►
From YouTube: 4/8/2021 - 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
Here
we
are
going
to
start
in
a
subcommittee
of
the
senate
judiciary,
I'm
seeing
as
we
have
three
of
our
seven
members
present
and
I
completely
understand
it
is
exactly
one
o'clock,
but
I
want
to
get
started
on
time
because
we
have
such
a
long
agenda
and
we
also
have
our
staff
members
here
with
us
nicholas
anthony
from
the
legislative
council
bureau,
and
I
actually
don't
see
pat
geinin
with
legislative
council
bureau,
but
go
ahead
and
add
under
the
record,
because
I'm
sure
he's
on
his
way
with
that.
A
As
you
all
know,
we
have
a
very
packed
schedule.
We
have
four
bills
to
here.
We
have,
I
think,
11
bills
to
work
session,
so
we
will
go
back
and
forth
between
the
two
and
get
all
of
this
done.
If
the
record
could
please
reflect
that,
senator
cannazzaro
is
now
present
and
I
am
going
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
313.
D
D
It's
important
to
understand
the
children
who
are
arrested
and
charged
with
crimes
are
much
different
than
adults
in
the
adult
criminal
court
system.
Those
children
lack
mature
judgment.
They
also
have
a
greater
capacity
for
change
or
positive
change.
Our
juvenile
justice
system
maintains
rehabilitation
as
its
primary
goal
and
thus
is
indifferent
from
the
adult
criminal
justice
system.
In
many
ways
this
bill
here
before
you
and
I
actually
the
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'd
like
to
point
the
committee
to
a
mock-up
amendment
on
nellis.
D
I
have
been
able
to
reach
out,
and
I
appreciate
the
help
of
bridget
duffy
from
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and,
I
believe,
there's
a
mock-up
amendment
that
should
be
on
nellis,
which
represents
agreement
at
least
between,
maybe
not
all
the
stakeholders,
I'm
still
working
on
that,
but
between
miss
duffy,
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and
all
the
other
stakeholders
that
are
working
on
this
legislation.
D
With
your
permission,
chair,
I'd
like
to
just
briefly
go
over
a
couple
of
the
highlights
of
the
mock-up
amendment
and
then
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
attorney
christina
wildeveld,
who,
I
believe
is
on
the
the
zoom
or
should
be
on
the
zoom
soon,
and
she
would
speak
a
little
more
to
the
bill
and
the
mock-up
senate
bill
313
under
the
proposed
mock-up
would
prohibit
a
youth
being
committed
to
a
correctional
facility
if
they
are
found.
Not
competent.
D
D
I
believe
that
these
provisions
would
enable
greater
rehabilitative
efforts
within
the
juvenile
justice
system
using
developmentally
appropriate
strategies,
rather
than
what
we
currently
have
in
the
statutory
scheme.
With
your
permission,
cherish
tribal
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
christina
wildeveld,
who,
I
think
is
on
the
zoom
and
then
I'd
like
to
answer
any
questions.
E
F
313
good
morning
or
good
afternoon,
chair
members,
my
name
is
christina
will
default.
I
think
we're
talking
about
313
we've
already
discussed.
The
amendment
is
that,
where
we're
at
no.
F
Thank
you.
The
juvenile
system
and
the
adult
system
are
entirely
different
for
numerous
reasons.
Nevada's
formal
juvenile
justice
system
is
established
for
the
most
part
by
chapter
62
of
the
nevada,
revised
statutes.
All
juvenile
matters,
regardless
of
nature
of
the
charges,
are
considered
civil
offenses.
Therefore,
the
nevada
supreme
court
has
ruled
that
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions
related
to
criminal
procedure
are
not
applicable
to
proceedings
in
juvenile
court,
which
are
not
criminal
in
nature.
Instead,
the
focus
and
function
of
juvenile
court
is
both
rehabilitation
and
community
safety
that
consistently
recognizes
children
as
children.
F
This
bill
makes
numerous
makes
a
number
of
necessary
and
positive
tweaks
to
current
laws
as
they
relate
to
the
juvenile
justice
system,
so
the
separation
between
juvenile
laws,
which
are
civil
in
nature
and
adults
in
adult
court,
which
is
punitive
in
nature,
remain
just
that
separated
under
existing
law.
So,
with
regard
to
the
amendments,
we
have
agreed
that
we
are
going
to
delete
section
one
and
two
and.
F
So
section
one
and
two
as
is,
and
then
sections
so
there's
be:
no,
there
would
be
no
changes
to
section
one
and
two
of
the
proposed
bill.
Section
three
will
be
kept,
as
is,
I
think
everyone
agrees
with
section.
F
Three
is
a
needed
change
and
then
section
four
five
and
six
will
be
kept,
as
is
so
under
existing
law.
A
child
who
commits
a
sex
offense
must
have
at
least
three
three
years:
minimum
of
super
supervision
by
the
juvenile
sex
offender
probation
officers.
F
F
This
modification
will
allow
all
parties
more
discretion
so
that
the
exploration
and
experimentation
cases
can
be
treated
differently
than
those
of
a
more
predatory,
predatory
and
abusive
in
nature
cases.
The
bill
will
eliminate
this
one-size-fits-all
operation
and
give
all
parties
more
discretion
in
the
treatment
section.
Five
and
six
of
the
bill
does
not
mandate
that
a
juvenile
sex
offender
be
required
to
register
as
a
sex
offender
like
the
adult
tasks
do.
F
Instead,
the
court
will
be
granted
the
discretion
to
determine
whether
a
child
poses
a
future
threat
or
danger
to
the
community,
which
will
then
subject
the
child
to
future
registration
and
community
community
notification
as
a
sex
offender.
As
we
currently
operate
in
juvenile
sex
offender
courts,
parties
negotiate
cases,
that's
the
district
attorney
and
the
defense
attorneys.
We
negotiate
cases
so
that
the
child
will
not
be
subject
to
adult
registration
for
delinquent
acts.
F
This
provision
puts
the
discretion
back
in
the
court's
playbook
and
changes
the
standard
to
only
requiring
future
notification.
If
there
is
a
threat
to
commit
subsequent
sexual
offenses
by
the
juveniles,
the
bill
will
also
add
a
provision
that
juvenile
sex
offender
cases
cannot
be
sealed
for
three
years.
So,
unlike
other
cases
that
we
have
discussed
in
previous
bills,
if
you're
in
juvenile
sex
defender
court,
there
will
be
that
three-year
waiting
period
in
order
to
seal
their
cases.
F
And
clarify
and
give
guidance
statutorily
as
the
laws
were
intended
to
accord
with
the
operation
of
juvenile
court
will
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
two
different
systems.
The
changes
are
beneficial
to
not
only
those
of
us
who
practice
there,
but
also
to
the
court
and
the
community
observers.
Thank
you.
D
D
G
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
I
am.
I
have
a
whole
list
of
questions
that
were
all
answered
by
the
amendment.
Excuse
me
so
the
the
last
question
I
have,
and
I
will
just
comment
that
I
agree
completely.
G
We
know
much
more
about
how
the
brain
develops
and
how
the
last
thing
to
develop
is
the
prefrontal
cortex
or
the
judgment
center.
In
fact
that
doesn't
fully
develop
until
our
mid
to
late
20s
or
early
30s.
So
we
know
that
when
children
are
acting,
they
literally
have
half
a
brain
and
they
act
like
it.
So
I
I
think
that
this
is
it's
important
to
be
able
to
retain
the
ability
of
the
court
to
with
to
sequester
kids
when
they're
a
danger
to
themselves.
G
I
like
the
amendments.
The
one
thing
that
concerns
me
is
the
on
the
oh
wait
a
minute.
I
think
this
is
on
the
next
bill.
Is
the
mental
health
piece
on
the
next
bill
on.
G
317
here,
or
is
it
in
this
one
where
we're
requiring
all
the
employees
to?
I
just
can't
put
my
finger
on
it
so
now
I'm
concerned
that
maybe
I'm
conflating
the
bills.
G
C
Thanks
cheers
rival,
I
know
the
half
a
brain,
argument's
kind
of
an
interesting
one,
that
my
concern
with
the
bill
is
frankly.
I
I
want
to
if
we're
going
to
air
we're
going
to
err
on
the
side
of
protecting
victims
right
and
and
striking
out
the
idea
that
the
safety
of
others
and
making
it
strictly
a
sex
offense
makes
me
a
little
uncomfortable.
C
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
to
me
it'd
be
better
to
have
a
little
broader
discretion
for
the
courts
and
not
just
limited
to
sex,
because
when
you're,
you
know
you
think
about
it.
If
we're
going
to
go
with
the
argument
that
they
have
half
a
brain
at
this
point,
but
when
you're
18
at
least
a
male,
you
got
full
libido.
C
So
those
are
a
bad
combination
in
some
cases,
and
I
can't
help
but
say
you
know
it's
ironic-
that
we're
going
to
be
insisting
on
considering
them
undeveloped,
brain
wise
until
they're,
25
or
whatever.
Yet
we
allow
abortion
without
any
parental
involvement
at
all,
which
is
crazy,
since
it's
a
medical
procedure,
nevermind
the
arguments
about
the
morality
of
it
anyway.
My
question
is:
why
are
we
striking
out
the
verbiage,
the
safety
of
others
and
making
it
much
more
specific,
commit
a
subsequent
sexual
offense.
D
D
You
know:
punishment
for
the
crime
making
the
victim
whole,
whereas
the
juvenile
justice
system
is
a
model
based
more
on
rehabilitating
the
child,
trying
to
make
sure
that
whatever
services
treatment
therapy
would
try
to
prevent
that
child
from
ever
being
in
that
same
situation
where
they
commit
that
that
delinquent
act
from
happening
again
and
here
certainly
looking
at
the
changes
I'm
recommending
in
this
mock-up
amendment,
where
a
potential
consequence
for
a
child
who
is
charged
with
a
juvenile
sex
offense
could
be
registration
as
a
sex
offender.
D
I'm
re
I'm
recommending
in
this
bill
the
change
to
the
threat
to
commit
a
subsequent
offense,
as
opposed
to
the
threat
to
commit
some
other
delinquent
act,
because
the
consequences
could
be
registration
and
when
we're
trying
to
have
a
child
end
up
on
his
or
her
feet
and
not
you
know
not
really
get
caught
up
and
we're
trying
to
strike
a
balance
of
protecting
the
community,
but
also
trying
to
get
the
child
the
services,
the
treatment,
the
therapy
they
need,
so
that
they
don't
ever
end
up
in
this
situation,
and
certainly
I
think
that
many
of
the
children
who
are
charged
with
juvenile
sex
offenses
have
themselves
been
victims.
D
Many
of
them
have
been
victims
of
molestation
and
that's
where
sometimes
these
these
patterns
are
picked
up,
but
once
those
kids
go
through
the
treatment
and
the
therapy
for
juvenile
sex
offenders,
the
recidivism
rate
is
remarkably
low,
I
believe
across
the
country
and
in
nevada
for
kids
who
go
through.
They
get
the
therapy
there's
so
many
modules
they
have
to
complete,
and
so
it's
very
successful.
D
The
treatment
for
those
kids
and
you
know
a
child
who's
accused
of
this
kind
of
offense
is
really
much
different
than
an
adult
who's
charged
with
this
kind
of
offense.
And
if
I
share
with
your
indulgence,
if
I
could
turn
it
over
to
ms
wildebell,
because
I'm
sure
she
can
add
some
more
points
a
lot
more
eloquently
than
I
can.
F
Thank
you,
senator
sheriff
and
senator
hanson
for
your
question
currently,
as
I
indicated,
there's
a
one-size-fits-all
model
in
the
juvenile
sex
offender
court.
F
As
I
have
argued
many
times
before,
senator
picard's
life
in
court
that
not
all
cases
have
to
be
not
all
kids
have
to
be
on
probation
for
the
three
years
that
are
required
of
them
most
cases
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
cases
are
exploratory
and
experimentation
and
they're
brought
into
that
court
for
those
reasons,
because
they're
caught
doing
something
or
they
say
something
to
a
counselor
and
they're
brought
in
it's
not
an
ongoing
abusive
relationship.
F
Instead,
it's
a
one-time
or
act
or
just
through
the
exploratory
experimentation
process.
Yet
those
kids
are
all
treated
the
same
and
as
senator
orrinshaw
indicated,
there
is
a
very
rigid
process
that
the
kids
go
through
in
a
juvenile
sex
offender
court.
The
whole
reason
for
the
court
is
to
make
sure
that
when
they're
an
adult
that
action
never
comes
happens
again,
so
there's
alternatives
like
boundaries
classes,
so
kids
can
learn
what
the
proper
boundaries
are
with
their
peers
that
they,
you
know,
have
to
learn.
F
In
addition,
it's
way
it
currently
stands
is
that
prosecutors
and
defense
attorneys
are
negotiating
our
cases,
taking
it
out
of
the
judge's
hands
negotiating
our
cases,
so
that,
should
the
child
not
be
successful
or
need
more
time
or
something
happens
during
the
course
of
the
case,
because
they
were
previous
victims
of
molestation
or
something
else.
We
are
negotiating
the
cases
to
a
charge
that
will
not
allow
them
to
become
an
adult
sex
offender.
F
So
this
amendment
and
this
change
in
this
bill
allows
puts
the
discretion
back
in
the
judge's
hands,
so
the
judge
can
determine
which
children
need
to
be
on
longer
periods
of
probation
rather
than
the
three
years
or
which
kids,
which
kids
can
just
be
on
the
one
year
and
their
complete
all
requirements
and
get
through
it
and
move
on
with
their
future
successfully.
Thank
you.
C
D
Chair
to
you
and
through
you
to
senator
hansen,
I
appreciate
bridget
duffy
and
mike
watson
of
the
district
attorney's
office.
I've
worked
very
closely
with
me,
christina
wildeveld,
jennifer
frazier
of
the
clark
county,
juvenile
public
defender's
office,
and
I
believe
that
the
mock-up
amendment
represents
consensus.
D
A
Absolutely
any
other
questions
on
sb
313,
all
right,
not
seen
any.
We
are
going
to
move
to
testimony.
I
do
see
that
we
have
a
number
of
people
queued
up
to
testify,
not
sure
if
you're
here
on
this
bill
or
another
bill,
but
with
the
deadline
approaching
in
our
long
schedules.
I
would
like
to
remind
everybody
that
it
is
perfectly
acceptable
to
get
on
the
phone
give
your
name
and
just
say
ditto.
It
was
good
enough
for
patrick
swayze
and
ghost.
A
H
H
I
C
H
K
J
K
J
H
H
H
H
F
Good
afternoon
cher,
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
d-e-r-t-s-d-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defenders
office.
We
just
wanted
to
put
our
support
for
this
bill
on
the
record
and
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
of
the
stakeholders
to
protect
our
children.
Thank
you.
H
F
F
H
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
your
help.
Since
we
are
tight
on
time,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb
313,
with
thanks
to
our
presenters
and
invite
any
committee
members
or
people
following
along
in
the
audience
to
follow
up
with
them
offline.
If
you
have
further
questions
or
comments,
and
at
this
time
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
317
senator
orrinshaw,
whenever
you're
ready.
D
Thank
you
very
much
chair
scheible
james
oranchal.
I
represent
state
senate
district
21
parts
of
henderson
and
unincorporated
clark
county
presenting
senate
bill
317
there.
There
should
be
a
mock-up
amendment
on
nellis
and
chair.
I
apologize
that
mock-up
amendment
has
scrivener's
error
and
I'm
the
scrivener,
and
it
was
my
error
and
there
should
be
a
corrected,
mock-up
being
posted.
D
I
hope
now,
but
if
not,
it
will
be
circulated
I'll,
try
to
make
sure
it
gets
circulated
through
email,
but
senate
bill
317
represents
an
effort
to
try
to
reach
fair,
fair
conditions
for
employees
of
the
juvenile
justice
in
clark
county
in
terms
of
some
issues
that
they
are
concerned
with,
and
here
before
I
get
too
deep
into
the
weeds.
D
I
want
to
thank
the
representatives
of
napso
and
of
clark
county
who
have
worked
together
with
me
and
we've
had
a
you
know,
a
lot
of
meetings,
a
lot
of
talking
back
and
forth,
trying
to
get
this
bill
right.
D
There
is
agreement
in
terms
of
trying
to
clarify
the
language
in
section
one
as
to
the
180
days
that
that
should
be
after
arrest,
not
after
arraignment
current.
The
current
language
and
statute,
I
believe,
is
murky,
needs
clarification
and,
with
that
being
said,
chair
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
matt
richardson.
D
Who
will
help
me
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
and
hopefully
the
corrected.
Mock-Up
amendment
should
be
posted
if
it's
not
already
posted.
A
Yes,
our
fantastic
committee
manager
is
working
hard
to
get
that
posted
and
we
are
eternally
grateful
to
her
for
her
continued
service
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
mr
richardson
to
start
walking
us
through
the
bill
and
the
amendment.
M
M
My
name
is
matt
richardson,
I'm
with
the
juvenile
justice
supervisors
association
and
the
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers.
I'm
a
juvenile
probation
supervisor
in
the
detention
division,
juvenile
officers
and
supervisors
are
not
your
typical
law
enforcement
officers.
They
have
to
be
quasi
law
enforcement,
social
worker
mentor
case
worker
and
tirelessly
connect
families
in
need
with
anything
that
might
work
for
that
family
to
get
on
the
right
track,
while
the
youth
might
be
on
probation,
we
provide
services
to
the
entire
family.
M
M
M
Now
we
also
may
be
falsely
accused
of
a
crime
as
well
or
be
accused
of
child
abuse
or
neglect.
What
this
bill
does
is
give
us
some
fairness
for
due
process
in
working
through
our
due
process
and
the
justice
system.
Juvenile
probation
officers,
juvenile
probation
supervisors
and
employees
of
juvenile
justice
services
should
be
given
the
same
rights
that
are
afforded
to
other
officers.
M
M
Now
we're
looking
for
the
language
placed
on
leave
without
pay
and
the
reason
we're
looking
for
that
dichotomy
is
the
county
in
our
agency.
Do
not
find
the
word
suspends
carries
over
to
the
department
of
juvenile
justice
services.
They
believe
that
there
is
a
dichotomy
between
suspend
and
placed
on
leave
without
pay.
M
Therefore,
we
would
like
to
codify
in
law
that
the
employees
of
juvenile
justice
services
are
given
that
right
under
62
g
also
now
this
isn't
a
solution.
Looking
for
a
problem,
this
has
happened
in
the
department
of
juvenile
justice
services
in
which
an
employee
was
charged
with
a
crime
upon
the
resolution
of
his
case
in
which
he
was
cleared
of
any
charges,
the
department
waited
an
additional
five
months
to
bring
him
back
to
work.
M
Now
he
was
placed
back
at
work,
but
without
back
pay.
During
that
time
you
know
he
had
to
come
up
with
different
avenues
for
pay
borrow
money
make
loans,
you
know,
get
caught
up
or
or
get
put
back
on,
get
put
back
on
his
mortgage
and
rent
and
put
in
financial
despair.
M
We
would
just
like
to
first
thank
orenshaw
for
sponsoring
this
bill.
I
think
it's
a
fairness
bill
for
the
officers
and
I
just
appreciate
you
hearing
us
out.
D
It's
a
very
scary,
scary
thing,
and
I
I
have
been
moved
in
terms
of
some
of
the
juvenile
probation
officers,
juvenile
detention
officers,
I've
seen
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
nurturing
and
mentoring
I
have
seen
so
many
of
these
officers
give
to
these
scared,
kids,
who
are
in
clark
county
juvenile
detention
center.
I
want
to
take
my
hat
off.
D
I
know
that
there's
a
unit
there
of
officers
who
try
to
take
kids
to
get
their
identification,
get
enrolled
in
accelerated
classes
to
try
to
get
their
ged
or
diploma
because
a
lot
of
them,
you
know,
have
dropped
out
of
school
or
been
kicked
out
of
school,
so
you
know
not,
and
I
believe
they
deserve
the
same
protection
that
other
officers
do
when
they're
accused
of
something
that's
breaking
the
law
and
and
they're
able
to
prove.
G
Thank
you,
church,
eibal,
now
we're
on
the
question
I
wanted
to
get
to
last
time.
I
think
it's
important
to
make
a
distinction
that
we're
not
talking
about
the
kids
in
the
in
detention,
we're
talking
about
the
adults
and
the.
G
As
I
understand
the
bill,
this
is
seeking
to
deal
with
an
employee
who
has
been
placed
on
leave
without
pay,
which
I
I
understand,
at
least
from
my
own
experience
in
family
law
cases
involving
officers
that,
when
they're
put
on
leave
without
pay,
it's
usually
because
there
has
been
an
internal
investigation
and
there
is
probable
cause
to
believe
that
they
have
either
committed
a
crime
violated
the
the
the
rules
of
of
their
procedures
or
both,
and
that
the
leave
without
pay
is
intended
to
be
a
essentially
a
preliminary
action
taken
against
them.
G
D
Schreibel
two
and
three
to
senator
pickard,
may
I
refer
that
question
to
officer
richardson.
I
believe
he's
better
suited
to
answer
that.
M
On
to
the
chair
to
senator
pickard,
now
the
agency
conducts
their
cr
their
investigation
after
the
criminal
investigation
concludes,
so
this
is
about
being
on
the
criminal
investigation
and
so,
after
the
end
of
the
criminal
investigation,
if
an
employee
is
clear
to
the
charges,
then
they're
given
back
pay
now
the
agency
can
conduct
their
investigation
on
the
conclusion
of
that
criminal
investigation.
Sir.
G
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
and-
and
I
probably
wasn't
clear
I
meant
before
the
criminal
investigation
is
concluded,
and
I
I
was
going
to
get
to
the
back
pay
here
in
just
a
second,
but
when
they're
initially
put
on
leave,
that's
because
they
are
facing
criminal
charges,
they've
been
arrested
and
and
there's
lots
of
different
reasons
why
an
officer
could
be
put
on
leave.
In
my
experience
most
recently,
it
was
an
officer
that
would
had
violated
their
use
of
force
much
you
know,
and
this
is
in
the
public
domain
right.
G
M
For
the
record
matt
richardson
to
the
chair
through
the
chair
to
senator
pickard,
sir
yeah
you're
accused
of
a
crime,
you
know
you're
arrested
and
we're
just
saying
that
if
the
charges
are
cleared-
and
you
know
you're
found
not
guilty-
you've
been
falsely
accused.
You
know,
whatever
the
circumstances
that
the
charges
go
away
upon,
that
upon
the
criminal
charges
leaving
then
you're
returned
back
to
work
with
full
pay.
So
it's
not
that
if
you're
convicted,
you
will
come
back
with
full
pay.
It's
just
only
upon
that
yeah.
I'm.
G
Sorry,
I'm
probably
just
struggling
to
be
clear.
I'm
talking
about
prior
to
adjudication
as
to
the
criminal
action
they're
put
on
leave
and
my
understanding
is
under
the
current
cba
once
they
are
put
on
leave.
They
are
not
supposed
to
be
earning
an
income
they're
not
supposed
to
receiving
an
income
by
that
agreement
until
the
criminal
charge
is
completed,
that
that,
under
the
current
state
of
the
the
law
and
the
cba
is
that
accurate.
M
Yes,
sir,
I
think
it
is
but
the
matt
richardson
to
the
chair
to
senator
pickard.
I
believe
that
is
accurate.
However,
the
agency
does
not
conclude
their
investigation
until
the
conclusion
of
the
criminal
investigation
right
some.
Sometimes
if
they
conduct
a
simultaneous
investigation,
then
one
or
the
other
will
become
tainted.
So
there's
one
after
the
other
they're,
not
you
know
done
concurrently
and
the
criminal
investigation
takes
precedence.
M
G
And
that
makes
sense,
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
my
understanding
was
correct
because
it
leads
to
the
next
question
if
the
current
cba
and
the
current
status
of
the
law
is
that
when
an
officer
is
suspended
pending
a
criminal
investigation,
whether
or
not
they're
guilty
right,
because
they
could
or
that
they
may
or
may
not
be.
I
don't
know
what
the
you
know.
Statistics
are,
but
it
doesn't
really
matter.
They
are
not
supposed
to.
G
The
intent
is
to
suspend
their
pay
and,
as
I
look
at
I'm
in
section
one
sub
5b,
they
can
elect
to
use
their
vacation
time
and
the
like
sick
leave,
whatever
they're
paid
time
off
during
that
period
of
leave,
even
though
the
cba
contemplated
that
that
would
be
suspended
because
they
would
potentially
lose
that
if
they
are
convicted.
G
M
Yes,
however,
the
amendment
that
you're
talking
about
about
the
the
pay
has
been
removed.
You
know
we
yeah,
we
moved
the
sorry
remove
the
portion,
and
so
we
agreed
are
excuse
me.
This
is
matt
richardson
for
the
record
to
the
chair.
Through
the
chair
to
senator
picker,
we
removed
that
portion
of
the
bill.
We
also
came
to
an
agreement
on
when
the
timeline
would
start.
M
We
agreed
that
it
was
from
time
of
arrest,
not
time
of
arraignment,
that
second
portion
has
been
completely
removed,
and
so
now
all
we're
really
dealing
with
is
whether
or
not,
if
you're
clear
to
the
charges
you
receive
the
back
pay.
G
All
right
I
apologize.
I
did
not
see
that
in
the
amendment
which
I
didn't
have
before
we
started
today.
So
all
right,
then
my
last
question:
let
me
see
if
that
resolves
it.
Madam
chair,
if
I
have
another
question
I'll
ask
it,
but
we
can
move
on.
I
think
this
may
have
resolved
it.
Thank
you.
A
H
H
H
I
H
H
H
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
rick
rick
mccann
mccann
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers
and
a
member
of
the
nevada
law
enforcement
coalition.
I
am
here
today
in
support
of
sb
317,
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
bernie
shaw
and
mr
richardson
for
their
work
with
the
stakeholders
from
clark
county
to
reserve.
I
mean
to
resolve
about
two-thirds
of
this
bill,
as
you
can
see
from
the
mock-up.
I
I
H
A
Thank
you.
It
looks
like
we
do.
Have
somebody
on
zoom
who
wants
to
give
neutral
testimony
the
department
of
juvenile
justice
services
perhaps
go
ahead.
O
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
jericho
and
distinguished
members
of
this
committee,
my
name
is
jack.
Martin
I
currently
serve
as
the
director
of
the
clark
county
department
of
juvenile
justice
services.
We
will
not
be
testifying
in
neutral.
I
apologize
our
our
technical
difficulties
here.
We
will
be
testifying
in
opposition
to
the
bill.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
to
the
committee
members.
I
work
with
and
sponsor
senator
orrin
shaw
and
mr
mccann
and
mr
richardson
and
I'll
give
you
some
of
the
reasons
for
our
opposition.
I
do
agree
with
mr
mccann.
O
We
agreed
on
some
parts
of
this,
but
there's
some
parts
that
don't
and
if
you,
if
you'll,
allow
me
I'd
like
to
give
you
a
couple
of
reasons
on
why
we
opposed
sbc
a
couple
of
sessions
ago.
The
legislature
recognized
that,
in
order
to
protect
the
children
under
the
care
and
custody
of
djjs
or
dfs
that
employees
regularly
working
with
those
children
needed
to
be
held
to
a
higher
standard
of
conduct,
that
legislation
directed
that
employees
charged
with
domestic
violence,
dui
and
other
significant
criminal
acts,
not
every
criminal
act.
O
O
Sp
317
continues
the
existing
statutory
language
prohibiting
the
employee
from
working
with
the
child
while
those
charges
are
pending.
However,
it
adds
a
new
provision
that,
if
the
employee
is
ultimately
not
convicted
of
the
charge
that
resulted
in
their
leave
of
absence,
that
the
county
would
be
liable
for
all
back
pay
for
the
time
that
employee
was
off
work.
O
Clark,
county
has
no
control
over
over
a
staff
being
arrested
for
a
crime
listed
under
the
statute.
County
has
no
control
over
what
the
charges
the
district
attorney
may
file
against
that
employee.
The
county
does
not
control
the
filing
date
to
start
the
court
process.
It
does
not
control
the
setting
of
future
court
dates.
O
Postponements
plea
deals,
counseling
ordered
dismissals
or
a
reduction
to
a
crime
not
covered
by
the
statute.
The
county
has
no
control
over
whether
the
victim
of
a
crime
will
even
show
up
at
a
hearing.
In
fact,
it
has
been
estimated
that
almost
35
percent
of
domestic
violence
cases
have
to
be
dismissed
simply
because
the
victim
does
not
show
up
at
a
trial,
not
because
the
event
did
not
happen
if
there
is.
O
It
is
therefore
simply
unfair
to
hold
the
county
responsible
for
pac
for
back
pay
when
the
statute
requires
the
county
to
put
an
employee
on
leave
and
the
county
has
no
control
or
even
any
influence
on
what
happens
in
the
case
after
it
is
filed.
Dui
and
dui
dui
charges
are
often
reduced
to
reckless
drive.
Staff
have
negotiated
to
use
their
accrued
time
during
that
during
the
correction
period,
adding
this
language
to
statute
to
solving
a
problem
that
does
not
exist.
O
This
bill
will
allow
staff
to
go
through
a
court
process
that
could
extend
over
a
year
and
a
half
at
the
taxpayer's
expense,
djjs
peace
officers
and
other
djhs
employees
should
be
held
to
a
higher
standard.
Due
to
their
true
ability
to
remove
the
freedoms
and
liberties
of
our
youth
staff,
provide
services
to
the
families
for
similar
issues,
djjs
should
be
held
to
a
higher
standard,
and
I
just
as
a
side
note.
These
are
very
specific
charges.
O
We're
talking
about
seven
charges,
we're
not
talking
about
any
charge
and
because
the
charge
is
dismissed
does
not
equate
to
that
to
that
event
not
occurring.
So
I
want
to
be
very
careful.
How
we
talk
about
dismissals
does
not
mean
officer
conduct
and
in
light
of
our
current,
you
know
officer.
You
know
how
we're
viewed
in
the
community
how
officers
are
now
fighting
for
what
we
we've
seen,
I'm
very
trepidatious
as
a
as
a
law
enforcement
officer
to
seek
you
know,
lessening
the
charge
against
against
our
standards
of
conduct.
O
A
A
I
believe
we
have
everybody
present,
so
we
can
move
to
our
work
session
and
I'm
just
taking
a
look
at
who
we
have.
Let's
start
with.
A
J
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
This
is
patrick
iron.
Community
policy
analyst,
as
the
chair
just
mentioned,
we're
going
to
start
with
senate
bill
356
in
our
work
session
today.
This
was
a
committee
bill
sponsored
on
behalf
of
the
interim
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
committee
committee.
Just
heard
the
bill
a
couple
days
ago.
J
So
I'll
try
to
be
quick
senate
bill.
356
requires
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
and
division
of
child
and
family
services,
in
consultation
with
the
juvenile
justice
oversight,
commission
and
other
stakeholders
to
study
the
feasibility
of
housing,
youthful
offenders,
regionally
and
dcfs
facilities
or
in
county
facilities,
and
to
look
at
developing
a
new
model
for
housing.
J
the
bill
enumerates
the
issues
to
be
addressed
in
the
study,
including
cost
first
facility
upgrades
construction,
complexities
of
utilizing
memorandums
of
understanding
between
agencies
regarding
staff
and
other
issues,
cost
savings
and
budgetary
matters
and
necessary
statutory
changes.
That
would
need
to
be
made
to
implement
this
program
and
other
matters
being
pertinent
by
the
agencies
and
it
directs
the
doc
and
cfs
to
submit
a
report
of
the
findings
of
the
study
to
the
child
welfare
and
journal
justice
committee
no
later
than
july,
1
of
2022.
A
I
A
A
motion
to
do
pass
is
there
a
second.
C
A
A
second
from
senator
hanson
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Seeing
none,
we
will
go
to
a
roll
call,
but
please.
F
I
G
A
Yes,
thank
you
with
that.
The
motion
carries
do
pass
sb
356.,
senator
orrinshaw.
Would
you
like
the
floor
statement.
A
J
J
I
A
L
I
G
A
And
with
that,
the
motion
carries:
do
you
pass
sb
357?
Is
there
a
volunteer
to
take
the
floor
statement?
Senator
orrinshaw,
okay,.
A
J
Thanks
jerry
shrivel,
patrick
guyan,
for
the
record
again,
another
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
committee
bill
that
this
committee
carried
sb
365,
requires
the
department
of
corrections
in
the
division
of
child
family
services
to
develop
and
implement
a
pilot
program.
Excuse
me
whereby
full
offenders
under
18
years
of
age,
who
have
been
tried
and
convicted
as
adults,
may
be
housed
in
the
custody
of
dcfs
rather
than
in
an
adult
ndoc
facility.
J
A
I
G
A
J
Thanks,
patrick
for
the
record,
we're
on
senate
bill
187.
Now
this
relates
to
solitary
confinement
of
offenders.
The
bill
was
sponsored
by
senator
spearman,
who
was
just
highlighted
on
my
screen.
So
I
know
she's
here
today
to
answer
questions.
If
the
committee
has
any
senate
bill,
187
requires
the
director
of
nevada's
department
of
corrections
to
adopt
regulations
governing
the
use
of
solitary
confinement,
to
provide
that
solitary
confinement
may
only
be
used
as
a
last
resort
in
the
least
restrictive
manner
and
for
the
shortest
period
of
time
safely.
Possible.
J
Limit
the
use
of
disciplinary
segregation
to
specific
circumstances,
review
and
evaluate
the
use
of
solitary
confinement,
to
provide
offenders,
assigned
to
solitary
confinement,
with
programming
required
training
for
staff
who
work
in
solitary
confinement
units
and
to
establish
minimum
requirements.
Reviews
and
other
procedures
relating
to
various
types
of
solitary
confinement
doc
is
to
report
annually
to
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice,
information
on
the
use
of
solitary
confinement,
including
number
of
offenders
assigned,
and
for
how
long,
whether
any
of
the
assigned
offenders
suffer
from
mental
illness.
J
Demographic
information
on
assigned
offenders
related
disciplinary
hearings
and
reviews
of
the
assignment
of
vulnerable
offenders
and
on
programming
provided
to
assign
defenders.
The
bill
also
removes
several
provisions
regarding
the
length
of
stay
in
solitary
confinement
and
instead
limits
the
length
of
that
time
that
any
offender
may
be
placed
in
disciplinary
segregation
30
days.
There
are
no
amendments.
G
Thank
you
just
a
quick
question.
Senator
spearman
does
this
report
include
those
that
are
put
in
segregation
or
solitary
confinement,
not
for
disciplinary
reasons,
but
for
some
administrative
reason
maybe
they
were
in
need
of
protection,
but
they
end
up
in
a
solitary
situation.
Is
the
intent
to
include
those
as
well.
I
M
D
A
All
right,
I
don't
see
any
other
questions.
Is
there
a
motion
to
do
pass.
G
A
D
I
I
G
A
J
The
committee
just
heard
this
bill
on
april
6th,
that's
sponsored
by
senator
spearman
and
sb
267
establishes
an
annual
workplace,
diversity
and
equality
survey
of
business
and
excuse
me,
businesses
in
nevada
that
employ
500
or
more
people.
J
The
committee
will
remember
that
at
the
initial
hearing
on
the
bill,
senator
spearman
proposed
a
conceptual
amendment
with
former
senator
harris,
and
the
committee
discussed
that
proposed
amendment
at
length.
It
has
been
revised
a
little
further
and
is
attached
in
full
here,
and
I
can
go
through
it
point
by
point
chair
schedule.
If
you'd
like
or
I
don't
know,
if
someone
would
prefer
to
discuss
it,
but
either
way,
I'm
happy
to
do
it.
If
you
just,
let
me
know
what
you
prefer.
J
Sure
all
right
so
number
one.
The
amendment
creates
a
voluntary
reporting
program
for
corporations
of
all
sizes.
Specifically,
the
proposed
amendment
would
change
the
requirement
that
only
corporations
which
employ
500
or
more
employees
must
complete
the
report
to
an
authorization
for
corporations
of
any
size
to
voluntarily
complete
the
report
and
authorize
rather
than
require
a
corporation
that
has
an
internet
website
to
make
its
reports
available
on
the
website
and
third
make
any
other
corresponding
changes.
J
Regarding
the
reporting
number
two,
it
would
expand
the
applicability
of
the
bill
so
that,
in
addition
to
corporations,
the
provisions
of
the
bill
would
also
apply
to
state
governmental
agencies,
including
without
limitation,
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
and
all
the
institutions
of
entity
and
two
local
governmental
agencies.
However,
unlike
corporations,
the
proposed
amendment
would
require
such
governmental
agencies
to
complete
the
report.
J
Third,
it
would
provide
the
corporations
would
submit
their
completed
reports
to
the
department
of
taxation
and
require
local
governmental
agencies
to
submit
their
completed
reports
to
the
department.
The
report
prepared
by
the
department
of
taxation
would
include
only
information
regarding
corporations
and
local
government
entities,
or
that
would
require
state
governmental
agencies
to
submit
their
completed
reports.
The
division
of
human
resource
management
of
the
department
of
administration.
J
Instead
of
the
department
of
taxation,
the
division
would
be
required
to
make
available
on
its
website
the
annual
report
submitted
by
state
governmental
agencies
with
personally
identifiable
identifiable
information
redacted.
The
second
would
aggregate
the
data
relating
to
the
annual
reports
with
personally
identifiable
identifiable
information.
Redacted
division
would
also
be
required
to
complete
annually
the
information
contained
in
the
reports
submitted
to
the
division
into
one
report
and
submit
that
to
the
governor
and
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
J
Fifth,
as
suggested
by
senator
suttlewire
during
the
initial
hearing
on
the
bill.
It
would
require
the
department
of
taxation
to
include
questions
in
the
survey
which
requests
first,
the
number
and
types
of
vacancies
at
a
corporation
or
agency
and
second
rate
of
attrition
at
the
corporation
or
agency.
A
A
I
Sorry
I
just
wanted
to
make
this
note.
Similar
settlement
suggested
something.
L
Yesterday
and
that
his
suggestion
is
also
in
the
amendment.
M
A
You
so
much,
I
believe
that
is
the
portion
about
attrition
and
or
turnover
rates
great.
Is
there
a
motion
on
the
bill
to
amend
and
do
pass.
I
L
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
a
strong
no
on
this.
I
think
this
is
big
brother
on
steroids,
we're
asking
highly
invasive
and
very
very
personal
questions
of
people
who
we
should
not
be
bothering
if
they
want
to
do
some
very
generic
questioning.
But
when
you
look
at
the
the
in-depth
questioning
that
this
bill
talks
about
everybody's
sex
life,
everybody's
racial
composition,
I
think
we've
gone
way
way
overboard
in
this
whole
idea.
L
I
G
A
B
A
Joining
us
for
this
work
session,
we
are
now
closing
the
work
session
on
267.
We
will
open
up
a
work
session
on
sb
177.
Mr
grinding,
would
you
please
lead
us
through
the
work
session
document.
J
Thanks
jerry
schaible
I'd
be
happy
to
again
pat
gein
for
the
record.
This
is
sent
bill
177,
which
is
sponsored
by
senators
fatty
cassaro
in
scheible,
and
it
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
account
or
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
We
heard
it
on
march
16th
sb
177
revises
the
eligibility
of
non-profit
organizations
that
provide
services
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
to
receive
grants
from
the
account
or
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
J
The
number
of
grants
that
may
be
awarded
in
counties
with
populations
of
either
less
than
or
more
than
100
000
is
limited,
and
the
bill
eliminates
the
requirement
that
15
of
all
money
allocated
from
the
account
to
a
county
whose
population
is
700,
000
or
more,
must
go
to
an
organization
specifically
created
to
assist
fiction
victims
of
sexual
assault,
a
portion
of
the
fee,
that's
collected
by
a
county
clerk
when
issuing
a
marriage
license
that
is
used
to
fund.
The
account
is
raised
in
this
bill
from
twenty
five
dollars
to
fifty
dollars.
A
C
No
questions
but
a
comment.
Madam
chair,
you
actually
challenged
some
of
us
if
you'll
recall
to
look
for
some
empirical
data
on
whether
or
not
being
married
has
less
is
actually
an
advantage
and
reduces
the
amount
of
domestic
violence.
So
I
I
answered
your
challenge
and
I
just
real
quickly
a
couple
of
studies.
There
are
actually
dozens
and
dozens
of
them,
most
of
them
frankly,
have
very
small
sample
sizes.
C
So
I
found
two
with
the
largest
the
first
one
had
1
000
or
19
517
people,
real,
quick,
it's
by
the
biomedical
center
for
public
health,
intimate
partner
violence
here
was
there
real,
quick
what
they
said
despite
wide
variations
in
the
president
in
the
prevalence
of
intimate
partner,
violence,
many
factors
affected
risk.
Similarly,
across
sites
secondary
education
and
formal
marriage
offered
protection,
while
alcohol
abuse
and
cohabitation
increase
the
risk
and
the
other
one
real
quick.
C
Then
the
conclusion
was
when
comparing
violence
in
both
relational
contexts,
we
found
that,
in
terms
of
perpetuation,
more
dating
partners
reported
physical
abuse
and
severe
forms
of
physical
abuse
than
married
partners,
so
just
want
to
get
that
out
there,
because
this
bill,
if
we,
if
we
pass
this
tax
according
to
the
people
that
are
involved
in
this
industry,
as
the
tax
rate
goes
up,
the
number
of
people
getting
married
goes
down.
If
our
goal
is
to
reduce
domestic
violence,
we
should
be
encouraging
marriage.
C
So
just
thank
you
for
them,
adam
chair,
so
I
did
answer
your
challenge.
A
Though,
all
right,
I
see
senator
picker's
hand,
is
also.
G
Are
you
I'm
sure
it's
a
weak
act
to
follow
that
one,
but
I
also
reached
out
to
some
individuals
in
the
that
represent
the
marriage
industry
they've
been
saying
that
we've
been
losing
ground
to
other
marriage
destinations
for
decades,
and
they
expressed
some
really
serious
concerns
about
what
this
would
do
to
those
marginal
questions.
People
who
can
afford
to
travel
to
a
destination
for
marriage
generally
can
travel
pretty
much
anywhere.
G
I
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
I
talked
to
the
sponsor
about
learning
to
find
another
way
to
fund
this.
I
absolutely
agree
with
the
bill
with
the
concept
and
if
we
want
to
just
make
this
a
line
item
appropriation
out
of
the
budget,
I'm
sure
you
can
have
this
bill
out
of
here
unanimous
without
a
problem.
I
Q
Thank
you,
church
rival,
and
I
just
wanted
to
again
thank
senator
roddy
for
bringing
this
forward.
Obviously,
you
know
when
we
are
talking
about
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence,
so
much
of
that
is
part
of
power
and
control,
and
I
think
the
more
tied
you
are
to
a
partner.
Certainly
it
has
been.
Q
Sorry
there
is
less
likely
to
be
the
financial
ability
to
leave
or
the
support
system
that
exists
outside
of
the
home
for
that
person
to
leave
and
to
be
comfortable
to
be
able
to
take
care
of
themselves,
and
so
I
think,
certainly
the
policy
here
is
not
about
correlation,
but
rather
this
is
currently
how
we
fund
these
types
of
services,
and
it
is
woefully
inadequate
for
her
for
what
we
have
done,
and
I
think
senator
wright
did
a
great
job
during
the
hearing
of
presenting
the
data
that
this
has
remained
unchanged
for
a
substantial
period
of
time,
and
yet
we
know
that
there
are
so
many
more
resources
that
are
needed.
Q
To
find
this,
I
think,
unfortunately,
this
is
where
we
find
ourselves
in
a
lot
of
these
instances
is
how
we
fund
things
in
this
state
is
by
finding
something
to
try
to
feed
you,
and
that
is
how
we
have
continued
to
operate,
and
so
you
know,
without
some
grander
plan
and
the
support
behind
it,
to
figure
out
what
that
other
permanent
funding
source
is.
Q
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
canazaro.
Anybody
else
have
questions
or
remarks,
if
not
I'll,
take
a
personal
point
of
privilege
to
indicate
my
support
also
for
sb
177,
and
I
agree
with
the
majority
leader.
I
also
am
disappointed
to
hear
different
reasons
not
to
support
a
bill
that
people
purport
to
support
in
theory
to
fund
fighting
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
To
me,
the
correlation
isn't
even
important.
If
there
were
another
tax,
we
could
levy
another
fee.
We
could
impose
to
raise
this
money.
It
could
be
on
candy
bars
or
bubble
gum.
A
This
money
is
desperately
needed
in
our
state
and
I
don't
know-
maybe
you
guys
do,
but
I
don't
know
any
married
person
who
would
not
would
want
their
refund
back,
knowing
that
part
of
their
license
fee
went
to
helping
combat
domestic
and
sexual
violence,
and
so
I
am
happy
to
support
this
bill.
Senator
ratty
very
eloquently
pointed
out
in
the
presentation
for
40
years.
A
We
haven't
found
another
solution,
so
I
am
I'm
ready
to
to
support
sb
177
and
make
just
this
most
incremental
increase
to
the
funding
for
our
the
one
funding
force.
We
have
to
fight
sexual
and
domestic
violence
here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
senator
orangeville.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
scheible
and
I'll
be
brief.
I
just
you
know.
I
was
pretty
moved
at
the
hearing
by
the
coalition
senator
ratty
had
brought
together
and
seeing
you
know
we're
hearing
former
lieutenant
governor
wagner
who
talk
about
the
original
effort
to
try
to
get
this
on
the
books
back
in
the
early
1980s,
and
you
know
how
bipartisan
it
was
there,
and
I
I
hope
that
you
know
we
will
kind
of
achieve
that
perhaps
on
the
floor,
even
if
not
today,
but
I'll
be
supporting
it.
D
I
Thank
you
chair
in
that
respect.
Like
I
indicated,
I
think
this
is
worthy.
We
should
fund
it.
Let's
do
it
right
now,
american
recovery
act.
We
know
it's
going
to
pass
when
it
does.
Let's
dedicate
10
million
dollars
to
this
or
20
million
or
whatever
you
think,
is
the
appropriate
amount
to
help
these
individuals
out.
I
A
P
It
I
know
we're
not
re-litigating
the
bill
here
at
the
work
session
so
but
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
so.
First
of
all,
I
spent
an
awful
lot
of
time
and
shared
along
the
way
with
senator
settlemyre
looking
at
divorce
fees,
because
I
think
several
of
the
committee
members
had
asked
for
us
to
do
that
and
the
the
good
news
unfortunate
for
us,
but
good
for
the
state
of
nevada.
P
Is
there
significantly
less
divorces
than
there
are
marriages
and
that
we
would
have
had
to
create
the
divorce
fee
up
to
200,
which
seemed
inappropriate?
There
are
actually
people
who
can't
afford
to
get
divorced,
so
that
seemed
not
to
be
a
good
solution,
and
so
we
sort
of
set
that
aside.
Nobody
approached
me
with
an
amendment
to
the
bill.
I
I
will
say,
and
so
if
we
had
had
time
to
consider
an
amendment
to
the
bill,
I
would
have
definitely
taken
a
look
at
an
amendment
to
the
bill.
P
Here's
my
concern
last
session.
I
did
a
bill
on
vaping
and
we
actually
raised
the
tax
on
vaping
and
brought
into
the
state
about
nine
million
dollars
and
on
that
bill
we
put
an
appropriation
and
that
appropriation
was
for
what
something
that
I
think
everybody
in
this
body
felt
was
very
important.
P
My
concern
with
the
american
recovery
act,
which
I'm
very
excited
about,
is
that
the
vast
majority
of
that
is
going
to
be
one-shot
money,
and
so
we
can
take
a
good
chunk
of
money
and
if
we
want
to
give
10
million
dollars
to
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence
out
of
the
american
recovery
act,
I
will
be
a
strong
yes,
but
it
will
be
appropriate
for
perhaps
building
a
shelter,
but
it
will
not
be
sustainable.
P
But
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
critically
important
is
that
it
is
funding
that
those
non-profit
agencies
that
are
critical,
essential
providers
in
our
in
our
state
infrastructure
or
these
victim
survivors
have
reliable,
sustaining
sustainable,
ongoing
funding.
So
let's
continue
the
conversation.
I
look
forward
to
working
with
my
colleagues
to
find
the
bipartisan
solution.
Thank
you.
C
All
right,
thank
you,
churchill,
actually,
senator
raddy
had
thrown
out
a
challenge
as
well
on
possible
funding
mechanisms
so,
while
doing
some
homework
on
a
bill,
I
discovered
that
approximately
80
of
the
licenses
that
are
sold
in
clark
county
are
from
out-of-state
people
who
come
to
las
vegas
for
basically
a
marriage
and
a
honeymoon,
so
the
logical
spot
to
go
would
actually
be
a
room
tax.
C
Let
me
tell
you
that
would
fund
a
whole
lot
of
domestic
violence
issues,
so
I
think
we
need
to
start
looking
at
some
some
sources
and
also
where
our
real
true
priorities
are
in
the
state.
Do
we
really
care
that
much
about
domestic
violence,
kids
with
autism,
or
do
we
care
about
helping
billionaires?
A
All
right
for
the
committee's
edification,
we
have
heard
several
deter
bills
in
commerce
and
labor
addressing
fraud
and
other
issues
that
they're
facing,
and
yet
here
we
are
today
discussing
sb177.
There
is
a
motion
on
the
floor
to
do
pass
and
we
will
now
go
to
a
roll
call
vote.
I
L
I
G
A
P
A
All
right
that
concludes
our
work
session
on
sb
177.
We
still
have
two
more
bills
to
go.
We
will
move
to
our
work
session
on
sb
369.
J
Thanks
to
scheible,
this
is
patrick
guyan
again
for
the
record.
We're
now
on
senate
bill
369,
as
you
just
mentioned,
senate
bill
369,
was
carried
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
interim
pre-trial
release.
Study
excuse,
sb,
369
revises
statutes
regarding
the
imposition
of
bail
to
comport,
with
the
nevada
constitution,
lose
provisions
requiring
an
arrested
person
to
show
good
cause
in
order
to
be
released
without
bail.
Additionally,
the
bill
consolidates
existing
procedures
for
releasing
a
person
with
or
without
bail
into
a
standard
procedure
for
courts
to
follow
in
making
pre-trial
custody
determinations.
J
Regarding
amendments
senator
harris
who
presented
the
bill
has
presented
or
offered
a
a
conceptual
amendment
that
is
attached
on
the
following
pages.
The
amendment
revises
language
in
section
three
to
authorize
a
prosecuting
attorney
to
request,
bail
or
another
condition
of
release
or
both
if
requesting
bail.
The
prosecutor
must
prove
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
why
bail
is
necessary.
J
The
amendment
also
provides
that
if
a
person
used
a
firearm
and
committing
the
act
for
which
the
person
was
arrested,
there
is
a
rebuttable
presumption
that
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary
to
secure
the
community's
safety
and
ensure
the
person
will
appear,
includes
the
imposition
of
bail
or
a
condition
of
release
or
both
and
that's
all
they
have
chair
shuttle.
A
Okay,
any
questions
on
sb369:
okay.
Is
there
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
removed?
A
motion
from
senator
orrinshaw?
Is
there
a
second
second
from
senator
hansen
and
I'm
going
to
go
next
to
discussion
on
the
motion
which
it
looks
like
senator
settlemeyer
would
like
to
start
us
off
with.
I
A
So
I
think
that
that
issue
is
a
broader
concern
about
our
bail
system
and
the
valdosta
menace
decision,
which
this
codifies,
which
is
to
say
that
there
is
nothing
in
nevada
law
that
prevents
a
judge
from
allowing
a
defendant
who's
accused
of
sexual
assault
from
being
released
either
on
bail
or
and
or
with
non-monetary
conditions
placed
on
them,
and
that
this
bill
does
not
change
that.
But
it
does
not
weaken
that
in
any
way
either.
I
C
A
Yeah,
that's
okay
and
I
think
you
are
mixing
up
with
another
one
sb
369
I
presented
earlier
this
week
or
maybe
last
week,
and
this
is
the
one
that
says
that
the
bergen
is
on
the
prosecutor's
show
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
the
person
poses
a
risk
to
the
community
and
or
a
flight
risk.
In
order
for
the
judge
to
make
a
determination,
sorry
and
then
the
judge
makes
a
determination
as
to
what
the
least
restrictive
means
are
to
ensure
that
person's
return
to
court
and
the
safety
of
the
community.
Q
Q
We
may
still
have
to
have
some
conversations
and
potentially
a
little
bit
of
clarification
over
the
course
to
set
bail
and
and
some
of
the
the
wording
in
section
three
to
make
sure
it's
it's
capturing
what
it
needs
to
capture,
but
I
think
for
for
today
I
feel
comfortable
voting
to
amend
and
do
pass
because
again,
this
is
more
or
less
codifying
with
some
additional
considerations.
Q
But
the
supreme
court
recently
ruled
in
the
valdez
jimenez
case
that
these
are
the
standards
under
the
constitution
by
which
we
have
to
when
considering
whether
to
release
someone
with
bail
without
bail
with
conditions
of
release
must
be
considered.
And
so
I
feel
comfortable
that
this
is
the
current
status
of
the
law,
but
want
to
make
sure
that
the
language
is
where
it
needs
to
be.
But
we'll
support
today
out
of
community.
L
And
chair
schreibel,
if
I
may,
to
vice
chair
ken
azar,
I
am,
it
is
the
intent
of
the
amendment
to
to
clarify
that
the
court
does
have
the
ability
to
put
forward
what
they
deem
is
the
least
restrictive
means.
And
so
I'm
more
than
happy
to
to
continue
to
work,
to
tighten
that
up.
D
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
I
just
want
to
compliment
senator
harris
for
all
her
hard
work
during
the
interim
and
and
your
work
chair,
scheible
on
the
that
interim
committee
on
pre-trial
release
and
detention
and
bringing
the
this
bill
and
the
other
bills
forward.
Certainly,
there
is
a
national
movement
towards
bail
reform.
The
uniform
law
commission
has
promulgated
a
uniform
act
at
at
this
issue,
and
this
is
something
that's
happening
in
nevada
and
around
the
country
and-
and
I
will
be
supporting
this.
G
Thank
you,
ma'am,
chair
and,
and
I
was
actually
going
to
just
mention
the
uniform
act
as
well.
This
actually
deviates
from
that
a
little
bit,
and
it
was
my
understanding
after
talking
to
a
few
prosecutors
that
the
least
restrictive
means
is
already
the
state
of
the
law.
Whether
or
not
it's
in
statute.
I
couldn't
tell
you
this:
isn't
my
area
but
I'll
be
supporting
the
bill
out
of
committee,
but
I'm
gonna
reserve
my
right.
Thank
you.
A
And
to
clarify
yes,
the
least
restrictive
means
is
currently
the
state
of
the
law.
All
right
with
that,
I
think
we
had
a
motion
on
the
floor
to
amend
and
do
pass
from
senator
harris
newly
seconded
by
senator
orrinshaw,
and
now
we
will
go
to
a
roll
call
vote.
J
C
G
A
J
If
the
amount
of
bail
is
2500
or
less
reports
containing
this
information
are
to
be
submitted
to
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice
or
the
legislature
as
appropriate,
and
made
publicly
available
on
the
website
of
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts.
There
is
one
minor
amendment
that
was
requested
by
the
department
of
sentencing
policy.
They
asked
to
be
added
to
the
distribution
list
for
the
pre-trial
detention
report
and
that
amendment
request
is
attached
and
senator
harris
indicated
her
support
for
the
amendment.
That's
all
I
have
to
recycle.
A
C
Go
ahead
just
a
quick
comment:
this
was
the
one
I
thought
that
that
I
was
helping
with
at
the
last
time.
I
think
so
I
I'm
in
favor
of
the
bill,
madam
chair,
just
wanted
to
get
that
cleared
up
on
that.
Second,
I
apologize
for
my
mistake.
A
No
problem-
and
I
wanted
to
clarify
with
you
senator
harris-
I
am
looking
at
the
language
of
the
bill
and
the
amendment,
and
it
does
require
that
the
local
detention
center
inform
the
court
that
somebody
has
been
held
for
more
than
seven
days
with
bail
of
less
than
twenty
five
hundred
dollars.
But
it
does
not
indicate
anything
about
what
that
means.
The
court
should
or
must
do
about
it.
I
A
D
L
I
G
A
A
A
I
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
the
constant
represent
senate
bill
361.
This
is
senator
settlemeyer
representing
senate
district
17..
The
bill
relates
to
consumer
debt.
Sometimes
in
these
situations
we
have
individual
claims
that
are
so
small
for
consumer
debt
that
the
concept
of
going
after
them
is
problematic
in
the
realm
that
it
costs
far
more
money
than
collect,
and
then
sometimes
individuals
continue
to
do
that.
I
I
E
R
K
R
That
sure
go
ahead.
Yes,
thank
you
and
good
afternoon,
and
thank
you,
chair
shibal
and
vice
chair
canozzaro
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
neil
tomlinson
n-e-a-l
last
name
t-o-m-l-I-n
from
the
law
firm
brownstein
high
at
barbara
schreck.
I'm
here
today
representing
the
nevada
collectors
association.
R
R
Many
small
businesses
don't
know
how
or
don't
have
the
time
to
navigate
small
claims
court
on
their
on
their
own,
so
they
turn
to
an
attorney
for
assistance.
Many
of
you
are
lawyers
yourselves.
You
understand
the
time
and
effort
that
it
takes
to
prepare
the
necessary
pleadings,
complete
the
filing,
serve
the
defendant
and
appear
at
court
hearings
depending
on
the
value
of
the
debt.
The
maximum
of
15
attorneys
fees
creates
an
artificial
threshold
when
a
lawyer
decides
whether
to
take
on
a
case
so
something
lower
than
that.
R
Then
they're,
faced
with
the
decision
of
either
attempting
to
navigate
the
legal
system
on
their
own
or
just
not
collecting
on
the
payments
that
they're
rightfully
owed
it's
inequitable
to
expect
small
businesses
doing
their
best
to
stay
open
to
carry
the
burden
of
these
valid
debts
simply
because
they
cannot
find
legal
representation
to
assist
it.
So,
accordingly,
sb
261
seeks
to
allow
a
minimum
level
of
five
hundred
dollars
for
attorney's
fees
and
these
types
of
actions,
the
fifteen
percent
cap,
would
still
be
applicable.
In
most
instances.
R
So
I
know
he
was
having
some
audio
difficulty,
but
I
want
to
turn
it
over
now
to
tim,
myers
who's,
the
president
of
the
nevada's
collectors
association,
and
he
can
kind
of
give
you
a
specific
example
and
kind
of
explain
to
you
the
issue
a
little
further.
So
with
that,
I
turn
it
over
to
tim,
myers
from
the
nevada,
collector's
association.
N
Thank
you,
neil
thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
be
in
front
of
you
today.
My
name
is
tim
myers
t
I
t-I-m-m-y-e-r-s
and
the
president
of
nevada
collectors
association.
N
N
N
By
the
way
of
example,
on
the
current
law,
the
small
doctor's
office
retains
one
of
our
members
to
collect
on
a
valid
1500
medical
bill.
The
maximum
allowable
attorney's
fee
would
be
225,
doesn't
matter
if
they
settle
default
or
goes
to
trial.
That's
the
max
that
an
attorney
can
get
for
the
courts,
for,
as
most
of
you
probably
know,
we
cannot
find
a
lawyer
to
represent
us
in
cases
like
this
simply
takes
too
much
time
and
effort
to
prepare
and
serve
pleadings
and
attend
the
court
hearing
225
doesn't
cover
the
cost
of
doing
it.
N
A
Okay,
senator
pankard
go
ahead
with
your
question.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
and
thank
you
all
for
presenting
to
bill,
I'm
the
last
one
who
would
stand
between
an
attorney
and
and
getting
paid
given
I'm
paid
by
the
hour
as
well,
but
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
this
works,
because,
in
my
experience
the
collection
side
of
this,
usually,
we
would
assign
the
rights
to
the
claim
in
its
entirety.
G
In
exchange
for
50,
back
plus
or
minus
I
mean
every
situation
is
a
little
different,
but
that's
the
the
the
collectors
get
a
chunk
of
the
the
the
amount
owed
and
I
always
thought
that
was
to
pay
the
attorneys.
So
do
I
understand
correctly
that
this
would
be
an
award
of
attorney's
fees
in
addition
to
the
the
other
collection
costs
that
are
accrued
and
and
contracted
for
only.
A
Yes,
yes,
you
just
have
to
put
your
name
on
the
record
for
our
transcriptionists
and
secretaries.
N
N
When
we
advance
or
go
on
to
receive
the
court
on
a
consumer
that
has
the
means
to
pay
but
refuses
to
pay,
we
advanced
all
court
costs
and
attorneys
fees
for
our
client
for
the
small
businesses
out
there,
then
once
we
go
to
court
over
the
years,
we
have
to
make
sure
we
have
a
contract
from
the
original
president
states
that
our
attorney's
fees
are
awarded
or
allowed
if
they
default
and
then
takes
attorneys
to
go
to
court.
So
by
advancing
all
court
costs
and
attorneys
fees
is
addition
to
the
contingency
fee
that
we
make.
N
N
A
Okay,
is
that
all
great
senator
harris.
L
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
I
I'm
just
wondering
do
we
do
we
do
this
anywhere
else
in
statute,
where
we're
kind
of
setting
some
guaranteed
income
for
another
profession
outside
of
let's
say
where
we
establish
medicare
reimbursement
rates
or
things
of
that
nature?
Is
this
something
we
do
in
other
places.
R
Madam
chair
neil
tomlinson,
through
the
chair
to
senator
harris,
I'm
not
sure
of
the
answer
to
that.
I
know
that
these
fees
were
already
included
in
in
the
law,
and
even
so.
This
is
just
kind
of
a
revision
because
it
just
wasn't
workable
for
the
situations
that
mr
meyer
described,
I'm
not
sure
about
other
situations.
I
A
All
right,
if
there
are
no
other
questions,
I
have
a
few.
I
was
wondering,
since
we
are
putting
an
exact
dollar
amount
in
here
at
500.
If
you
could
give
us
a
picture
of
what
these
settlements
normally
look
like
either
the
average
claim
or
the
average
amount
recovered
something
useful
like
that.
Perhaps.
N
The
miners
association,
so
we
handle
claims
from
fifteen
dollars
to
ten
twenty
thousand
dollars,
which
depends
on
the
creditor
who
they
are
commending.
Energy,
although
we
have
any
utilities.
Sorry
utilities,
medical
retail
commercial.
So
I
mean
there's
a
threshold
from
the
from
the
industry
standards
to
the
threshold
of
what
you
can't
afford
to.
K
N
So
there's
it's
you're,
not
gonna,
coming
from
an
about
standpoint
and
being
in
nevada,
hiring
a
lot
of
people
and
collecting
from
my
nevada
neighbors.
You
don't
want
to
take
everybody.
The
last
thing
we're
going
to
do
is
go
to
court,
but
you
know
you
have
your
clients
that
that's
they
can't
afford
to
go
out
and
hire
their
attorney
300
bucks
an
hour,
so
they
hire
us
to
do
the
collections
and
then
ask
us:
we
advance
all
the
costs
and
everything
to
take
the
court
on
a
mass
basis
or
a
volume
volume
basis.
N
N
In
order
to
be
able
to
pay
for
for
the
attorney
to
be
able
to
it's,
you
know
to
recover
the
cost
at
15,
so
we're
leaving
out
the
pool
man,
the
electrician
or
the
people
who
are
doing
the
five.
Six
seven
hundred
dollar
services
that
we
can
no
longer
take
before
because
we're
only
going
to
be
awarded
less
than
150
dollars
for
attorney
speakers
and
because
we're
so
by
doing
the
500,
I
guess
we're
trying
to
include
the
500
6
7
800
1100
bills
in
there
for
the
small
businesses
in
there
that
hire
us.
A
I
I
think
it
is
so
and
I'm
afraid
for
the
answer
to
this
question,
but
it
sounds
like
this
is
specifically
targeting
a
case
in
which
the
recovery
might
only
be
two
or
three
hundred
dollars.
You
are
ensuring
that
anybody
who
has
a
judgment
against
them
for
two
hundred
dollars
will
have
to
pay
at
least
five
hundred
dollars
in
attorney's
fees,
in
addition
to
whatever
the
judgment
is
against
them,.
N
A
A
I
just
want
to,
I
think,
maybe
I'm
not
understanding
this,
because
let's
say
that
I
am
the
defendant
in
this
suit.
I
owed
two
hundred
dollars.
If
the
person
I
owed
it
to
decided
to
take
me
to
court
for
that
two
hundred
dollars
and
this
law
is
in
place
and
the
15
has
to
you
know,
15
of
200
dollars
would
be
some
30.
A
N
A
So
now
we're
awarding
we're
putting
a
floor
on
the
award
of
500,
so
this
effectively
makes
it
so
that
there
are
no
claims
that
are
not
worth
going
after,
because
where
it
used
to
be
that
an
organization
wouldn't
go
after
a
200
claim,
because
they
knew
that
they
weren't
going
to
get
even
200
in
attorney's
fees.
Now
I
can
go
after
a
three
dollar
debt
and
get
a
500
windfall
in
attorney's
fees.
Why
wouldn't
I
go
collect
every
single
debt
that
is
owed
from
people
who
have
very,
very
small
outstanding
amounts.
N
Tim
myers
again
the
better
collectors
going
to
that.
I
think
70
or
80
percent
of
the
people
in
america
pay
anywhere
up
to
the
three
to
a
200
bill.
If
you're
not
paying
a
200
bill.
N
It's
I
mean
again
it's
what
we
do,
because
we
get
three
dollar
copays
from
a
medical
facility.
I
can't
answer
that,
but
I
would
know
our
our
members
pretty
much
have
a
threshold,
but
they
don't
really
steal
anything
under
200
or
300.
They
wouldn't
do
it,
so
it
would
be
word
for
it.
But
I'd
be
all
I'd,
be
happy
neil.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
amend
it,
but
no
more
than
200.
R
Man,
I'm
sure,
neil
tomlinson
again
just
just
to
add
on
to
what
mr
meyer
said.
I
think
he's
this
is
mainly
designed
to
fix
the
problem
where
you've
got
valid
debts
between
a
thousand
and
and
three
thousand
that's
sort
of
range.
Certainly,
you
know
these
smaller
debts.
R
I
think
what
mr
myers
is
saying
is
that
his
association
members-
they
don't
really
go
after
those
small
dollar
ones
in
litigation,
because
it's
just
not
worthwhile
and
but
but
the
reality
is
there's
a
lot
of
small
doctors,
offices
and
and
the
pool
cleaner
and
housekeeper
and
different
services
that
are
not
getting
paid
and
they
legitimately
should
get
paid
people.
People
have
the
option
to
just
avoid
paying
because
they
know
that
they
don't
have
to
and
that
they
won't
go
after
them.
I
think
that
that's
not
a
good
situation
either.
R
So
I
think
that
you
know
what
what
this
is
designed
to
do
is
those
debts
that
are
that
are
large
enough
to
perhaps
litigate,
but
but
still
small
enough,
that
you
know
there's
an
incentive
to
collect
on
it
and
that's
really
what
we're
trying
to
fix
here,
because
the
15
percent,
you
know
just
there's,
obviously
no
attorney
that
I'm
aware
of
in
the
state
that
would
take
any
any
smaller
case
for
15
15
and
if,
if
we're,
if
we're
saying
that
that
that's
the
policy
of
the
state
that
you
can
just
avoid
any
small
debt,
I
don't.
R
I
don't
know
that.
That's
a
good
policy,
so
this
is
just
attempting
to
fix
those
claims
that
that
mr
myers
described
that
that
are,
you
know
between
a
thousand
and
three
thousand.
That
kind
of
range
that
are
you
know
can
be
problematic
to
to
collect,
because
you
know
they're
still
significant
enough,
but
you
know
you
still
can't
get
an
attorney
to
take
those.
A
Okay,
I
think
I'm
finally
understanding
this
might
be
a
question
better
directed
at
the
sponsor,
but
basically
what
you're
saying
then
is
that
there
currently
exists
these
debts
they're
between
one
thousand
three
thousand
dollars,
and
it's
not
worth
the
money
to
go
after
them
for
what
you're
going
to
recover.
So
basically,
we
have
a
market
failure
that
you're
asking
the
government
to
come
in
and
fix
by
putting
an
artificial
500
floor
on
the
amount
that
the
debt
collectors
can
recover
in
any
of
these
cases,
because
the
free
market
isn't
doing
it
by
itself.
L
I
don't
know
who
might
be
best
suited
to
answer
this
question,
but
I'm
wondering
how
often
are
consumer
do
consumer
contracts
have
provisions
that
shift
the
recovery
of
attorney
fees
automatically
on
to
the
consumer
if
they
have
to
go
and
collect
the
debt
the
debt
at
at
some
later
point.
Do
we
know
if,
if
contracts
tend
to
contr
to
contain
these
provisions,
is
that
rare?
Do
you
have
any
insight
at
all.
I
N
There
are
utilities
or
other
creditors
out
there
that
don't
utilize
a
contract
so
like,
for
instance,
on
the
utility
that
the
public
utilities
commission
does
allow
for
attorney's
fees
and
court
costs
if
they
go
through
linkedin
other
hospital
same
thing,
financial.
They
have
a
financial
agreement,
mostly
on
when
it
comes
to
medical.
N
They
have
provisions
that
if
you
default
you're
going
to
be
responsible
for
court
costs
insurance,
so
we're
entitled
to
ask
for,
but
by
going
when
2019,
when
they
entered
the
at
the
ab477,
it
capped
the
attorney
fees.
We
can
get
for
the
smaller
businesses
at
15
percent,
of
whatever
the
debt,
so
we
can
go
to
court.
We
can
retain
and
ask
for
the
forecast
attorney
fees,
but
now
we're
capped
at
15.
L
And
so,
mr
myers,
if
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
summarizing
your
answer
correctly,
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
in
some
industries
it
is
fairly
common
to
have
in
the
in
the
financial
agreement
that
the
person
would
be
responsible
for
the
attorney
fees
and
costs,
although
those
are
currently
capped
at
15
right.
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
elliott:
mallon
e-l-l-I-o-t,
last
name.
Malin
m-a-l-I-n,
representing
the
creditors
rights
attorneys
association
of
nevada
crayon
is
an
industry
trade
group
of
attorneys
who
represents
creditors
before
all
courts
in
state
of
nevada.
We
regularly
run
into
debt
consolidation
companies,
allegedly
working
on
behalf
of
consumers
outside
of
their
contract
with
the
consumers.
These
companies
often
have
no
ties
to
fit
in
the
data
they
regularly
allow
undisputed
consumer
debts
to
go
into
litigation
then
require
motion
practice.
I
Instead
of
immediately
working
resolving
these
cases
when
there
is
no
dispute
and
the
debts
are
justly
owed,
we
believe
that
the
volume
of
unneeded
cases
overwhelms
the
judicial
system
from
the
state
of
nevada.
We
encourage
scp-261
as
a
way
to
incentivize
pre-suit
resolution
a
benefit
to
the
consumer
and
the
courts.
Thank
you
for
the
time
today,.
H
H
F
F
I
am
calling
because
at
this
point
in
time
I
have
small
clients
such
as
cabinet
installers,
daycares,
landscapers
pool
people
who
come
to
me
to
collect
debts
under
three
thousand
dollars.
They
have
these
contracts
in
hand
and
they
have
a
provision
in
their
contract
that
allows
for
awards
of
attorneys
fees
and
costs,
and
I
have
to
turn
them
down.
I
can't
help
them
because
I
can't
charge
them
they're,
not
willing
to
pay
me
an
hourly
fee
just
to
come
back
and
say:
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
recoup
my
attorney's
fees.
F
So
it
really
is
a
detriment
and
a
process
where
debt
collection
is
helping.
Small
businesses
keep
on
their
feet.
There
is
an
economy
need
for
debt
collection
for
small
businesses,
and
this
limit
to
the
15
percent
has
override
ridden
the
the
statutory
or
the
contractual
provisions
that
these
these
small
businesses
had
been
relying
upon
in
order
to
be
able
to
collect
their
debts.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
H
H
E
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
sophia
romero,
s-o-p-h-I-a
r-o-m-e-r-o,
and
I
am
a
staffing
attorney
in
the
consumer
rights
project
at
legal
aid
center
of
southern
nevada.
Thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
here
today
in
opposition
of
sb261
sb
261
attempts
to
gut
the
protections
that
ab477
put
in
place
in
the
2019
legislative
session.
E
Well,
500
might
not
seem
like
a
lot
of
money
to
some
for
one
who's
already
behind
on
paying
their
debts
is
an
extremely
large
amount.
As
chapter
97
b
only
went
into
effect
october
1st
of
2019.
The
courts
are
interpreting
the
statute
to
only
apply
to
contract
entered
into
after
that
date.
So
we
have
not
even
seen
the
results
of
the
legislation
as
it
currently
stands,
because
courts
are
not
enforcing
it
as
of
yet
people
are
sued
on
small
dollar
amounts
all
the
time.
E
To
give
you
an
idea
of
the
actual
dollar
amounts
we're
discussing
in
2020
debt
collectors
brought
suits
on
principal
dollar's
amount
of
442.11
cents,
328.19
285
and
eight
cents
and
276.26
pins.
This
was
a
small
period
of
time
by
a
single
debt.
Collector
these
are
small
dollar
amounts.
These
types
of
suits
belong
in
small
claims.
There's
plenty
information
of
small
claims
both
on
the
civil
law,
self-help
center
website
and
legal
aid
puts
on
a
class
every
friday
that
talks
about
small
claims
and
how
to
do
small
claims.
E
It's
open
to
everyone
in
the
community
if
anybody
is
having
trouble
navigating
that
process,
if
this
bill
were
to
pass,
someone
who
is
being
sued
on
125
dollar
bill
would,
as
a
matter
of
law,
be
required
to
pay
at
least
500
in
attorney's
fees,
that
is
400
percent
of
the
original
amount
of
the
debt
and
attorney
fees.
This
is
not
even
including
what
they
also
have
to
pay
in
collection
costs,
which
is
which
usually
already
includes
the
collection
company's
attorney's
fees.
E
Sb261
completely
negates
the
entire
purpose
and
intent
behind
nrs
chapter
97b.
Raising
fees
such
as
collection
costs
and
attorneys
fees
does
not
facilitate
the
collection
of
debt,
but
rather
drives
people
towards
bankruptcy.
This
bill
attempts
to
target
people
who
already
don't
have
any
money
to
pay,
requiring
them
to
pay
more
and
putting
it
into
statute.
E
H
H
K
K
So
to
say
that
these
lawsuits
will
not
be
filed.
It
is
blatantly
false.
This
is
filed
by
someone.
That's
testified
today.
This
is
filed
by
a
company.
That's
part
of
the
nevada
collection
association,
so
nobody's
going
out
of
business
and
is
the
person
that
went
right
before
us
with
legal
aid
mentioned.
The
courts
are
handling
these
saying
hey.
K
K
H
A
Testimony
you
in
that
case
we
are
running
short
on
time,
so
I'm
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb
261
and
encourage
anybody
who
has
additional
questions
or
comments
to
have
those
conversations
offline,
and
with
that
we
will
move
into
the
last
little
presentation
of
today.
I
will
open
the
hearing
now
on
sb
six.
I
believe
we
are
joined
by
john
mccormick
and
judge
bell
to
present
this
bill
to
us.
P
I
have
handled
all
of
those
except
for
one
where
I
had
a
conflict
for
for
clark
county
and
in
that
two-year
time
we
have
had
33
applications.
25
of
them
were
people
seeking
other
types
of
protective
orders.
I
appreciate
chair
schaible
has
worked
with.
P
But
there
are
some
other
procedural
concerns
that
I
have
having
seen
the
applications
that
we
have
had
come
through,
and
so
we're
hoping
to
resolve
some
of
those
issues
just
to
streamline
the
process
to
make
sure
that
that
we
are
balancing
out
due
process
rates
and
making
the
process
a
little
more
simple
and
clear
for
those
who
are
filing
applications
of
the
eight
applications
that
were
considered.
P
There
was
a
great
deal
of
confusion
because
there's
a
process
to
apply
for
a
seven
day,
temporary,
it's
called
export
day,
but
it's
really
a
temporary
emergency
order
and
then
there's
a
process
to
apply
for
an
extended
order,
and
it
ends
up
with
the
court
potentially
having
two
evidentiary
hearings
in
a
seven
day
period,
and
even
some
of
our
law
enforcement
agencies
have
struggled
a
little
bit
with
the
the
two
different
applications
which
has
resulted
in
some
delays
and
some
confusion
that
that
concerns
me.
P
So
so
what
we're
seeking
to
do
in,
I
think
sure,
tribal
for
shaibo
for
her
assistance
with
the
amendments
to
get
to
where
we're
trying
to
be
and
changing.
Some
of
the
procedural
things
about
this
statute
is,
first
of
all,
changing
the
word
ex
parte
to
emergency
to
just
more
clearly
identify
what
that
order.
Is
that
seven
day
order
better
reflect
the
nature
of
the
order,
reduce
some
confusion.
P
So
it's
clear
to
a
community
member
who
may
be
looking
at
the
statute
exactly
what
it
is
that
they're
asking
for
with
that
short
term
order,
and
also
just
more
accurately
reflect
the
proper
legal
term,
because
the
order
could
be
ex
parte
with
without
notice
to
the
other
side,
but
it
also
could
be
with
notice
to
the
other
side.
So
it
doesn't
really
quite
capture
what
we're
looking
at
there.
P
So
one
of
the
amendments
is
just
to
change
that
word
exported
to
emergency
throughout
to
better
reflect
that
we'd
also
like
to
streamline
that
process
with
the
confusion
with
the
two
different
applications
have
one
application
that
can
either
be
granted
on
an
emergency
basis
pending
a
hearing
or
not
granted
on
an
emergency
basis
and
then
just
set
for
for
a
hearing
to
try
to
avoid
that
confusion
and
also
eliminate
the
potential
need
for
two
evidentiary
hearings
in
a
really
short
period
of
time.
P
There's
also
amendments
to
conform,
the
language
to
use
the
term
eminent
risk
throughout,
not
just
the
court
finding,
but
also
in
the
application
part
to
encourage
supplemental
documentation.
It
is
tremendously
helpful
to
the
port
when
receiving
these
applications,
particularly
when
looking
at
them
on
the
emergency
basis,
to
have
additional
documents
to
look
at
to
to
see
if
there
is
a
concern
that
warrants
granting
an
order
on
such
a
short-term
basis
before
there
can
be
a
full-blown
hearing.
P
This
also
streamlines
some
of
the
service
issues
that
existed
in
the
original
statute.
If
somebody
didn't
apply
for
a
temporary
and
extended,
then
the
there
had
to
be
service
through
the
rules
of
civil
procedure
instead
of
service
by
law
enforcement,
which
creates
some
safety
concerns
and
also
created.
P
Actually,
some
concerns
confusion
for
at
least
one
of
our
law
enforcement
applicants,
who
only
asked
for
the
extended
order,
and
then
we
had
quite
a
struggle
to
get
the
adverse
party
served
through
the
rules
of
civil
procedure
before
the
application
could
be
heard
and
then
finally,
we're
looking
to
remove
the
the
duty
of
the
court
clerk
to
assist.
We
are
very
happy
to
work
with
legal
aid
and
community
organizations
to
provide
that
sort
of
information,
but
it
just
exceeds
typically
what
we
would.
P
It
puts
our
clerks
in
a
difficult
position
to
have
to
give
people
advice
on
on
filing
these
kinds
of
documents.
We
we
always
help
people
to
actually
do
the
filing,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
our
clerks
are
not
being
put
in
the
position
of
giving
legal
advice
or
giving
advice
on
filling
out
the
the
forms.
This
is
typically
beyond
what
we
ask
them
to
do
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
so
much
chief
judge
bell.
We
really
appreciate
you
being
here
to
help
walk
us
through
sb6
and
the
amendment
which
is
posted
on
atlas,
and
I
see
we
already
have
some
questions.
I
will
start
with
senator
settlemyre.
I
I
P
P
In
senator,
linda
bell
of
the
of
the
eight
that
have
been
considered
that
we're
actually
requesting
high-risk
protective
orders,
three
have
been
granted
in
some
capacity
and
one
was
on
a
temporary
basis,
only
not
extended
the
two
extended.
The
the
average
parties
didn't
oppose
the
the
the
order.
So
we
haven't
had
a
big
issue
in
that
regard.
A
And
this
is
senator
schreibel.
I
will
just
butt
in
to
say
that
the
amendment
does
reflect
the
30
days,
as
was
originally
requested
in
the
original
bill.
But
it's
certainly
a
conversation.
We
can
follow
up
offline
to
to
make
sure
that
conforms
with
everybody's
intent
and
understanding
senator
pickard.
G
He
manager
and
it's
good
to
see
you
chief
bell,
I
and
I
want
to
start
just
by
stepping
back
a
little
bit.
I
like
the
bill
before
the
amendment
better
than
after,
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
describe
you
know
why
we
made
the
original
why
the
bill
was
drafted.
The
way
it
was
to
make
the
changes
we
made
and
why
we
undid
much
of
that.
If
you
could
just
speak
to
that
for
a
moment.
P
Certainly
linda
bell,
so
senator
picker.
Thank
you.
The
the
original
concern
that
I
had
is
that
we
have
so
many
community
applicants
who
have
filed
trying
to
get
a
domestic
violence
tpo
trying
to
get
some
other
protective
order
for
themselves
personally
and
not
really
understanding
what
this
says
and
the
of
the
eight
that
have
been
considered.
P
The
the
two
extended
protective
orders
were
both
law
enforcement,
so
we're
having
very
minimal
community
applicants
for
the
orders
and
then
those
are
are
not
being
granted
because
they
don't
have
the
they
just
aren't
able
to
meet
the
standards
of
the
statute.
So
the
initial
thought
was
to
just
remove
the
community
applications.
P
There
have
been
some
concerns
raised
by
the
community
that
it
may
not
always
work
to
get
law
enforcement
involved
prior
to
finding
this
sort
of
application
and
so
cherish
ibel,
and
I
had
multiple
discussions
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
streamline
the
process
and
and
maintain
the
ability
for
the
community
for
basically
family
members
to
apply
if
they
do
have
concerns.
G
Okay
and
in
terms
of
those
community
applicants,
I
did
I
understand
that
none
of
those
where
the
community
family
member
otherwise
submitted
the
the
request
that
those
were
granted
in
any
case.
P
In
clark
county,
there
was
one
temporary
application
that
was
granted
to
a
victim
of
domestic
violence
who
had
been
in
the
cohabitating
relationship.
But
because,
when
the
hearing
on
the
extended
happened
she
no
longer
qualified
as
a
as
a
family
member,
the
extended
order
was
denied.
G
And-
and
that
makes
sense
because
the
the
tpo
standard
is
fairly
narrow
when
it
comes
to
the
family,
member
cohabitant,
and
so
I
mean
one
of
the.
I
recall
in
some
detail
about
this
discussion
when
it
was
first
passed
and
and
how
this
could
be
abused.
G
It
sounds
like
we
haven't
experienced
that
that
family
members
aren't
using
this
as
a
means
of
obtaining
an
advantage.
For
example,
in
a
domestic
case,
have
you
ever
seen
a
case
where
the
application
was
really
based
on
insufficient
evidence
to
even
grant
it
in
the
first
instance,
and
and
felt
that
they
were
less
than
candid
in
their
application?.
P
Linda
bell,
with
respect
to
the
first
part
of
that,
yes,
we've
had
five
that
were
denied
because
of
insufficient
information
provided
or
insufficient
evidence
to
establish
what's
required
under
the
statute.
I
couldn't
say
that
I
felt
that
any
of
those
were
being
sought
for
improper
purposes.
They
just
didn't
meet
the
the
standard,
so
you
have
to
show
that
there's
no
less
restrictive
means
and
that
there's
an
eminent
risk
and
both
of
those
things
are
fairly
hard
to
establish.
G
And
in
the
cases-
and
I
appreciate
that-
thank
you
and
in
the
cases
that
where
they
were
granted,
was
the
adverse
party
found
to
be
mentally
disturbed
or
were
these
just
people
that
expressed
their
distaste
in
violent
ways?
How
would
you
characterize
these
adverse
parties.
P
Linda
bell,
we
had
one
of
each.
We
had
one
gentleman
who
had
some
mental
health
issues.
We
had
one
gentleman
who
posed
a
high
risk
for
other
reasons,.
G
Okay,
all
right
and
then
finally,
when
we're
talking
about
the
orders,
we've
broken
this
into
the
two
pieces,
similar
to
a
tpo
where
we've
got
the
emergency
order,
that's
held,
and
and
is
that
I
I'm
a
little
confused
because,
as
I'm
going
into
some
of
the
new
language,
it
looks
like
there
is
no
requirement
for
notice.
But
there
is
an
expectation
for
a
hearing
and
that
hearing
can
be
telephonic.
G
Now
that
we've
had
lots
of
experience
with
televonneck
hearings.
Do
you
think
that
you're
able
to
as
the
judicial
officer
that
you're
able
to
get
enough
information,
given
that
80
percent
of
con
communication
is
non-verbal?
Are
you
getting
the
kind
of
responses
you
need
and,
and
the
insight
that
you
would
typically
get?
Is
that
sufficient
over
the
telephone.
P
Linda
belt,
so
the
telephonic
application
allows
law
enforcement
to
call
me
24
7..
We
have
not
had
that
happen,
yet
all
of
our
applications
have
been
in
writing,
but
certainly
that's
how
we
actually
do
our
search
warrants
mostly
electronically
now,
but
we
do
some
telephonically
and
I
I
do
think
that's
in.
I
think
that
absolutely
gives
us
sufficient
information.
As
the
statute
stands
right
now,
there's
no
notice
requirement.
In
fact
it's
even
called
ex
parte
through
the
whole
through
the
whole
statute,
but
there's
no
notice
requirement
for
that
emergency
application.
P
It's
it's
whether
they
can
establish
the
imminent
risk
and
and
the
the
need
on
an
emergent
basis
to
grant
that
short-term
order
before
there
can
be
a
full
evidentiary
hearing,
but
there
has
to
be
if
that
emergency
order
is
granted,
there
has
to
be
a
full
hearing
within
seven
days.
It's
a
very
short
time
frame.
G
Right
and
certainly
better
than
what
we
see
with
tpos-
and
I
I
do
appreciate
that
and
is
someone
who
is
also
indirectly
disturbed
by
those
early
morning
warrant
calls.
I
am
glad
to
hear
that
you're
not
getting
him
at
midnight
that
that
was
my
last
question.
I
do
have
some
other
concerns,
but
I
think
they're
minor,
relatively
speaking,
so
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
your
indulgence.
H
I
Yes,
this
is
dan
reid,
d-a-n-r-e-I-d,
western
regional
director,
with
the
national
rifle
association,
we're
here
in
opposition
today
to
senate
bill
6,
as
we
oppose
the
underlying
red
flag
law
in
the
2019
session,
and
obviously
today,
we've
been
dealing
with
a
pretty
substantial
amendment
to
this
bill
and
we've
been
going
through
it,
and
we
do
still
have
concerns
with
the
amended
language
here,
specifically
looking
at
section
one
three
we're
looking
at
the
we
see
that,
regardless
of
the
outcome
of
the
new
emergency
or
coins,
emergency
order,
there's
going
to
be
a
hearing
on
the
extended
order.
I
I
Also,
we
have
concerns
with
section
where,
with
the
time
to
surrender
with
when
the
underlying
bill
was
heard,
we
outlined
our
concerns
regarding
surrender
and
providing
notification
of
the
court
as
how
that
could
implicate
someone
under
fifth
amendment
grounds,
but
also
there's
a
reduction
in
time
to
surrender
those
firearms
from
72
to
24
hours
and
then
also
there
was
a
question
regarding
this
14
to
30
day.
For
the
time
law
enforcement
has
to
return
the
firearms.