
of
the
most
important
things
is
that
they
saw
an
increase
in
their
employment
and
their
income
on
an
average
of
about
thirty
two
hundred
dollars
per
year
up
to
forty
48
000
per
year.
These
people,
who
were
in
this
program
and
by
the
way
phoenix
reinstated
only
about
7
000
licenses
in
this
program,
so
the
benefits
are
significant,
but
one
of
the
most
significant
benefits
that
arizona
has
seen
phoenix
in
particular
is
an
increase
in
their
gdp
and
jobs.
J
So
we
have
data
out
of
arizona
that
says
as
a
result
of
just
reinstating.
Only
these
7
000
licenses
that
they
saw
an
increase
in
their
gdp
of
149
million
dollars.
They
also
saw
an
increase
in
their
their
jobs
per
year.
So
I
think,
with
the
benefit
that
we
see
from
states
that
have
ended,
this
practice
is
far
outweighs
the
what
we
see
from
not
in
this
practice.
J
This
practice
it
just
traps
people
in
a
cycle
of
poverty
as
we
mentioned,
but
it
also
has
implications
for
the
state,
and
so
I
think
with
that
in
mind,
highlighting
some
of
the
benefits
that
states
who
have
stopped
suspending
have
seen.
J
As
a
result
of
that,
I
think
I
definitely
think
it's
time
that
nevada
follow
suit
and
stop
ending,
stop
suspending
licenses
for
unpaid
traffic
debt,
and
with
that
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
acting
chair
orange
hall
for
hearing
this
bill
and
committee
members,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
again
for
extending
the
opportunity
to
me
to
present
with
you
today.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
me,
I
am
certainly
open
to
that.
So
cheryl
armstrong.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Mosley
thank
you
majority
leader
and
you
know
certainly
coming
from
southern
nevada
and
being
a
native
and
growing
up
there.
H
I
believe
I'd
still
have
three
miles
and
three
miles
back
three
miles
each
way
so
six
miles
total,
which
you
know
it's
it.
It
makes
it
kind
of
very
difficult
for
people
if
they
can't
drive
to
be
able
to
work
to
be
able
to
pay
off
that
fine,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
the
majority
leader
and
thank
you,
mrs
mosley.
I
believe
we
have
a
question
from
senator
hanson.
D
Thanks
vice
chair,
actually
I
don't
know
I
caught
some
implicit
bias
in
the
comments
texas
of
all
places.
Now
I
guess
you
could
say
I
was
a
little
bit
of
a
biased
comment,
but
all
right,
the
problem
we've
got
here
is,
if
you
read
the
existing
law
that
was
striking
out
there,
it
says
in
it
up
to
the
judge,
because
if
they
willfully
were
avoiding
payment,
in
other
words,
the
judge
has
already
taken
into
account
the
fact
that
some
people
are
indigent
and
cannot
afford
to
pay
it.
D
So
we're
striking
the
we're
acting
like
the
judges,
apparently
just
ignore
that
part
of
the
law.
Then,
if
you
can't
pay
it
under
current
law,
you
have
the
opportunity
to
perform
community
service
and
it
and
then,
and
the
part,
we're
striking
out
if
you
fail
to
perform
community
service,
nothing
to
do
with
dollars
here,
just
simply
showing
up
to
pick
up
garbage
on
the
side
of
the
road
or
whatever
we're
striking
all
that
out
of
the
law.
D
So
the
the
concept
as
miss
mosley
said
simply
because
they
cannot
pay,
simply
isn't
accurate
and
then
the
other
question
I've
got.
Is
we
still
we're
getting
rid
of
section
b
there
and
we're
moving?
What's
currently
c
up
into
b,
but
c
says
if
the
court
exact
same
language,
if
the
court
determines
that
the
defendant
has
the
ability
to
pay
the
amount
due
and
is
willfully,
avoiding
payment
order,
the
confinement
of
the
defendant
in
the
appropriate
prison,
jail
or
detention.
D
So
while
we
are
taking
away
the
ability
to
use
the
the
driver's
license
as
leverage
we're
leaving
in
the
law,
the
ability
to
throw
them
in
jail.
So
to
me
this
this,
this
is
some
really
critical
flaws
in
the
thinking
here.
These
people
are
not
just
people
that
can't
afford
to
pay
it
they've
already
gone
through
that
they're.
Then,
given
community
service,
we're
going
to
throw
that
out,
and
then
we
leave
in
the
law
the
ability
to
throw
them
into
jail
for
the
same
thing.
H
Certainly,
I
think,
in
my
experience,
just
a
point
of
privilege
here
and
then
I'll
pass
it
to
whoever
wants
to
answer
it
since
the
pandemic.
I
know
that
many
of
the
clients
you
know
much
of
my
experience
has
been
that
it's
become
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
perform
community
service
to
find
places
that
are
open
right
now
and
now,
of
course,
I
hope
things
will
get
back
to
normal
soon
and
that
that
will
change.
But
I
know
in
the
last
a
little
over
a
year
it's
become
very
difficult
finding.
D
Well,
vice
chair
before
you
do
real
quick
on
that
point.
There's
no
sunset
in
this
new
new
thing
that
when
kovald
is
pushed
back
that
we
go
back
to
this
system,
okay,
so
even
if
currently
there's
an
inability
to
perform
community
service,
that's
been
in
the
law
a
long
time,
so
I
don't
see
kobet
as
a
legitimate
excuse
to
strike
it
out
of
the
law
completely
and
leave
in
place
the
ability
to
throw
them
in
jail.
I
And
thank
you,
chair
orange
raw
through
you
and
to
senator
hansen.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
hansen.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
senator
hansen.
Certainly,
I
think
the
idea
that
we're
talking
about
texas
is
that
this
seems
to
be
characterized.
This
kind
of
law
right
seems
to
be
characterized
as
something
that's
a
little
more
progressive
and-
and
I
don't
think
I
view
it
that
way.
I
I
think
I
see
it
as
well
how
we're
trying
to
leave
certain
things
in
the
law
and
how
we're
not-
and
I
think
that
you
know
certainly
in
the
lone
star
state
I
think
they
definitely
are
not
in
for
the
for
as
many
changes
in
the
law
in
that
regard,
and
so
I
think
that
was
just
a
a
nod
to
the
fact
that
this
is
happening
across
jurisdiction
lines
and
across
and
without
regard
to
whether
or
not
it
is
a
more
progressive
policy
or
or
not
whether
or
not.
I
This
is
something
that
is
pro-government
or
anti-government,
and
so
I'm
certainly
did
not.
I'm
sure
you
know
did
not
mean
to
sort
of
in
imply
anything
untoward.
So
let
me
first
say
that
I
think
it's
important,
though,
to
draw
this
distinctions
between
the
fact
that
we
do
have
jurisdictions
that
are
sometimes
characterized
differently,
employing
the
same
types
of
policies
and
both
jurisdictions.
Seeing
really
positive
results
from
that
policy.
I
I
did
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
again
with
the
courts
of
limited
jurisdiction
earlier
today,
and
in
fact
they
have
indicated
that,
while,
while
the
language
seems
to
be
here
that
it
is
permissive
how
this
actually
functionally
operates,
is
it
where
there
is
merely
an
outstanding,
fine
or
fee,
not
that
someone
is
is
not
complying
with
other
conditions
that
they've
been
asked
to
do.
But
when
that
happens,
the
suspension
is
automatic
and
and
must
be
done
by
the
court,
so
they
they
lack
discretion.
I
In
order
to
do
that,
so
we're
actually
not
having
findings
of
this
person
has
the
ability
to
pay.
That's
assumed
the
fact
that
a
fee
or
fine
was
issued.
So
the
court
is
not
going
into
a
fact-finding
hearing
or
any
sort
of
due
process
based
procedure
in
order
to
make
that
determination.
I
Additionally-
and
I
think,
what's
important
to
note
here
and
the
reason
for
the
additional
language
being
left
in
there
about
whether
a
defendant
is
simply
not
paying
their
fines
and
and
how
that
would
practically
work
is
in
las
vegas
justice
court,
for
example.
I
They
don't
utilize
this
for
things
that
are
a
criminal
in
nature
right,
so,
if
somebody's
charged
with
it
with
a
battery
with
a
simple
battery
or
a
simple
assault.
Typically,
what
will
happen
if
they're
not
just
going
to
serve
jail
time
and
if
they're
just
going
to
serve
jail
time,
then
they're
sentenced
to
jail?
They
serve
that
time
and
that's
the
satisfaction
of
the
sentence
associated
with
that
particular
conviction
or
plea.
I
If
somebody,
however,
is
let's
say
out
of
custody
or
is
released
from
custody
and
says,
hey
I'd
like
to
plead
guilty
to
this
particular
charge,
or
it's
negotiated
that
way.
They
will
plea
guilty
to
the
misdemeanor
charge.
They
will
be
ordered,
sometimes
to
pay
a
fine.
They
will
sometimes
be
ordered
in
lieu
of
that
fine
to
do
community
service
as
sort
of
in
either
or
and
maybe
they
might
be
assessed
a
condition
to
attend
impulse
control
counseling
in
order
to
stay
out
of
trouble.
I
So
they
can't
pick
up
additional
cases
and
then
they
would
have
what
we
call
a
suspended
sentence
or
an
implied
sentence
for
the
court
to
issue
contempt
of
court,
and
if
there
was
a
contempt
of
court
order,
that
would
be
jail
time
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
we
have
enforcement
mechanisms
for
individuals
who
are
satisfying
their
sentence
outside
of
a
jail
setting,
and
there
are
lots
of
good
reasons
for
why
we
want
those
things
why
we
want
to
make
sure
there
are
stay
out
of
trouble,
orders
so
they're
not
out
committing
additional
crimes.
I
Why
we
want
to
make
sure
they're
doing
community
service
or
giving
that
option
if
they
can't
pay
the
fine
where
this
really
comes
into
play,
because
in
those
criminal
cases,
let's
say
they
don't
complete
the
community
service,
they
don't
pay
the
fine
or,
for
example,
they
don't
stay
out
of
trouble.
They
pick
up
a
new
offense
or
they
don't
complete
their
counseling.
I
Then
the
court
can
impose
that
suspended
sentence
or
they
can
impose
contempt
time
and
the
person
does
time
in
jail
and
satisfaction
of
that
where
this
particular
provision
comes
into
play-
and
this
is
specifically
true
amongst
the
the
justice
courts
and
so
those
courts
of
limited
jurisdiction
is
where
people
have
traffic
tickets
right.
So
you
have
a
traffic
ticket
for
speeding.
You
don't
pay
that
the
court,
because
you
have
been
assessed.
A
fine
is
assuming
you
have
that
fine
to
pay.
I
I
They
also
have
now
additional
fines
and
fees
in
order
to
go
to
the
dmv
to
actually
reinstate
their
license
and,
in
the
meantime,
that
suspended
license,
prohibits
them
right
from
driving,
and
I
think,
to
senator
orrinshaw's
point,
especially
in
southern
nevada,
and
I
I
grew
up
where,
at
times
we
had
transportation
and
at
times
we
did
not
or
we
didn't
have
reliable
transportation
and
when
you
don't
have
that
you
don't
have
a
vehicle
that
can
get
you
to
and
from
work.
I
That
makes
it
very
difficult
and
very
susceptible
to
job
loss
right,
because
you
can't
show
up
and
in
a
lot
of
those
jobs
for
at-will
employment,
you're,
simply
fired,
and
so
that
sort
of
perpetuates
this.
Where
really
we're
talking
about
things
like
traffic
tickets,
we're
not
talking
about
trying
to
remove
the
court's
ability
to
enforce
other
provisions
like,
for
example,
a
suspended
sentence
or,
for
example,
a
stay
out
of
trouble,
order
or
other
counseling
or
community
service.
So
and
typically
in
practice.
D
All
right:
well,
I
I
thank
you
that
was
a
kind
of
drawn
out
way
to.
I
still
don't
understand
why
we'd
eliminate
the
community
service
portion
of
it
and
I'm
not
sure
your
implicit
bias
against
the
state
of
texas
is
not
implicit
by
it.
They
call
them
less
progressive.
I
would
bet
a
lot
of
texans
would
take
offense
than
that
anyway.
D
Oh
the
overall
idea
of
the
bill,
I
understand-
and
I
agree
look.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
take
people's
license
ways.
They
can't
go
to
work
to
pay
their
fine.
That
makes
sense
and
the
idea
that
you
mentioned
or,
of
course,
automatically
assess
the
fine.
I
can
understand
that
too.
I'm
thinking
more
of
a
situation
where
judge
or
somebody
comes
and
says
your
honor
I'm
guilty,
but
frankly,
I'm
unemployed
at
the
moment.
You
know
that
that
that's
that
typically
doesn't
happen
in
traffic
court.
D
So
I
I
see
where
you're
going
with
this,
so
I'm
not
opposed
to
the
concept.
It
just
seem
just
sort
of
odd,
though,
to
eliminate
community
service.
After
the
and
the
suspension
after
they've
been
given
the
opportunity
by
the
courts.
That's
that's.
You
know
can't
pay
my
fine
fine.
Well,
then,
you'll
go
pick
up,
garbage,
don't
show
up
to
pick
up
garbage,
I'm
going
to
suspend
your
license
and
that's
what
the
current
law
allows
and
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
remove
it.
But
thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam.
F
Thank
you,
mr
vice
chairman.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
the
question
majority
leader,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
confused
but,
as
you
know,
sometimes
that
happens
with
me
in
that
respect,
will
the
court
still
have
the
jurisdictional
ability
to
suspend
driver's
license
based
upon
other
criteria
that
are
within
nevada
law,
such
as
graffiti
citations?
Things
of
that
nature.
I
Thank
you
senator
settlemyre
for
the
question,
nicole
canozzaro
senate
district,
six,
yes,
we
are
not
intending,
and
the
provisions
here
are
not
intending
to
take
away
the
ability
for
a
driver's
license
to
be
suspended.
For
example,
if
there
were,
and
the
the
thing
that
comes
to
mind
to
me
is
something
like
a
dui.
There
are
different
provisions
under
those
those
statutes
where,
if
somebody
is
not
doing
the
things
they
would
have
to
do
there,
then
suspension
of
a
license
is
a
is
a
penalty
to
that.
I
This
is
merely
getting
at
those
instances
where
we're
talking
about
someone
who
can't
who
cannot
pay
those
fines
and
fees
and
trying
to
ensure
that
we're
not
adding
that
on
and
that
we
can
look
at
it
at
different
ways
in
order
to
assure
the
payment
of
fines
and
fees,
because
this-
and
I
think
ms
mosley
has
talked
about
the
data
here-
this
is
not
something
that
is
impacting
or
or
I
guess,
supporting
the
idea
that
we're
going
to
collect
more
on
fines
and
fees
simply
because
we
suspend
someone's
license
rather
we're
seeing
the
exact
opposite.
I
So
this
is
not
intended
to
get
at
other
instances
where
suspension
of
a
driver's
license
would
be
appropriate
either
for
things
like
cdc,
license,
violations
or
duis,
or
where
someone
has
so
many
points
on
their
ticket
that
they
they
are
now.
Somebody
who
has
their
driver's
license
suspended,
but
we're
talking
about
those
instances
that
deal
religious
with
inability
to
pay.
F
So
in
that
respect
again,
it's
just
inability
to
pay.
So
just
somebody
get
on
the
record
real,
quick
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
utilize
in
this
particular
changing
law,
so
will
not
prevent
taking
away
someone's
driver's
license
for
collecting
12
or
more
demerits
in
a
year,
first
or
second
dui
street
racing
driving
without
car
insurance
graffiti
citations,
because
I
know
numerous
judges
that
use
this
as
a
tool,
especially
when
dealing
with
youth
offenders
to
take
away
their
driver's
license
due
to
graffiti
violations.
F
You
will
not
be
able
to
use
this
for
falling
behind
on
child
support
payments,
so
in
other
words,
the
court
will
still
be
able
to
say
no
we're
taking
away
your
driver's
license
because
you're
being
a
deadbeat
parent
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
use
this
for
failing
to
show
up
for
traffic
court.
Third
offense
is
securing
a
child
in
a
car
seat
furthering
oneself
to
dmv
habitual
truancy,
possessions
of
drug
alcohol,
firearm
utilization.
None
of
this.
This
is
only
for
situations
where
people
were
choosing
not
to
pay.
F
I
Fine
take
a
sip
of
water.
That
was
a
long
list.
Thank
you,
senator
sotomayor
for
the
question,
nicole
cannasaro
senate
district
six.
That
is
correct.
That
is,
our
intention
is
to
get
at
those
instances.
Certainly,
there
are
times
where
suspension
of
a
driver's
license
makes
sense,
we're
not
trying
to
take
away
that
ability
entirely
we're
just
trying
to
ensure
that
what
we're
not
doing
is
using
it
as
a
mechanism
to
try
to
enforce
payment
of
fines
and
fees.
When
we
have
statistical
data,
that
shows
us
that
is
ineffective
and
where
we
have
data.
I
That
also
shows
that
it
just
simply
adds
to
what
I
think
we've
we've
discussed
today
as
that
cycle
of
debt.
F
K
I
absolutely
love
this
bill
and
it's
mostly
because
I'm
someone
who
has
at
some
point
received
in
the
mail
that
suspension
notice
and
felt
that
sinking
feeling
and
frantically
picked
up
my
phone
and
tried
to
call
every
person
I
know
to
see
if
they
could
get
me
a
ride
to
work
that
day
in
order
to
be
able
to
figure
it
out,
hopefully,
for
the
next
days
until
you
could
figure
out
why
it
was
suspended,
which
ticket,
maybe
did
you
miss
going
to
to
court
what
vine
weren't
you
caught
up
on
and
having
also
the
experience
of
maybe
thinking
about
community
service,
but
taking
a
look
at
the
list
and
knowing
that
none
of
those
days
work
with
your
days
off
at
your
job,
where
you
have
very
little
control
over
your
schedule
and
so
trying
to
manage
all
of
those
emotions
and
how
difficult
that
can
be.
H
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
additional
questions.
I'd
like
to
go
to
support
broadcasting,
if
there's
anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
the
measure,
we're
allotting
two
minutes
per
caller.
H
L
L
C
Good
afternoon
majority
leader
canavaro
vice
chair
orrin,
shall
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
lisa
rasmussen,
l-I-s-a
r-a-s-m-u-s,
I'm
here
to
testify
in
support
today
of
this
bill
on
behalf
of
nacj.
I
think
it's
a
great
bill.
It
really
does
target
the
people
who
are
too
poor
to
be
able
to
pay
their
their
fines
and
fees
and,
as
everyone
has
pointed
out,
the
consequence
of
that
is
often
losing
your
job,
which
doesn't
help
pay
the
fines
and
fees,
and
it
really
doesn't
target
the
people
who
should
lose
their
license
with
our
dui
cases.
C
L
G
Thank
you
vice
chair
orange
hall
and
committee
members.
This
is
nick
chipek
n-I-c-k-s-h-e-p-a-c-k
on
behalf
of
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
want
to
thank
majority
leader,
candace
r,
for
bringing
this
bill.
This
is
a
popular
idea,
this
session,
with
a
similar
with
a
similar
piece
of
legislation
working
its
way
through
the
assembly.
We
welcome
all
the
interest
in
this
area.
The
majority
of
traffic
violations
that
lead
to
traffic
debt
are
debt-based
violations
such
as
not
being
able
to
pay
your
registration
on
time
or
not
being
able
to
fix
a
tail
light
right
away.
G
The
fines
and
fees
from
these
violations
can
be
more
than
a
person
can
afford.
In
turn,
they
fail
to
pay
the
fee
in
the
allotted
time
and
lose
their
license.
As
senator
orrinshall
stated,
public
transportation
is
problematic,
even
in
our
largest
city,
it
is
almost
non-existent
in
many
of
our
rural
communities.
If
the
only
way
people
can
get
to
work
is
drive,
they
often
will
if
they
don't
have
a
license.
That
means
they're
driving
uninsured.
This
is
a
major
public
safety
issue.
G
By
suspending
the
licenses
of
the
most
vulnerable
nevadans,
we
are
ensuring
they
remain
vulnerable.
These
people
are
often
single
parents
who
have
the
responsibility
to
transport
their
children
and
a
license
is
necessary
to
do
that.
There
are
multitudes
of
ways
to
ensure
that
civil
penalties
are
paid
hobbling.
A
person's
ability
to
move
freely
about
the
area
in
which
they
live
is
a
long-headed
policy.
We
live
in
a
state
where
driving
is
necessary
for
many.
Our
lawyers
should
take
that
into
account.
G
L
M
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
for
lisa
mosley
for
presenting
this
bill.
This
is
a
good
measure
that
can
help
people
climb
out
of
the
holes
that
they
sometimes
find
themselves
in
financially.
M
I
have
worked
at
benchmark
washing
clinics
where
I've
seen
a
traffic
ticket
ruin
somebody's
life,
and
that
sounds
unrealistic,
but
it
is
realistic.
The
person
gets
a
traffic
ticket,
their
license
gets
suspended.
They
can't
pay
the
fines
and
eventually
they
get
arrested
on
a
bench
warrant,
they're
placed
in
jail
for
a
few
days.
They
wind
up
losing
their
job
because
they
live
paycheck
to
paycheck,
they
lose
their
housing
and
it
takes
an
enormous
amount
of
effort
to
climb
out
of
that
hole.
M
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
C
C
We
are
also
also
looking
at
seeing
how
other
state
pmbs
are
handling
this
issue,
because
there
is
similar
situations
in
other
states
and
thank
you
all
for
your
time
today.
L
H
J
Thank
you
vice
chair
arnshaw.
This
is
lisa
mosley
state
director
for
fines
and
feast
justice
center.
I
want
to
again
thank
the
committee
and
everyone
for
hearing
this
bill
and
considering
it
for
support.
I
would
like
to
offer
also
to
senator
hansen,
if
I
may
why
I
characterize
texas
that
way
and
no
bias
toward
texas.
J
It's
just
interesting
that
in
discussions
about
this
particular
practice,
I'm
often
met
with
surprise
at
the
fact
that
texas
has
been
out
front
on
ending
this
practice,
and
so
that's
why
I
said
that
no
shade
to
texas,
I
have
lots
of
family
members
in
texas
and
look
forward
to
visiting
them
once
we
are
able
to
again.
I
also
want
to
point
out
that,
with
this,
this
legislation
will
just
give
people
an
opportunity
to
be
able
to
live
and
to
support
their
families.
J
I
would
offer
a
benefit
to
our
state
in
the
in
the
form
of
people
being
able
to
go
back
to
work,
people
being
able
to
maintain
work
and
people
being
able
to
support
themselves
and
their
families
and
possibly
in
reliance
on
things
like
states
supported
things
like
food
stamps
or
public
assistance,
and
so
I
think
this
legislation
will
go
a
very
long
way
and
not
only
building
up
self-esteem
for
for
people
who
have
experiences,
but
also
supporting
our
state
and
helping
us
to
create
increase
revenue
in
some
cases
and
just
to
see
just
bring
some
relief
to
people.
H
Thank
you
very
much,
ms
mosley
and
majority
leader
any
closing
comments.
You'd
like
to
make.
I
I
think
miss
mosley
did
a
great
job
of
summing
it
up,
and
I
thank
her
very
much
for
not
only
her
time
here
today
and
her
testimony,
but
her
dedication
and
and
work
in
this
area,
because
I
think
it's,
I
think
it's
important
work
and
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
and
the
senators
for
their
questions
and,
of
course,
always
love
being
in
front
of
the
judiciary
committee.
So,
thanks
for
having
me.
H
L
L
B
Excuse
me,
the
idea
there
is
a
war
on
police
is
false
propaganda
and
the
idea
of
the
thin
blue
line
is
indoctrination,
the
inability
to
acknowledge
shortcomings
and
being
in
denial
of
them
when
it
comes
to
law
enforcement
is
telling
the
saying
is
one
bad
apple
spoils.
The
bunch
nicholas
pharah
died
in
a
restraint
chair
in
less
than
two
minutes.
My
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
hard
tied
for
40
plus
minutes
and
appriciated
a
hard
time.
B
Justin
justin
thompson
was
a
fixated
by
washoe
deputies.
Nico
smith
was
asphyxiated
by
them.
Christopher
towncon
was
asphyxiated
by
sparks
pd
micah
abbey
was
associated
by
reno
pd
lvmpd
affixiated,
byron
williams,
toshi
brown,
roy
anthony
scott
dustin
james
boone,
daryl
hicks,
it's
time
for
nevada
to
acknowledge
their
own
george
floyds.
Until
we
change
the
attitudes
of
many
as
witnessed
today
during
the
hearing,
laws
will
do
no
good
chances.
Are
law
enforcement
aren't
opposing
a
bill.
It
really
won't
hold
him
accountable
anyway,
so
you
shouldn't
be
worried
about
it.
There
is
no
fabrication
in
this
data.
B
L
H
Thank
you
broadcasting
and
thank
you
to
all
the
senators
all
the
staff,
thanks
for
all
your
help
to
make
this
meeting
happen
today,
and
we
are
a.