►
From YouTube: 2/17/2021 - 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
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
and
we
have
three
bills
to
hear
today,
but
we
are
on
a
tight
schedule.
It's
one
pm.
Now
we
have
until
approximately
three
o'clock
to
hear
three
bills
in
two
hours,
so
today
I
will
be
limiting
testimony
on
each
bill
in
each
position
to
only
10
minutes
in
order
to
allow
the
committee
ample
time
to
ask
questions
of
our
presenters
and
the
numerous
subject
matter,
experts
that
we
have
present
with
us
today.
I
would
encourage
everybody
who
is
here
to
testify
to
submit
written
comments.
A
A
Send.State.Nv.Us
this
can
also
be
found
on
the
agenda
and
I'll
also
remind
you
that
each
testifier
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
you
are
always
welcome
to
just
say
ditto.
I
agree.
My
organization
has
the
same
position,
something
like
that.
A
The
two
minutes
is
a
maximum,
not
a
minimum,
and
when
we
are
finished
hearing
the
bills,
we
will
use
the
remaining
time
left
in
our
meeting
for
public
comment,
and
I
look
forward
to
hearing
from
all
of
you
whether
it
be
on
the
phone
today
or
via
writing
or
in
the
future,
and
with
that
we
have
our
esteemed
attorney
general
here
joining
us
to
present
three
bills
and
we
will
start
with
sb
41.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
don't
know
if
the
attorney
general
wants
to
do
introductions
before
we
get
started,
so
I
will
give
him
a
minute
to
see
if
he
wants
to
respond.
H
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I
am
aaron
ford,
your
attorney
general,
it's
so
great
to
see
you
all
I'm
sitting
here
in
carson
with
my
second
assistant,
christine
jones
brady,
I'm
in
my
mask,
but
we're
six
feet
apart.
I'm
gonna
take
it
off
so
that
I
can
talk,
and
you
can
hear
me
better,
but
I
wanted
to
start
it
off
in
the
right
way.
H
Thank
you
again
for
entertaining
us
today,
it's
frankly,
it's
fantastic
to
see
you
all
in
your
smiling
face,
as
I
finally
recall
my
days
in
the
state
senate
and
finally
recall
serving
with
so
many
of
you,
and
so
it's
great
to
see
you
there.
I
will
not
say
more
before
you
begin
on
sb41
and
instead
tend
to
the
microphone
to
my
colleagues
in
the
south,
kyle
george
and
teresa
hart,
to
present
this
bill.
Thank
you.
So
much.
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
theresa
hard.
I'm
the
special
assistant
attorney
general
here
at
the
attorney
general's
office,
I'm
joined
by
jessica,
adair
chief
of
staff,
kyle
george,
our
first
assistant
and
william
scott
are
chiefs
of
investigations.
I
The
district
court
has
the
jurisdiction
to
issue
orders
authorizing
the
use
of
pin
registers
and
trap
and
trace
devices,
and
by
way
of
background
a
for
example,
a
pen
register
identifies
all
outgoing
phone
numbers
dialed
by
a
telephone
and
a
trap
and
trace
device
identifies
all
phone
numbers
dialed
in
coming
to
a
telephone.
The
contents
of
these
phone
calls
or
communications
are
not
recorded
in
a
pin
register
or
a
trap
and
trace
device.
I
This
proposed
bill
also
seeks
to
bring
the
mechanism
for
submitting
an
affidavit
and
the
application
into
the
modern
world,
and
especially
as
we've
seen
in
the
past
year,
with
coveted
and
physical
access
to
courthouses
being
limited,
we
found
it
especially
important
to
allow
for
electronic
submission
of
the
application
and
the
supporting
affidavit
under
current
law.
There
is
no
specification
as
to
whether
electronic
submission
is
permissible
and
it
really
varies
from
court
to
court,
and
this
will
make
for
a
consistent
process
statewide.
A
J
You
trish
schaible
I'd
just
like
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
what
the
requirements
are
in
federal
law.
I
know
you
guys
reference
it
in
the
bill
and
if
you
could
just
follow
up
on
also
why
we've
deleted
the
as
passed
in
1989
or
whatever
the
language
is.
I
I
This
is
a
very
low
burden,
however,
dating
back
to
1979,
the
u.s
supreme
court
held
that
no
person
has
a
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
in
the
phone
numbers
that
you
dial
and
that's
because
it's
not
actually
your
personal
information,
but
instead
is
information
that
you
are
relaying
to
a
utility
company
for
them
to
complete
your
transaction,
and
so
it
is
a
very
low
burden
and
it's
a
very
low
application
standard.
But
the
information
being
obtained
is
not
anyone's
personal
information
that
would
require
probable
cause
like
under
a
warrant.
G
I
Oh
yes,
and
regarding
the
the
date
certain
provisions
of
chapter
206
under
the
federal
code,
some
have
been
updated
in
2008,
some
have
been
updated
and
most
recently
is
2016.,
and
just
as
technology
changes
and
some
of
the
definitions,
it
now
includes
electronic
transmission
and
communication,
where
that
wasn't
in
the
1989
version,
and
so
just
every
time
the
language
of
the
federal
code
gets
updated.
We
don't
want
to
have
to
come
back
and
update
our
statute
just
for
compliance.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
wasn't
familiar
with
the
terminologies
when
you
say
a
trap
and
trace
device.
Is
that
the
same
as
the
stingray
type
technology
that
the
supreme
court
recently
said
they
they
can't
use
unless
they
have
a
warrant
united
states
supreme
court?
Are
we
talking
the
same
stuff
there
or
am
I
mixing
apples
and
oranges.
I
Theresa
hart
for
the
record,
I'm
a
stingray
or
a
there's
a
another
charm.
It's
a
a
trigger
fish.
Sorry,
not
puffer
fish
trigger
fish,
those
are
actually
wiretap
devices,
and
so
that
allows
you
to
obtain
the
contents
of
the
communications
in
real
time,
and
that
is
a
much
higher
burden.
So
under
the
federal
law
you
have
to
have
probable
cause
to
believe
that
a
crime
has
been
is
being
or
will
be
committed
in
the
future.
I
You
have
to
have
probable
cause
to
believe
that
the
contents
of
the
communications
that
you're
trying
to
intercept
have
evidence
of
the
crime
that
has
been
is
being
or
will
be
committed,
and
then
you
also
have
to
demonstrate
that
all
less
intrusive
methods
have
been
attempted
and
have
failed
or
are
unsafe
to
pursue
so
triggerfishes
and
stingrays
apologies.
I
Those
are
forms
of
wiretap
communications,
which
is
actually
the
contents
of
the
communication,
which
is
a
much
higher
burden
to
prove
this
doesn't
obtain
any
of
the
contents
of
any
of
the
communications
from
a
pen
register
or
a
trap
and
trace.
It
is
only
the
data
conveyed
generally
to
your
utility
company
of
the
phone
number
that
you're
dialing
out
and
the
phone
numbers
that
are
dialing
in.
K
K
I
actually
have
a
bill
on
it
and
I
don't
know
if
it'll
come
to
this
committee
or
or
not,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
law
enforcement,
in
spite
of
the
supreme
court
saying
you
have
a
fourth
amendment:
protection
against
unreasonable
searches
and
seizures
are
still
using
that
technology
to
trace
people,
not
just
the
communications,
but
literally
to
trace
their
movements
in
in
different
locations.
K
But
I
don't
know
if
I
I
may
be
throwing
something
into
this
whole
discussion.
That's
just
not
not
really
there
but
yeah.
I
I.
I
would
like
to
find
out
a
little
bit
more
about
the
the
trap
and
trace
side
of
this
and
whether
or
not
we're
actually
simply
codifying
existing
federal
law
or,
if
we're
trying
to
add
a
new
level
to
make
it
a
little
more
difficult
to
use
those
sorts
of
technologies.
I
A
But
I
I've
got
some
feedback
that
are
having
a
difficult
time
hearing
you
over
the
live
broadcast.
I
know
you
guys
are
all
trying
to
do
your
best
to
social
distance,
but
if
there's
any
way
for
the
speakers
to
get
closer
to
the
microphone
so
that
everybody
watching
the
meeting
can
hear
what
you're
saying
that
would
be
fantastic.
I
I
thank
you
for
that.
Teresa
hart
for
the
record,
a
pen
register
and
a
trap
and
traits
are
very
different
from
anything
that
takes
on
either
contents
of
communications
or
live
data,
and
so,
if
we're
looking
at
location
data,
the
only
thing
that
a
pen
register
or
a
trap
and
trace
device
might
include
would
be
historical
cell
tower
location
data,
and
that
is
the
cell
tower
that
I
use
to
make
my
phone
call.
But
it
does
not
have
my
actual
location
and
it's
not
real-time
tracking.
I
So
again,
it
is
only
cell
company
or
phone
company
business
records
and
not
my
actual
location
that
is
currently
being
tracked
and
again
we're
not
making
any
proposed
changes
to
the
contents
of
the
application
or
the
burden
of
proof
in
an
application.
I
They
don't
have
to
relay
to
the
state
or
local
law
enforcement
agent,
their
personal
information
to
do
the
supporting
affidavit
they
themselves
can
use
their
own
personal
knowledge
to
do
the
affidavit
and
the
other
side
of
it
is
simply
allowing
for
an
electronic
submission
versus
a
hard
paper
submission
to
the
court.
So
we're
not
trying
to
lower
or
raise
any
of
the
burdens.
We're
only
trying
to
streamline
some
of
the
mechanics
for
the
physical
process
of
the
application
itself.
A
Absolutely
I
saw
senator
orenshall
had
a
question
earlier,
has
it
been
answered,
or
would
you
like
to
ask
your
question.
C
A
chair
I'll
be
very
brief.
Thank
you
very
much
from
his
heart.
Then,
under
the
current
situation
under
the
179.530,
these
federal
officers,
who
are
on
these
multi-jurisdictional
task
forces,
has
there
been
any
issue
with
them,
trying
to
obtain
the
pen
registers
or
trapping
traces.
C
I
Teresa
hart
for
the
record,
currently,
if
there's
a
multi-jurisdictional
task
force,
if
a
federal
agent
has
information
that
would
be
used
to
support
the
affidavit
in
support
of
the
application,
they
themselves
are
simply
unable
to
do
the
affidavit,
and
so
they
would
have
to
communicate
with
the
either
a
state
or
a
local
law
enforcement
officer.
Who
is
currently
identified
as
a
peace
officer,
who's
eligible
to
do
an
affidavit
in
support.
I
D
Thank
you.
I
was
curious,
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
about
this.
They
call
it.
I
guess
mata
meta
data
that
is
being
collected
and
then
you're
indicating
that
this
will
change
how
it
is
submitted,
it'll
be
allowed
to
be
more
electronically
submitted
and
what
safety
protocols
and
security
do.
We
have
to
make
sure
that
this
metadata
isn't
intercepted
or
utilized
by
somebody
else.
I
F
Jessica,
dare
for
the
record
the
only
thing
that
this
bill
does
is
change
the
application,
the
affidavit
that's
submitted
to
the
court
allowing
that
to
be
submitted
electronically,
so
the
normal
processes
for
receiving
the
information
collected
in
a
trap
and
trace
or
pen
device,
including
the
metadata,
would
not
be
changed
that
that
would
not
be
changed
by
this.
The
only
thing
that
would
be
changed
is
some
courts.
Allow
you
to
submit
your
affidavit
through
their
electronic
system.
F
L
F
I
All
right,
jessica
jared
for
the
record.
Yes,
that
is
a
a
very
diplomatic.
A
All
right,
then,
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
and
support.
Again
we
will
be
doing
support
testimony
for
10
minutes
and
each
speaker
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
M
M
E
Marcos
lopez,
americans
for
prosperity,
nevada,
m-a-r-c-o-s-l-o-p-e-z.
The
changes
in
this
bill
are
not
earth-shaking,
but
there's
a
positive
step
in
the
right
direction.
The
removal
of
the
dedicated
provision
clause
is
vital
because
federal
laws
have
changed
multiple
times
since
then,
and
now
provide
additional
procedural
protections
and
allowing
the
electronic
submission
just
gives
the
advantages
necessary
to
keep
up
with
the
technology
in
today's
date.
So
I
hope
that
we
vote
in
favor
of
this
legislation.
M
M
Thank
you
chair
to
testify
in
opposition
of
sb
41,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
again
to
testify
in
opposition
on
sb41,
please
press
star,
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
and
callers
if
you've
just
joined
us.
We
are
currently
on
opposition
on
sb41
to
testify
in
opposition.
Please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
cube.
M
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
are
in
opposition.
At
this
point.
We
are
still
in
discussion
with
the
attorney
general's
office
about
potential
amendments
to
this
bill,
so
prayer.
The
rules
of
the
committee
were
in
opposition
but
hoped
to
move
out
of
the
opposition
position.
We
have
no
problem
with
making
things
electronic
and
speeding
that
process
up.
There's
just
some
other
things
that
we're
trying
to
discuss
with
the
ag's
office
to
make
us
more
comfortable
with
this
legislation.
M
B
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
sarah
hawkins
s-a-r-a-h,
last
name
h-a-w-k-I-n.
I
am
the
president
of
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
or
nacj,
and
I'm
speaking
in
opposition
to
sb
41.
To
echo
mr
pirro's
comments.
We
are
hopeful
that
we
can
get
to
a
place
where
we
are
not
in
opposition
to
this
and
talks
with
bill
sponsors
are
ongoing,
but
I
I
will
note
that
our
primary
concern
is
the
lack
of
parity
in
terms
of
protecting
privacy
interests
between
the
federal
law
and
the
nevada
law.
B
Just
a
couple
of
examples:
there
is
no
general
prohibition
in
using
pen
registers
and
trap
and
trace
devices
in
nevada
law.
The
federal
law
has
that
general
prohibition,
and
that
should
be
where
we
start
protecting
privacy
interest,
is
where
we
should
start
definitions
of
trap
and
trace
devices
and
pen
registers
should
also
be
reflected
in
nevada
law
and
can
comment
with
those
provisions
in
the
federal
law,
and
in
addition
to
that,
we
should
be
codifying
the
prohibition
on
getting
content
from
these
devices.
B
That
is
also
reflected
in
federal
law,
so
those
provisions
that
that
add
to
the
the
baseline
and
starting
point
of
the
of
privacy
interests
is
what
nacj
would
like
to
see.
But
for
now
we
testify
in
opposition,
and
that
will
conclude
my
comments.
M
Thank
you
caller,
because
if
you've
just
joined
us,
we
are
currently
in
opposition
on
sb
41
to
testify
in
opposition.
Please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
caller
was
the
last
three
digits
three
one.
Eight
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
M
B
You
hear
sorry
it
muted
me
again.
This
is
kendra
burchie
at
k-e-n-d-r-a
virtue,
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
good
afternoon,
cher
scheibold
members
of
the
senate
judiciary.
I
want
to
start
by
first
thanking
the
attorney
general,
as
well
as
his
staff
for
speaking
with
us
and
meeting
with
us
and
answering
several
of
our
emails
going
back
and
forth
regarding
this
bill,
as
well
as
their
other
bills.
B
We
do
have
some
concerns,
but
I
would
just
want
to
note
for
the
record
that
we
do
agree
with
the
modernizing
the
process
in
order
to
obtain
these
warrants,
and
our
concerns
are
primarily
with
just
ensuring
that
we
are
protecting
the
privacy
interests
of
our
citizens
and
if
we
are
focusing
on
ensuring
that
our
nevada
statutes
are
in
line
with
the
federal
law,
then
that
is
our
goal
of
to
try
to
mirror
that
process.
So
I
do
appreciate
all
the
conversations
that
we've
had
at
this
point.
B
M
B
My
name
is
emily
driscoll
e-m-I-l-y.
I
Last
name
b-r-I-s-e-o-o-l
and
with
the
national
lawyers
guild,
I
am
a
student
at
boyd's
law.
B
I
oppose
fc
41
because
most
of
the
community
groups
are
still
in
negotiation
with
the
attorney
general's
office
about
the
bill.
Privacy
interests
are
really
important.
I
In
a
digital
age
and
while
modernizing
the
criminal
process.
B
Is
important,
privacy
should
be
just
as
important,
and
I
feel
like
this
is
important
also
that
we're
specific,
broad
language
could
be
really
compromising
to
to.
M
A
All
right,
thank
you.
That
being
the
case,
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
sb
41.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
sb
50
and
ask
mr
attorney
general
and
his
staff
to
go
ahead
and
begin
their
presentation
of
the
bill
whenever
they
are
ready.
H
Good
morning,
cheshire
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
aaron
ford
and
I
am
your
attorney
general
joining
me.
Virtually
and
in
person
are
members
of
my
staff.
I
have
a
few
with
me
today:
chief
of
staff,
jessica,
adair
first
assistant,
cal,
george
second
assistant,
christine
jones
brady
and
special
assistant
teresa
hart,
and
my
chief,
as
well
as
my
chief
of
investigations,
william
scott
jr.
H
It's
always
a
pleasure
to
come
back
home
to
the
legislature
and
appear
before
this
committee
and
at
the
outset,
let
me
again
congratulate
each
new
committee,
member
on
your
recent
election
win
recall.
Finally,
my
days
in
the
state
senate
and
specifically
on
the
judiciary
committee.
I
wish
you
god
speed
as
you
do,
the
people's
work
and
also
nicholas
and
patrick
hello.
Great
to
see
you
many
have
heard
me
discuss
my
office's
five
seats:
consumer
protection,
community
engagement,
client
and
constituent
services,
criminal
justice
and
reform
and
constitutional
rights,
the
protection
of
all
of
them.
H
A
lawfully
issued
warrant
gives
law
enforcement
lawful
authority
to
enter
premises
without
consent
of
their
control
of
those
controlling
the
property.
In
practice,
law
enforcement
officers
use
two
methods
to
gain
entry
into
premises
covered
by
the
warrant
first,
via,
what's
commonly
known
as
a
knock
and
announce
or
second,
under
a
what's
called
no
knock.
O
H
The
supreme
court
of
the
united
states
has
upheld
the
use
of
no
knock
warrants
in
2003.
The
court
held
that,
and
I
quote,
when
officers
have
a
reasonable
suspicion
that
knocking
and
announcing
their
presence
under
the
particular
circumstances
would
be
dangerous
or
futile,
unquote
and
quote
when
a
warrant
application
gives
reasonable
grounds.
Unquote
that
these
dangerous
or
feudal
circumstances
exist.
Then
a
magistrate
judge
is
acting
within
the
constitution
to
authorize
a
no
knock
warrant.
Partnering
a
nunc
entry,
but
the
constitutionality
of
a
practice
is
merely
the
threshold
entry
inquiry
that
we
must
analyze.
H
It
is
not
the
sum
total
of
the
analysis.
We
know
that,
in
certain
circumstances,
no
knock
warrants
can
be
problematic.
As
I
mentioned
a
moment
ago.
The
purpose
of
an
onac
warrant
is
to
secure
persons,
premises
or
evidence
before
the
subject
is
able
to
respond,
but
from
the
perspective
of
the
subject
he
or
she
only
knows
that
armed
persons
have
violently
entered
their
premises
and
in
those
immediate
moments
he
or
she
does
not
know
their
intent
and
on
the
subject
may
reasonably
believe
that
the
officers
serving
the
warrant
are
home
invaders
and
respond
accordingly.
H
H
H
Her
death
gave
rise
to
me,
bringing
this
bill
forward.
The
state
of
nevada's
largest
law
enforcement
agencies
significantly
limit
the
use
of
no
knock
warrants,
except
in
the
most
urgent
circumstances.
For
example,
at
least
one
law
enforcement
agency
generally
prohibits
dynamic
injury
except
for
a
deliberate
hostage
rescue
caused
by
immediate
life.
Rescue
exigencies
sorry,
and
under
these
circumstances,
a
no
knock
warrant
is
not
necessary.
H
As
a
result
of
this
policy,
the
agency
has
not
executed
a
no
knock
warrant
in
years.
Another
agency
has
similarly
adopted
policies
that
constrain
when
a
no
knock
warrant
is
appropriate
and
requires
several
levels
of
sign
off.
As
with
the
first
agency
I
mentioned
in
practice,
no
knock
warrants
are
extremely
aware.
With
this
agency
as
well.
H
In
short,
nevada's
police
have
done
a
good
job
of
policing
themselves
on
the
use
of
no
knock
warrants.
However,
the
restraint
we
have
seen
exercised
here
is
the
result
of
internal
policy,
not
law.
Sc
50
seeks
to
enshrine
these
good
policies
into
law
by
providing
that
no
knock
warrants
can
only
issue
in
very
limited
circumstances.
H
First,
I
will
address
the
elephant
in
the
room.
I
know
that
some
are
calling
for
a
complete
prohibition
on
the
use
of
no
knock
warrants,
particularly
in
light
of
the
events
in
kentucky
this
year
last
year,
but
in
my
judgment
there
are
rare
examples,
some
of
which
we
cannot
foresee
when
the
no
knock
warrant
may
be
justified
and
needed
to
protect
life
if
planned
and
executed
appropriate.
H
For
the
purposes
of
this
hearing,
we
have
filed
an
exhibit
with
the
committee,
as
indicated
on
the
first
page
of
the
exhibit.
The
amendments
here
should
not
be
considered
final
at
this
time.
Our
intent
is
to
continue
convening
meetings
with
stakeholders
in
the
immediate
future,
so
that
we
can
hash
out
the
remaining
sticking
points
on
this
bill.
H
H
We
must
get
this
right
while
this,
while
this
version
may
not
be
perfect
right
now,
it
is
better
than
what
it
is
in
current
law.
So
I
look
forward
to
working
with
stakeholders
and
the
members
of
this
committee,
as
we
have
a
vested
interest
in
ensuring
that
the
legislation
is
the
best
possible
version,
it
can
be
to
protect
public
safety
and
our
constitutional
rights.
H
While
I'm
prepared
to
discuss
the
bill
as
introduced,
I
do
believe
it
would
be
most
useful
to
address
the
proposed
amendment
because
it
is
now
the
operative
document
from
which
additional
negotiations
will
occur,
and
so,
with
the
chair's
permission,
I'd
like
to
turn
to
the
committee's
the
committee's
attention
to
section
one
of
the
bill
under
existing
law.
A
prosecutor
may
ask
the
magistrate
to
issue
a
summons
in
lieu
of
a
warrant
for
arrest.
H
A
no-knock
warrant
should
not
be
utilized
for
misdemeanor
crimes,
property
crimes
or
simple
drug
possession
crimes
period.
Therefore,
law
enforcement
agencies
seeking
a
no
knock
warrant
should
first
prove
that
there
is
a
significant
and
immediate
threat
to
public
safety
that
justifies
the
use
of
a
no
knock
warrant,
for
example
an
imminent
attack
of
terrorism.
H
H
I
will
tell
you
that
in
developing
this
list,
I
consulted
with
our
chief
of
investigations
a
29-year
veteran
of
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
who
retired
as
a
captain
chief
scott,
is
of
course
available
to
this
committee
to
discuss
these
elements
and
they
are
as
follows.
First,
the
affidavit
must
describe
the
probable
cause
that
establishes
the
charged
crime
is
a
felony
and
that
the
facts
in
this
particular
case
show
that
there
is
a
real
risk
to
public
safety.
H
Probable
cause
is
a
constitutional
minimum
for
anyone
and,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
we
should
utilize
no
knock
warrants
only
for
the
most
serious
crimes,
not
for
misdemeanor
crimes,
property
crimes
or
simple
drug
possession
crimes.
The
affidavit
must
explain.
Pardon
me
number
two.
The
affidavit
must
explain
why.
In
these
particular
circumstances,
a
knock
and
announce
warrant
just
won't
work.
In
other
words,
why
do
we
need
a
no
knock
warrant
here?
H
The
third
requirement
being
the
warrant
application
must
specify
whether
the
warrant
can
be
executed
during
daylight
hours
and,
if
not,
why
it
cannot
be.
This
is
exactly
in
line
with
the
normal
warrant
application,
where
the
affiliate
must
specific
pardon
me
explicitly
seek
permission
to
execute
the
warrant
between
7
pm
and
7
am
fourth.
The
office
must
describe
the
investigation
to
date
and
what
evidence
uncovered
in
the
ef
in
the
evidence
indicates
that
a
no
knock
warrant
is
necessary.
H
A
certification
to
the
court
carries
a
legally
significant
and
consequential
weight
to
the
assertion,
and,
lastly,
do
you
find
must
certify
that
the
officers
effecting
a
no
knock
warrant
are
properly
trained.
To
do
so.
No
knock
warrants
are
uniquely
risky
activities
and
should
be
utilized
only
by
highly
trained
officers.
H
Section
4
of
the
amendment
describes
a
few
criteria
on
how
a
no
knock
warrant
should
be
executed.
First,
we
get
that
no
knock
warrants
are
utilized
when
knocking
announces
unfeasible.
However,
law
enforcement
should
still
let
occupants
know
who
they
are
as
soon
as
possible.
Once
entry
has
been
made,
all
surprise
is
gone.
Officers
should
therefore
reduce
the
risk
of
misidentification
to
the
greatest
extent
possible
by
identifying
themselves
as
law
enforcement
as
soon
as
it
is
practicable
to
do
so.
H
H
None
of
these
conditions
place
a
burden
on
law
enforcement
that
isn't
commensurate
with
the
risk
involved
in
a
no-knock
warrant
and
all
of
these
conditions
firmly
positioned,
no
knock
warrants
as
an
option
of
last
resort.
These
are
common-sense
steps
that
any
law
enforcement
officer
planning
to
utilize
a
no
knock
warrant
should
be
considering
anyway.
H
This
information
also
assists
the
court
making
to
make
an
educated
decision
as
to
the
need
for
a
no
knock
warrant.
In
the
first
place,
section
5
of
the
amendment,
to
be
frank,
is
a
bit
more
contentious
section
5
provides
that
if
sections
2
and
3
were
not
satisfied,
then
a
defendant
may
seek
to
suppress
any
evidence
found
as
a
result
of
any
warrant
that
stems
from
the
defective
application.
H
That
is
any
fruit
of
the
poisonous
tree.
This
is,
however,
a
merely
a
revoltable
presumption
for
this
section
to
apply
a
criminal
defendant
must
first
articulate
how
the
warrant,
application
or
execution
did
not
meet.
The
elements
of
recently
presented
state
prosecutors
can
overcome
that
challenge
by
showing
that
any
defects
do
not
amount
to
constitutional
violations.
H
There
is
significant
body,
there's
a
significant
body
of
law
at
the
state
and
national
level
surrounding
what
constitutes
a
fourth
amendment
violation
and
what
does
not,
and
both
sides
will
have
the
opportunity
to
make
their
case.
If
need
be,
let's
be
clear
on
this
law
enforcement
should
always
make
every
effort
not
to
violate
constitutional
rights.
That
is
our
duty
as
sworn
officers
of
the
law,
any
due
process
requirements
that
we
allow
defendants
to
make
all
non-frivolous
arguments
that
they
are
entitled
to
make
in
practice.
H
H
Those
of
you
in
the
legislature
know
me
that
know
me
know
my
process
as
well.
A
goal
in
legislation
is
to
invite
the
input
from
all
stakeholders
compromise
what
we
can
and
hold
strong,
where
we
must
in
this
bill.
That
process
is
not
yet
complete,
but
I
am
confident
that
we
will
produce
a
final
product
that
is
reflective
of
my
priorities,
as
attorney
general,
which
means
a
bill
that
elevates
constitutional
protections
above
all
else,
ensures
the
safety
of
law
enforcement,
but
is
responsive
to
community
concerns
regarding
no
knock
warrants.
H
A
K
H
H
That's
answer
your
question.
I
have
not
categorized
it.
Men
is
either
friendly
or
unfriendly.
At
this
point,
senator
we
are
in
negotiations
with
all
interested
parties.
H
The
amendment
was
one
presented
to
us
by
one
side,
if
you
will
of
the
issue
here
predominantly
being
from
the
aclu,
the
national
associate,
the
nevada
association
for
criminal
justice
and
the
public
defenders
among
others,
they
raised
some
very
good
points
that
we
think
are
very
valid
for
purposes
of
this
discussion
and
including
it
we
didn't
have
an
opportunity,
however,
senator
hansen
to
have
a
discussion,
a
thorough
discussion
with,
for
example,
my
colleagues
in
law
enforcement
and
the
district
attorney's
office,
and
therefore
long
answer,
sander,
that
this
is
neither
friendly
nor
unfriendly,
but
we
do
receive
it
as
an
opportunity
to
continue
discussions
around
presenting
a
bill
at
the
end
of
the
day
that,
hopefully,
the
chair
will
entertain
in
a
work
session.
K
C
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
general
ford
and
your
your
staff,
and
I
really
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
bringing
all
the
stakeholders
from
law
enforcement
side
on
this
bill.
I
think
it's
very
important
and
I
think
our
constituents
really
want
to
see
something
in
this
area
move
forward
and
get
signed
by
the
governor.
C
You
mentioned
exempting
misdemeanor
allegations
and
and
felonies,
and
I
just
I
hope
that
his
negotiations
continue.
Maybe
considering
exempting
the
non-violent
felonies
as
well,
because
certainly
nevada
statutes
have
many
non-violent
felonies,
where
perhaps
you
know
that
that
should
also
be
considered
along
with
the
misdemeanors.
C
Just,
I
guess
more
of
a
suggestion,
but
I
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
of
the
attorney
general's
office,
bringing
all
the
stakeholders
and-
and
thank
you,
general
ford.
Thank
you,
chair
senator.
H
Arnold
shaw,
thank
you
so
much
for
that
recommendation
and
to
you
as
well,
you're
a
better
half.
I
said
hi
you're
bitter
too,
by
the
way,
but
your
suggestion
is
duly
noted.
I'm
certain
that
I
have
my
colleagues
jotting,
that
down
and
those
both
in
neutral
in
neutral
opposition
and
in
favor
will
likely
take
that
consideration
as
we
continue
our
negotiations.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you
chair,
and
it's
good
to
see
you
general
ford
and
always
good
for
the
committee.
We
definitely
missed
you
here
in
the
legislative
building,
but
good
to
see
you
over
there.
P
I
had
a
question
just
about
the
piece
that
I
think
is
in
that
I
think
is
just
in
the
amendment
where
there
would
be
a
requirement
for
the
officer
to
certify
backwards,
but
certify
they're
trained
in
tactical
or
dynamic
entry
operations.
How
would
you
foresee
like
what
would
qualify
under
that,
and
how
would
you
foresee
that
operating?
Would
it
be
just
part
of
the
application?
Would
there
be
some
process
for
officers
to
kind
of
apply
for
that?
What
how
would
you
foresee
that
working
that
piece
of
it.
H
So
I
appreciate
that
question
I'm
going
to
offer
a
couple
of
thoughts,
but
I'm
going
to
kick
it
to
either
chief
scott
or
to
someone
in
the
south
to
address
this.
Here's.
What
I
can
tell
you
from
anecdotal
experiences
when
I
took
a
tour
with
elko
police
I
was,
I
was
in
the
car
with
an
individual
who
was
trained
in
this
and
there
was
literal
training
and
I
want
to
say
certification.
I
that
may
be
not.
H
That
may
not
be
the
right
phraseology,
but
who
talked
about
the
need
for
having
such
tactical
training
in
circumstances
like
this,
and
so
my
my
understanding
again,
I'm
going
to
kick
it
to
chief
scott
and
kyle
george
to
discuss
further
is
that
departments
are
readily
available
and
capable
of
ensuring
that
the
people
who
are
executing
these
do
have
that
training.
H
But
the
certification
component
is
going
to
be
a
requirement
in
law
at
this
juncture
to
ensure
that
those
who
are
applying
for
these
forms
of
warrants
are
in
fact
certified
and
trained
in
it.
So
let
me
offer
the
mic
to
chief
scott
first
and
then
to
whomever
else
on
there.
They'd
like
to
that.
Would
like
to
chime
in
good.
G
Afternoon
this
is
a
chief,
william,
scott
chief
of
investigations
for
the
attorney
general's
office.
Yes,
you
know
when
you
look
at
that
question
surrounding
training.
I
think
it's
important
that
these
officers
have
the
adequate
training
to
affect
such
warrants.
G
There
are
a
number
of
what
we
call
squads
or
sections
within
law
enforcement
agencies
who
are
not
properly
trained
at
the
level
of
our
squad,
officers
that
are
trained
that
do
this
on
a
daily
basis
and
as
part
of
their
normal
daily
routine.
G
It's
problematic
when
you
have
individuals
who
are
not
training
together
on
a
daily
basis
and
not
in
sync,
with
each
other
as
they
conduct
these
types
of
entries,
and
it
poses
much
more
of
a
threat
to
those
officers
and
to
the
community
when
they're
not
properly
trained
so
adding
a
component
into
this
bill,
where
these
officers
have
to
articulate
the
type
of
training
that
they
had
is
very
important.
F
Jessica,
dare
for
the
record
to
to
your
question
vice
chair
about
the
mechanics
of
the
bill,
we're
not
in
anticipating
at
this
time
to
require
anything
beyond
a
certification
from
the
officer
to
the
court.
Should
that
officer
in
that
application,
or
in
the
affidavit
in
support
of
the
application
for
the
warrant,
seek
to
add
additional
detail.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
the
magistrate
to
make
an
educated
decision
about
the
appropriateness
of
that
warrant.
F
But
at
this
time
all
that
this
amendment
is
requiring
is
a
certification
from
the
officer
if
they
are
trained
to
do
so.
H
And
if
I
could
offer
one
final
comment
just
to
let
you
know
we're
not
we're
not
preaching
with
our
practicing,
my
chief
upon
being
hired
ceased
all
internal
practices
of
dynamic
entry
until
our
folks
got
trained.
So
we
we
practice
what
we
preach
in
this
area,
and
I
just
want
to
share
that
as
well.
P
I
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
I
agree,
and
I'm
certainly
familiar
with
different
training
that
goes
on
for
some
of
these
law
enforcement
groups
that
are
that
are
highly
trained
in
in
some
of
those
entry
pieces,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
were
clarifying
that
and-
and
then
thank
you,
mr
dare
for
clarifying
the
certification
piece,
because
I
think
that's
important
for
us
to
have
some
clarity
on
the
other
question
that
I
had
was
with
respect
to
the
rebuttable
presumption
and
the
way
that
I'm
sort
of
reading
this.
P
It
almost
seems
as
though-
and
I
guess,
if
you
could
elaborate
just
a
little
bit
on
this
piece
of
it.
I
understand
the
issue
and
obviously
we
don't
want
evidence
to
be
obtained
illegally
or
in
violation
of
a
fourth
amendment
right
and
then
submitted
to
a
court,
and
I
think,
that's,
I
think,
to
your
point
attorney
general
ford,
current
status
of
the
law
when
things
are
obtained
in
violation
of
constitutional
rights,
specifically
the
amendment
those
are
excluded,
but
there
there
is
sort
of
I
think
in
this
bill.
P
As
I'm
reading
it
a
rebuttable
presumption
that
exists.
If
you
prove
the
fourth
amendment
violation
and
that's
that's
in
the
amendment
piece
of
it
not
in
the
in
the
text
of
the
bill,
and
so
I'm
wondering
the
way
I
read
that
is,
you
would
have
to
prove
there's
a
violation
of
a
constitutional
right
and
then
there's
still
this
additional
inquiry
as
to
whether
or
not
that
rebuts
the
presumption
that
if
it
was
obtained
that
it
wouldn't
be
admitted.
P
But
that
seems
in
some
ways
duplicative
of
current
fourth
amendment
search
and
seizure
law
and
in
some
ways
I
think
it
could
be
a
little
confusing
when
it's
sort
of
a
rebuttable
presumption.
But
then
also,
if
you
prove
these
constitutional
violations.
So,
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
that
would
work
and
the
interplay
with
what
we
would
traditionally
see
in
a
sort
of
a
motion
to
exclude
under
the
fourth
amendment.
H
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
for
the
question,
and
I
I
will
again
defer
to
comments
from
my
southern
counterparts
there
to
discuss
this
further.
I
will
say
that
you
may
recall,
from
my
days
in
the
senate,
running
a
bill
that
addressed
through
the
boys
and
street
stuff
as
it
related
to
racial
profiling,
at
least
as
I
articulated
it.
We
were
unable
at
that
juncture,
if
you
recall,
madam
vice
chair,
to
figure
out
a
way
to
facilitate
changing
the
law
in
that
regard
and
and
that's
unfortunate.
H
What
we
look
to
do
in
this
bill,
however,
is
to
ensure
that
we
can
protect
the
constitutional
rights
of
those
who
are
subjected
to
this
no
knock
warrants
via
this
rebuttable
presumption,
the
intricacies
of
which
are
still
being
worked
out.
So
I'm
going
to
have
my
colleagues
in
the
south
speak
of
this
issue,
but
I'll
also
suggest
that
those
who
presented
this
amendment
likewise
speak
on
that
issue
as
to
the
way
that
they
saw
it
working
as
well.
G
Thank
you
attorney
general
ford.
I
thank
you.
Madam
vice
chair
for
the
record
kyle
george
for
his
assistance
attorney
general
matt
and
vice
chair.
I
believe
that
the
as
written
the
amendment
says
that
there
are
some
procedural
steps
that
need
to
take
place,
sections
two
and
sections
three
and
an
application.
An
app
an
affidavit
in
support
of
an
application
must
contain
certain
materials
within
it,
and
then
the
world
itself
must
be
executed
in
a
certain
way.
G
I
believe,
as
written
section,
five
provides
that
if
a
defendant
that
is
arrested
pursuant
to
this
bill
believes
that
there
was
a
defect
in
process
at
any
point,
they
can
challenge
based
on
that
defect.
The
prosecuting
attorney
then,
has
the
opportunity
to
say
no.
That
is
a
procedural
defect,
not
a
substantive
constitutional
defect
which
will
overcome
that
challenge
that
I
believe
that
is
as
it
should
be.
G
P
And-
and
thank
you
george,
I
think
that
is
my
question
is
that
it
almost
seems
to
be
duplicative
of
what
what
we
would
typically
see
in
fourth,
amendment
litigation
or
fourth,
amendment
law
in
terms
of
certain
procedural
defects
that
do
rise
to
that
constitutional
level
would
result
in
exclusion,
and
so
the
way
I
read
this,
or
at
least
as
far
as
you've
explained
it.
P
It
seems
as
though
that's
what
we're
articulating
here-
and
I
just
wanted
some
clarity
on
whether
we
were
trying
to
do
something
a
little
different
or
if
we're
saying
that
this
is
mostly
in
line
with
that,
because
I
think
you've
that's
exactly.
I
think
the
point
was.
Are
we
doing
something
that
it
is
different
than
what
we
see
in
fourth
amendment
litigation
when
we're
talking
about
excluding
evidence.
G
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
for
the
record.
Kyle
george,
the
intent
is
that
it
is
in
fact
consistent
with
existing
fourth
amendment
practice,
not
perhaps
not
duplicative
per
se,
but
certainly
consistent.
The
plan
and
intent
here
is
nuts
to
create
a
whole
new
standard.
Q
And
thank
you
chair
all
right.
Thank
you
chair.
I,
as
I'm
listening
to
the
colloquy,
particularly
as
we
talk
about
the
amendments,
it
sounds
like
we
may
be
conflating
the
amendment
to
apply
to
all
all
of
these
entries
and
not
just
the
no
knocks
I'm
trying
to
go
through
the
amendment
really
quickly.
But
maybe
I
could
just
ask
the
the
general
statement.
Does
the
amendment
apply
to
all
of
these
entries
any
high-risk
entry
of
any
type
or
is
it
just
a
no
knock?
Q
And
then,
of
course,
if
we're
serving
a
warrant
on
drug
traffickers
or
or
you
know
where,
where
we
currently
have
a
no
knock,
does
that
still
apply?
I'm
just
trying
to
get
my
arms
around
the
the
amendment.
H
So,
thank
you,
senator
picker,
and
shall
I
begin
by
saying
hello
to
your
better
half?
I
will
you
know
you
know
what
your
description
is
then.
Yes,
this
only
applies.
H
My
intention
is
that
this
applies
to
no
knock
warrant
and
if
the
amendment
does
not
clearly
address
that,
we
will
ensure
that
what
is
brought
before
you,
hopefully
again
in
a
work
session,
clarifies
that,
but
this
is
not
intended
to
apply
outside
of
the
no
knock
warrant
circumstance
which,
as
I've
indicated,
incidentally,
is
very
seldom
used
anyway.
It
is
not
something
that
that
has
taken
place
on
a
on
a
large-scale
basis
and
in
fact
it's
something
that
is
very,
very
minimally
used.
Q
I
appreciate
that
I'm
sure
if
I
could
just
follow
up
real
quick.
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
before
we
get
to
a
work
session,
that
y'all
will
circulate
the
final
amendment,
the
the
final
draw
after
the
language,
so
we're
not
having
debates
at
the
work
session
about
alternate
versions,
but
we'll
have
something
solid
to
vote
on.
H
I'm
sorry,
I
will
absolutely
report
for
the
record
absolutely
commit
to
follow
whatever
the
chairs
rules
and
requirements
are
for
a
work
session.
If
that's
submitting
a
a
document
well
in
advance
of
which
we
will
do
so,
but
even
beyond
that
senator
picker
we're
always
happy
to
hear
from
you
directly
and
engage
you
in
the
discussions
around
this
issue.
So
keep
that
in
mind
as
well.
Q
A
All
right,
if
nobody
else
has
any
questions,
I
just
have
one
question
and
it
relates
to
language.
That's
used
twice
in
the
amendment,
I'm
looking
specifically
at
page
four
towards
the
middle
talk
it
starts
with.
A
The
magistrate
shall
not
issue
a
no
knock
warrant
to
search
the
person
or
place
named
in
the
search
warrant
unless
the
affidavit
or
affidavits
foreign
before
the
magistrate,
and
then
the
green
text
indicates
the
standards
that
have
to
be
met
in
order
for
the
no
knock
warrant
to
be
justified,
and
I'm
curious
about
the
exact
language
that's
utilized
here,
and
particularly,
I
noticed
that
the
underlying
crime
has
to
threaten
public
safety,
but
then
the
announcement
of
the
execution
of
the
warrant
has
to
create
imminent
danger
to
the
life
of
somebody,
and
I'm
wondering
why
those
two
standards
are
different.
A
If
that's
intentional
or
if
this
is
language
that
you,
mr
attorney,
general
and
others,
are
still
working
through.
H
Thank
you
for
the
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
question
chef
scheible.
I
I
want
to
review
the
language
to
see
if
I
can
respond
appropriately,
unless
my
colleagues
in
the
south
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
question
they
can
address.
It
looks
like
my
first
assistant,
kyle
george
came.
G
Thank
you
attorney
general.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
believe
the
two
parts
are
you
talking
about
section,
one,
sorry
sub
one
of
section,
two
on
page
four.
G
Thank
you.
So
I
think
there
are
two
different
aspects.
First
of
all,
the
first
part
of
it.
It
demonstrates
the
underlying
crime
involves
a
significant
and
imminent
threat
to
public
safety.
That
goes
to
concern
raised
by
senator
oran
shaw
previously
that
this
not
be
used
for
even
felony
crimes.
That
may
be
not
be
serious.
We
intend
to
be
this
be
limited
in
scope
to
crimes
that
are
felony
level,
it's
not
not
below
and
within
that
the
subset
of
felony
crimes
that
implicate
a
significant
and
imminent
threat
to
public
safety.
G
Only
so
again,
you
may
have,
for
example,
large
possession
of
drugs,
which
would
in
fact
be
a
felony
crime,
a
high-level
felony
crime,
but
there
may
be
no
indication
on
the
record
or
no
evidence
in
that
uncovered
through
the
investigation
that
there
is
a
safety
issue
in
going
into
effect.
Irregular
knocking
announced
rewards,
so
the
first
part
of
that
is
intended
to
be
a
limitation
on
only
the
most
serious
type
of
crimes
and
then
the
second
part
of
it
is
the
issue
of
who's
in
danger
when
we
execute
a
no,
not
warrant
here
specifically.
G
If
if
the
agency
can
demonstrate
that
this
does
place,
a
risk
on
officers
or
perhaps
another
member
of
the
public
will
be
present,
those
were
the
two
elements
that
we
would
want
to
focus
on
and
constrain
the
use
of
milnock
warrants
too,
and
to
be
clear,
there's
nothing
in
this
field
that
prohibits
the
use
of
regular,
not
announced
once
when
it
is
more
appropriate.
So
if
someone,
if
an
agency
doesn't
isn't
able
to
meet
the
standards
put
forth
in
this
bill,
they
can
still
resort
to
traditional,
knocking
anonymous
watch.
I
hope
that's
responsive.
A
It
is,
and
it
helps,
but
so
I
just
kind
of
want
to
pose
a
bit
of
a
rhetorical
question
that
to
demons
to
explain
my
thinking
here.
What
I'm
worried
about
is
whether
a
crime
that
is
endangering
and
I'm
thinking
specifically
of
domestic
violence
issues,
because
that's
one
place
where
I
have
seen
no
knock
warrants
utilized
in
the
past.
Is
you
know
if
you
have
somebody
who
is
threatening
the
safety
of
their
partner
and
nobody
else?
A
Would
we
consider
that
a
risk
to
a
threat
to
public
safety
or
as
a
threat
to
public
safety,
to
endanger
a
whole
crowd
of
people
to
drive
recklessly
through
the
freeway
and
put
multiple
people
in
danger
at
the
same
time?
Or
can
can
public
safety
be
just
one
person
and
then
going
further?
If
we're
going
to,
you
know
suggest
that
it
is
and
move
on
to
the
next
prong,
which
is
asking
who
would
be
threatened
by
giving
notice?
A
I
think
this
standard
is
very
high
to
say
that
it
has
to
create
imminent
danger
to
the
life
of
the
officer
or
another
person,
because
if
an
officer
isn't
sure
whether
the
subject
who's
barricaded
inside
a
house
is
armed
or
not,
then
I
don't
know
if
they
can
articulate
that
their
life
is
in
danger
or
simply
that
their
safety
is
in
danger
and
their
life
might
be
in
danger.
A
And
I
worry
about
how
we're
going
to
address
all
of
those
specific
questions
when
the
first
case
comes
up
under
the
language
that
is
ultimately
adopted.
E
H
J
That's
right:
well,
listen!
I'm
actually
going
to
let
you
down.
I
don't
have
a
question
for
you
today,
but
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
taking
on
this
obviously
challenging
topic
and
bringing
the
bill
before
us.
It's.
It's
appreciated.
H
Senator
harris,
I
appreciate
that,
but
let
me
say
this:
it
hasn't
been
challenging
per
se.
Frankly,
I
think
law
enforcement
and
those
on
those
who
work
with
law
enforcement,
either
together
or
on
the
other
side,
recognize
the
importance
of
this
issue.
Brianna
taylor,
her
killing,
I
got
goosebumps
bad
ones,
as
I
talk
about
her
name
out
loud,
showed
us
a
reason
for
having
this
discussion.
H
I
am
grateful
that
our
law
enforcement
in
the
state
doesn't
utilize
this
extensively,
but
that's
a
matter
of
practice
and
policy
again
we're
here
to
ensure
that
our
state
represents
the
highest
standard
when
it
comes
to
the
protection
of
constitutional
rights
of
all
of
our
residents,
and
this
bill
accomplishes
that,
which
is
the
reason
why
again,
I
didn't
find
this
a
difficult
one
to
tackle,
and
I
look
forward
to
again
working
with
the
interest
groups
to
ensure
we
can
get
this
done.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
and
thank
you
to
everybody
for
contributing
your
expertise,
your
comments
and
your
questions
from
the
committee.
I
don't
see
any
more
questions
at
this
time,
so
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
in
support
of
sb
50.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
each
person
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
That
is
a
minimum,
not
a
maximum.
You
are
welcome
to
get
on
the
phone
and
simply
tell
us
that
you
agree
with
the
caller
before
you
or
all
of
the
callers
before
you.
A
We
will
take
10
minutes
of
testimony
in
support
of
the
bill,
total
10
minutes
in
opposition
and
10
minutes
in
neutral.
We
encourage
you
to
submit
your
testimony
in
writing
as
well
or
instead
of
testifying
online.
I
know
or
sorry
testifying
verbally.
M
M
N
Hello
good
afternoon,
tara,
schaible
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
chris
wong
c-h-r-I-s-w-a-n
and
I'm
a
member
of
the
las
vegas
community.
I'm
an
educator
here
and
I've
lived
in
nevada
for
over
20
years,
and
this
is
my
home.
I
just
like
to
put
forth
my
support
for
senate
bill
50
and
while
I
support
the
ban
of
no
knock
warrants
in
nevada,
I
believe
the
amendments
the
attorney
general's
office
is
suggesting
to
senate
bill.
50
is
the
first
step
in
the
right
direction.
N
A
lot
of
people
became
aware
of
no
knock
warrants.
Last
march
after
the
issuing
of
a
no-knock
warrant
resulted
in
the
senseless
death
of
brianna
taylor,
as
the
attorney
general
already
mentioned,
if
no
knock
warrants
are
allowed
to
continue,
more
lives
of
innocent
citizens
will
be
in
danger.
Since
officers
are
entering
a
citizen's
home
without
prior
notice,
the
intrusions
are
often
mistaken,
as
burglaries
or
home
invasions.
N
N
No
knock
warrants
as
they
exist
now
not
only
endanger
the
lives
of
ordinary
citizens,
but
also
the
lives
of
law
enforcement.
Moreover,
brianna's
taylor's
case
is
not
the
only
case
where
no
knock
warrants
have
resulted
in
the
violation
of
american
civil
rights
to
name
a
few
other
cases.
A
19
month
old
child
was
badly
burned
by
a
flashbangs
stun
grenade
during
the
execution
of
a
no-knock
warrant
in
cornelia
georgia
in
2014..
N
M
M
R
H-O-L-L-Y-W-E-L-B-O-R-N,
I'm
the
policy
director
of
the
aclu
of
nevada,
testifying
in
support
of
the
amendment
on
file
for
sb
50.,
the
aclu
of
nevada.
The
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
and
public
defenders
presented
an
amendment
to
the
attorney
general's
office
and
accepted
some
changes
to
that.
We
understand
that
the
ag's
office
is
still
in
contact
with
other
stakeholders
on
this
piece
of
legislation,
but
I
wanted
to
state
on
the
record
that
we
appreciate
their
efforts
in
working
with
us.
R
The
last
people
who
are
talked
to
we
appreciate
the
attorney
general's
office
for
making
communities
a
priority
and
allowing
us
to
talk
with
the
people
that
we
communicate
with
on
a
daily
basis
to
come
to
terms
with
the
fact
that
what
we're
looking
at
is
not
in
fact,
a
complete
ban
on
no
knock
warrants
in
the
state
of
nevada,
but
a
significant
limitation
that
we're
in
a
position
to
support.
At
this
time.
R
I
did
submit
some
testimony
in
some
written
testimony
for
you
all
to
consider
that
go
through
some
of
the
technicalities
of
why
we're
supporting
this
legislative
amendment
today.
But
I
think
it's
important
to
talk
about
what
happened
to
brianna
taylor,
rhianna
taylor,
galvanized
nationwide
protests
for
racial
justice
after
she
was
brutally
and
senselessly
killed
by
louisville
kentucky
police
during
the
execution
of
a
no
knock
warrant.
R
M
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
community,
this
is
john
pearl
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I'm
going
to
speak
fast
so
that
impacted
community
members
will
get
time
to
speak.
We
will
say
that
we
are
grateful
for
the
attorney
general's
office
for
working
with
us
on
this
issue
and
to
continue
talks.
N
We
support
the
amended
version
and
are
more
than
happy
to
continue
to
talk
to
make
this
the
best
build
possible,
because
reducing
no
knock
warrants
like
other
jurisdictions,
have
both
protect
public
safety,
protect
officers
and
strengthen
community
trust
in
our
police,
which
is
desperately
needed
after
the
summer
that
we've
had
both
in
the
north
and
the
south.
Thank
you
and
I
yield
my
time.
M
L
L
L
I
picture
myself
alone
in
my
home
with
my
children
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
and
if
I
hear
that
my
door
is
being
broken
down,
it
does
not
matter
that
it's
a
burglar
or
the
police
with
a
wrong
address,
because
I
won't
immediately
know
that
difference.
What
I
do
know
is
that
I'm
going
to
react
the
same
way,
regardless
of
what
that
causes
in
order
to
protect
my
children
and
myself,
and
that
reaction
will
most
likely
be
instinctual
and
confrontational
and
sadly,
as
we
know,
it'll
probably
get
me
killed.
L
B
L
M
B
Good
afternoon,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders,
that's
c-h-r-I-s-t-I-n-e
s-a-u-n-d-e-r-s
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
50.
With
the
amendment
at
plan,
we
work
to
structurally
transform
nevada's
criminal
justice
system
by
organizing
the
people
who
have
direct
experience
with
mass
incarceration
and
their
families.
We
want
to
thank
the
attorney
general
for
bringing
forward
this
legislation
and
for
taking
feedback
on
how
to
improve
the
bill
with
the
amendment.
B
Countless
stories
like
brianna
taylor's,
who
was
unjustly
murdered
as
a
result
of
unnecessary,
no
knock
warrant
and
systemic
racism
exist
across
the
nation
senate
bill
50
would
create
a
high
threshold
for
law
enforcement
to
justify
why
no
not
warrant,
if
necessary,
and
require
that
a
court
shall
not
issue
a
no
not
for
it.
Unless
there
is
probable
cause,
we
urge
that
you
vote
in
favor
of
the
amended
bill.
Thank
you.
M
J
Well,
good
afternoon,
trisha
evelyn
community
committee
members.
My
name
is
tequila
anchor
talk,
s-e-q-u-I-l-a.
J
J
We
when
we
read
the
initial
bill
language,
we
felt
that
there
were
still
concerns
about
the
protections
for
constituents
and
we
felt
that
the
provided
amendment
was
a
much
better
representation
of
needed
protections
for
all
nevada
citizens,
police
and
community
members
alike,
and
so
we
stand
in
support,
particularly
of
the
sb50
amendment
on
file.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
So
that
brings
us
to
ten
minutes
in
support.
I
will
remind
everybody
if
there
will
be
public
comment
at
the
end
of
our
meeting,
but
we
do
have
to
get
through
two
more
positions
on
this
bill
and
another
bill.
So
I
will
now
close
public
comment
or
close
testimony
in
support
of
sb50
and
open
up
testimony
in
opposition
to.
M
E
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheibel,
the
members
of
senate
judiciary,
I'm
eric
spratley
e-r-I-c-s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y
here
for
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
here
in
neutral
to
clarify
our
association's
position,
so
they
signed
in
a
few
days
ago
in
a
position
of
support
the
original
version
of
sb50,
but
with
the
amendment
and
additional
discussion
and
clarification
we'll
be
having,
we
are
neutral
at
this
point.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
M
S
Hi,
my
name
is
courtney
jones,
that's
so
c-o-u-r-t-n-e-y,
last
name
j-o-n-e-f,
so
the
folks
in
our
state's
rights
to
privacy
in
a
regional
searches.
I
feel
like
that
should
be
honored.
You
know
they
have
to
deal
with
ridiculous
and
unwarranted
violence.
That's
put
upon
them
so
suddenly,
and
I
think
about
the
power
that's
given
to
law
enforcement,
which
has
continued
to
do
more
harm
than
good
and
precautionary
measures
that
this
bill
is
touching.
S
It's
kind
of
to
me
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg,
because
you
know
no
knock
warrants
should
be
used
in
only
the
most
dangerous
situations
and
how
frequently
and
unsuccessfully
they
are.
We
know
that.
That's
not
true,
I'm
not
sure.
If
you've
all
heard
of
the
case
of
henry
mcgee
and
marvin
guy
one
was
in
2013
others
in
2014.
S
they
both
shot
and
killed
a
police
officer
in
defense
of
their
own
lives
of
no
knock
warrants,
but
mcgee's
capital
murder
charges
were
dropped
and
guys
capital
merger
charges
stood
and,
as
you
can
guess,
mcgee
was
white
and
guy
was
black
and
they
were
both
seen
in
front
of
the
grand
jury.
And
when
I
went
to
look
at
it,
guy's
circumstances
made
his
actions
more
justifiable.
S
Also
at
the
beginning
of
this
call,
I
didn't
know
that
our
options
that
are
sent
in
were
optional
to
be
read,
so
that
was
interesting.
Also,
I
personally
became
aware
of
no
knock
warrants
in
high
school
when
I
read
the
new
jim
crow
in
high
school,
which,
by
the
way,
is
banned
in
prison.
So
that's
maybe
something
you
all
should
take
a
look
at
too.
S
I
think
it's
just
interesting
how
we're
like
trying
to
protect
police
today
in
this
meeting
and
not
really
civilian
lives,
and
we
haven't
talked
about
drug
use
in
our
country,
which
shouldn't
even
be
illegal.
I
also
think
it's
ridiculous
that
we
only
have
10
minutes
to
speak,
because
I'm
definitely
not
in
a
neutral
position
about
this.
I
support
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
talk
and
let
you
all
know
my
position
on
this
bill
so
yeah.
Thank
you.
M
E
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
senate,
judiciary
committee.
This
is
jon
jones,
j-o-h-n
j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association.
We
are
currently
in
the
neutral
position,
along
with
eric
spratley,
with
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs.
We
are
supportive
of
the
original
version
of
the
bill.
We
have
some
concerns
with
the
proposed
amendment
and
we
have
pledged
to
continue
working
with
the
attorney
general,
his
chief
of
staff
and
first
assistant,
as
we
work
through
those
issues.
M
O
O
O
O
M
B
M
L
L
D-E-S-I-R-E-E-S-M-I-T-H
we
focus
on
police,
terrorism
and
police
reform
here
in
our
city.
We
also
spread
awareness
on
cases
of
those
who
are
murdered
by
lvmpd.
We
are
completely
against
no
knock
warrants
as
they
stand,
especially
since
the
murder
of
brianna
taylor
and
louisville
kentucky
and
in
a
perfect
world.
We
wish
we
could
ban
them,
because
we
know
with
this
so-called
police
reform,
there
will
be
loopholes
that
protect
law
enforcement,
but
reluctantly
we
are
in
support
of
sb50
as
it
pertains
to
the
amendment,
such
as
testimony.
B
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
sb
50
and
open
the
hearing
on
sb
62,
with
the
reminder
to
everybody
that
there
will
be
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
this
meeting
after
we
hear
sb62,
and
I
know
we
have
the
attorney
general
still
with
us
to
present
sb62,
please
go
ahead
whenever
you're
ready.
H
Greetings
again,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
aaron
ford.
Your
attorney
general
happy
to
be
here
with
you
to
present
this
bill
or
my
colleagues
in
southern
nevada,
and
with
that
I
would
like
to
send
it
to
mike
too.
I
believe,
jessica.
There
is
going
to
take
lead
on
this
one.
F
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
jessica
dair
and
I'm
the
chief
of
staff
in
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office.
I
am
joined
here
with
with
many
of
the
same
colleagues.
You've
already
had
the
pleasure
of
seeing
today,
first
assistant,
kyle
george
special
assistant
teresa
hart,
of
course
assist
attorney
general
aaron,
ford
and
second
assistant,
christine
jones
brady,
and
I'm
happy
to
present
the
bill
that
I
know
you
have
all
been
waiting
for
senate
bill.
F
62
sb
62
is
a
bill
intended
to
increase
transparency
of
organizations,
soliciting
charitable
contributions
in
nevada
and
give
the
state
additional
tools
to
fight
charity
fraud.
First,
I
would
like
to
express
our
gratitude
to
deputy
secretary
of
state
kim
perandi
secretary
of
state
sagaski
and
the
entire
secretary
of
state's
office.
Their
assistance
in
the
formulation
of
this
bill
has
been
invaluable
and
undoubtedly
improved
the
bill,
so
it
best
serves
the
state
and
our
mutual
goals
to
promote
transparency
and
trust.
F
Before
I
begin
discussing
the
text
of
the
bill,
I
would
like
to
give
some
background
and
describe
the
reasons
our
office
sponsored
this
nation.
This
legislation,
I
can
promise
that
this
will
be
under
10
minutes
charitable.
Giving
is
one
of
the
most
important
financial
transactions
in
our
of
our
society.
F
Unfortunately,
there
are
those
who
seek
to
exploit
the
generosity
of
others
for
their
own
greed.
Charitable
organizations
registered
with
the
irs
as
a
501c3
organization
must
submit
lengthy
verification
and
documentation
to
demonstrate
that
the
organization
is
organized
and
operated
exclusively
for
charitable,
religious,
educational,
scientific,
literary
or
other
approved
purposes,
and
must
not
be
organized
or
operated
for
the
benefit
of
private
interests
and
no
part
of
the
net
earnings
may
endure
near
to
the
benefits
of
any
private
shareholder
or
individual.
F
Fraudulent
organizations
clearly
cannot
meet
this
threshold,
so
many
turn
to
other
kinds
of
entities
that
are
easily
formed
and
simply
call
it.
A
charity
common
examples
of
these
entities
include
pacs
and
llcs.
You
are
probably
familiar
with
pacs
or
political
action
committees,
while
most
pacs
serve
a
legitimate
political
purpose.
There
are
those
who
use
the
more
relaxed
registration
and
reporting
requirements
to
masquerade
as
a
charity
solicit
contributions
from
well-meaning
people
and
pocket
those
contributions
for
themselves.
F
F
In
reality,
all
of
these
organizations
were
run
by
the
same
individuals
who
were
later
sued
for
false
statements
in
their
solicitations
and
misuse
of
funds.
Our
office
receives
complaints
regarding
regarding
charity
fraud,
particularly
after
a
disaster
when
people
are
very
vulnerable.
Yet
these
scam
organizations
can
escape
our
jurisdiction
and
punishment
at
the
federal
level.
The
irs
cannot
revoke
the
tax-exempt
status
of
an
organization
that
never
registered
as
a
501c3
in
the
first
place
under
nrs
598.1305.
F
The
office
of
the
attorney
general
has
jurisdiction
under
this
deceptive
trade
practices
act
to
prosecute
charities
that
make
false
claims
in
their
solicitations,
but
this
section
only
applies
to
organizations
quote
who
the
secretary
of
the
treasury
has
determined
to
be
tax-exempt.
Pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
section
501,
c3
of
the
internal
revenue
code
end
quotes.
If
an
organization
is
not
a
501c3,
the
statute
does
not
apply.
F
F
F
Charities
are
also
required
to
file
a
very
abbreviated
annual
financial
report
with
the
secretary
of
state
with
basic
information
that
would
normally
be
included
on
a
charity's
990
form
with
the
irs
section.
2
clarifies
that
a
contribution
does
not
include
bona
fide
fees
or
membership
dues.
This
is
not
intended
to
apply
to
clubs
or
hobby
organizations.
F
It
also
clarifies
that
a
contribution
does
not
have
to
be
tax.
Deductible
donations
to
pacs,
as
you
know,
are
not
tax
deductible
sections,
3
and
4
make
conforming
changes.
Section
5
makes
conforming
changes
to
what
an
organization
is
required
to
report
that
reflects
the
types
of
organizations
have
expanded.
Sections
6
and
7
make
conforming
changes.
Q
Thank
you
church.
I
will,
and-
and
thank
you
for
mr
dare
for
presenting
to
bill.
I
agree
this
is
something
that
has
gone
on
too
long.
Probably
as
it
is,
I
just
have
a
couple
of
really
brief
questions.
Q
First,
when
you
first
mentioned
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
I
I
don't
know
that
you
said
it,
but
am
I
to
understand
that
they're
on
board,
with
taking
all
this
on,
because
registration
of
that
of
the
number
of
of
organizations
that
we
have
is
going
to
be
pretty
sizable,
although
they
probably
already
take
some.
I
know
they
take,
for
example,
the
reports
from
pax,
but
do
I
understand
correctly
they're
on
board
with
this,
to
the
extent
that
we're
loading
them
up
with
more
work.
F
Thank
you,
senator
jessica,
adair
for
the
record.
Yes,
the
current
process
right
now
for
charitable
organizations
is
a
very
simple
registration
statement.
It's
one
page,
there's
also
an
exemption
statement.
That's
one
page
to
show
that
they
don't
have
to
register
and
in
our
conversations
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
they
indicated
that
it
would
be
a
very
slight
change
to
their
current
procedures
and
they
would
they
would
be
able
to
make
that
change
without
a
significant
financial
or
labor
intensive
impact
to
the
office.
Q
Sorry,
I
probably
put
it
on
you
thinking
I
needed
to
take
it
up.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
answer.
The
second
question
has
to
do
with
the
new
definition
of
contribution
under
section
two
we're
adding
language
that,
in
in
my
initial
review,
suggests
that
we're
actually
narrowing
the
definition
of
contribution
just
to
those
that
come
in
response
to
a
solicitation.
Q
In
other
words,
if
someone
goes
out
and
solicits
a
contribution
and
then
they
get
that
contribution,
that's
contribution,
but
if
they
don't
overtly
solicit
it,
then
any
money
provided
to
that
organization
would
not
be
deemed
a
contribution.
Is
that
a
correct
interpretation.
F
The
correct
reading
of
the
bill
that
has
been
drafted,
that's
typically
where
we
see
contributions
coming
in
is
in
results
of
the
solicitation
and
even
so
much
as
a
donate.
Now
I
think,
would
be
considered
a
solicitation,
but
I
think
you
raise
a
really
good
point
and
we
could
remove
that
from
the
draft
of
the
bill
to
make
that
eminently
clear.
Q
I
appreciate
that
I
just
I
always
try
to
look
beyond
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
see
where
this
thing
could
go,
and
I
can
just
imagine
saying
hey.
I
didn't
ask
for
the
contribution
it
just
showed
up
on
my
doorstep.
So
that's
not
a
contribution,
and
now
I
don't
even
have
to
report
it,
and
there
is
the.
I
think,
the
rub,
because
many
of
these
organizations
are
currently
required
to
report
to
the
secretary
of
state
anyway.
Thank
you
for
your
response
and
thank
you,
madam
chair.
K
Thanks,
madam
chair
real
quick
over
the
years,
I've
seen
some
horror
stories
of
supposedly
legitimate
charities,
and
they
would
have
some
investigative
journalists
would
get
a
hold
of
their
paperwork.
We
find
out
that
they
have
80
85,
90
percent
of
all
the
money
donated
being
paid
out
in
salaries
and
things
like
that
and
virtually
none
of
it
going
to
what
the
charity
was
supposedly
for
is
there
some
standard
in
state
law
or
federal
law,
or
something
that
I
mean
at?
What
point
is:
is
that
type
of
situation
considered
a
violation
of
charity.
F
Thank
you
senator
jessica,
dear
for
the
record.
So,
if
you're
looking
for
an
exact
percentage,
we
don't
have
that
in
state
law,
but
you're
exactly
right
that
that's.
That
could
be
that's.
Those
are
the
horror
stories
that
we
get
as
well
in
terms
of
the
complaints
that
our
office
receives
and
why
it's
so
frustrating
when
those
organizations
are
escape
our
jurisdiction
under
the
under
the
current
law.
However,
even
though
there
isn't
a
specific
threshold
there,
we
do
have
a
few
a
few
tools
so,
for
example,
a
false
statement.
F
If
that
isn't
true,
that's
a
false
statement
and
we
can
use
the
deceptive
trade
practices
act
to
then
prosecute
that
another
important
point
is:
if
those
organizations
are
501
c3s
by
definition,
none
of
those
proceed
proceeds
can
immerse
the
benefit
of
the
shareholders
or
the
of
the
nonprofit
organization,
so
that
would
be
a
violation
of
the
501c3
requirements
under
the
internal
revenue
code
and
they
could
have
their
taxes
and
status
revoked,
but
that
dtpa
hook
is
exactly
what
we're
looking
for
in
order
to
get
at
those
who
are
very
much
just
profiting
from
these
charitable
solicitations
making
promises
that
they
have
no
intention
of
keeping.
K
Good,
I
hope
you
go
after
those
types,
it's
a
real
disgraceful
thing
and
it
also
creates
a
distrust
for
legitimate
types
of
charities
as
well.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
D
So
again,
basically,
the
51c3
is
to
register
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
which
I
think
it's
interesting,
that
I'm
being
told
that
they're
basically
neutral
on
this,
and
they
feel
they
can
do
it
with
no
fiscal
note
which
to
me
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
has
to
be
done
to
register
these
individuals.
So
again,
I
just
want
to
get
clear
on
the
record
that
this
is
about
registering
individuals
that
are
holding
themselves
out
as
a
non-profit
and
then,
if
I
could
have
a
follow-up
question.
Madam
chair,
I'm
sorry
chair.
F
Thank
you
senator
for
the
question.
Yes,
you
are
correct.
That
is
exactly
the
purpose
of
this
bill
and
I
will
defer
to
the
secretary
of
state.
Although,
in
our
conversations
I
will
say,
I
think
this
is
similar
to
most
state
agencies
that
typically
testify
in
neutral
on
bills
that
they
don't
introduce.
F
But
I
cannot
thank
deputy
secretary
kim
purani
enough
for
her
help
with
this
bill,
and
that
is.
We
have
mutual
goals
that
we're
seeking
to
achieve
here.
D
Appreciate
that,
if
I
could
follow
up
on
a
different
part
of
it,
so
you're
a
charity
and
you're
holding
yourself
out
as
a
charity,
then
clearly
you're
going
to
have
to
register
with
the
secretary
of
state
when
this
bill
passes.
But
what
about
donations
from
that
charity?
You
know,
in
other
words,
so
a
charity
decides
to
give
somebody
fifty
thousand
dollars
to
open
up
a
satellite
or
do
something.
Then
they
use
that
money
and
basically
embezzle
it.
D
Is
there
any
requirement
of
the
charity
to
then
divulge
when
they
give
like,
like
say
more
than
ten
thousand
dollars
or
something
that
nature,
because
I've
heard
of
many
instances
where
that
has
occurred,
and
it
seems
terrible
because
then,
unfortunately,
you
know
church,
sometimes
they
don't
want
to
get
the
courts
involved.
They
just
kind
of
figure.
A
higher
power
will
take
care
of
the
issue,
but
then
people
in
the
church
find
out
later
and
then
become
discouraged
or
situations
like
that.
So
I'm
just
curious.
D
F
Thank
you
senator
jessica,
dear
for
the
record,
so
I
I
want
to
clarify
that
this
bill
does
not
apply
to
any
religious
institutions.
Churches
are
treated
differently
under
the
state
law
and
that
this
bill
would
not
apply
to
them.
I
will
say
that,
in
terms
of
the
financial
that
have
to
be
disclosed,
this
bill
does
not
intend
to
change
any
of
the
existing
reporting
requirements.
F
Currently
charities
either
give
the
secretary
of
state
their
990
form,
which
they're
already
submitting
to
the
irs
under
their
501c3
status
or,
if
they're,
not
a
501c3,
estimated
total
revenue,
total
expenses,
revenue,
less
expenses,
total
assets,
total
liabilities
and
net
assets
or
fund
balances.
F
So
I
think
that
at
least
would
give
the
secretary
of
state
an
idea
of
revenue
versus
expenses,
and
if,
if
this
bill
that
is
consistent
with
current
law,
gives
the
secretary
of
state
the
ability
to
investigate
any
fraud
that
they
potentially
see
and
then
refer
to
our
office,
and
so
there
are
additional
conforming
changes
that
include
requiring,
if
not
their
principal
place,
of
business,
the
address
for
the
custodian
of
records,
etc.
F
That
gives
the
secretary
of
state
more
information
to
conduct
an
investigation
if
they
think
that
there
is
fraud
afoot,
but
it
does
not
include
any
detailed
reporting
of
you
know
so
and
so
give
it
gave
us
x
amount
of
dollars
or
that
type
of
things
we're
not
seeking
to
expand
the
existing
reporting
requirement,
requirements
or
financial
disclosures
for
charities.
With
this
particular
bill.
D
A
M
A
All
right,
we
will
go
to
testimony
in
opposition.
M
T
There
is
no
fee
to
file
these
documents
and
these
documents
are
recorded
in
our
database
and
available
to
the
public
at
no
charge
senate
bill
62
was
brought
to
our
attention
by
a
turn
by
the
attorney
general's
office.
In
its
draft
stage
for
review
and
comment,
the
proposed
changes
to
82a
under
this
bill
cause
no
deviations
to
our
current
filing
processes.
T
T
T
M
A
At
this
time
we
will
move
on
to
public
comment,
and
I
will
ask
that
the
lines
be
opened
up
for
public
comment
and
each
caller
shall
be
given
two
minutes
to
speak.
M
A
M
M
B
Hello,
I've
already
spoken.
My
name
is
yusenia
moya.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question:
will
there
be
a
reading
of
folks
public
commentary
that
were
sent
in?
I
think
that's
what
I
heard
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
that
there
might
be
a
few
of
folks
that
have
been
impacted,
read
from
the
nellis
or
comments
that
were
made
online.
B
Is
that
going
to
happen,
if
not
I'd
just
like
to
again
once
claim
my
support
for
the
amendments
to
sp50,
as
we
don't
need
any
more
terrorism
in
our
communities?
Thank
you.
M
M
O
G-R-A-N-T,
I
thought
I'd
give
a
little
background
a
little
more
about
my
brother,
because
I
will
be
submitting
comment
throughout
the
legislature.
My
brother's
name
was
thomas
purdy.
He
was
38
years
old.
He
had
a
mental
health
crisis
at
the
peppermill
casino
where
he
was
a
guest.
He
literally
asked
security
for
help
security
called
reno
police
who
hogtied
my
brother
for
absolutely
no
reason.
My
brother
didn't
assault
anybody
every
page
of
the
manual
of
the
device,
the
horrible
rip
restraint
that
they
put
him
in
says
never
used
to
hot
tie,
a
human
being.
O
He
was
hogtied
for
40
minutes.
He
was
then
brought
up
to
the
washout
county
jail
still
hog
tied.
He
begged
for
his
life,
told
them.
He
couldn't
breathe,
told
him
he
had
had
had
previous
major
lung
surgery,
which
he
had
had
a
collapsed
lung
and,
after
being
in
a
hog,
tie
like
a
wild
animal
with
his
body
compressed
for
40
minutes.
They
then
decided
instead
of
cutting
the
device
off
of
them
because
they
didn't
know
how
to
get
it
off
because
it
had
been
applied
so
tightly
to
him.
O
They
put
put
him
face
down,
and
four
deputies
got
on
my
brother's
back
and
affixiated
him
to
death.
The
staff
then
came
in
medical
staff
and
sat
there
snapping
their
fingers
in
my
brother's
face
and
with
for
10
minutes
it
was
10
minutes
before
remsa
got
there
and
initiated
cpr.
My
brother
was
brain
dead
and
dumped
up
at
renowned
hospital
for
two
days.
The
jail
never
even
tried
to
contact
any
of
his
family.
The
hospital,
thank
god,
was
able
to
reach
us
because
he
was
a
guest
in
your
state.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
A
All
right!
Well,
I
certainly
appreciate
your
help.
Mr
kyle,
I
will
remind
everybody
again
that
any
written
comments
that
you
submit
to
that
email
address
that
I
gave
you
and
I'm
going
to
give
it
to
you
again,
will
be
received
by
every
member
of
the
committee
and
made
a
part
of
the
official
record
that
email
address
is
s-e-n-j-u-d
at
s-e-n,
dot,
state
dot,
nv
dot!
U
s!
You
can
turn
in
those
comments
at
or
that
testimony
at
any
time,
and
with
that
our
meeting
will
be
adjourned.