►
From YouTube: 2/8/2021 - 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
Thank
you
so
much
and
welcome
everybody
to
monday
february,
8th
meeting
of
the
nevada
senate
judiciary
committee.
We
have
two
bills
to
hear
today
and
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
to
do.
We
have
a
number
of
senators
present.
I
will
have
the
secretary
call
the
roll.
A
I
understand
that
she'll
be
joining
us
later
and
I
will
ask
the
committee
secretary
to
mark
her
present
when
she
is
here.
I'll
also
make
a
note
of
it
for
our
record
in
posterity
when
she
gets
here.
A
A
And
I
see
we
have
staff
with
us,
mr
guyan,
if
you
could
please
let
the
secretary
know
who's
here
with
the
legislative
council
bureau.
B
C
A
D
Thanks,
madam
chair
quick
question
on
the
rules
you
and
I
went
over
it
briefly
on
the
floor.
I
just
want
to
clarify
if
I
call
you,
madam
chair
rather
than
just
chair,
I'm
not
violating
any
rules.
You
were
just
click
like
you
made
it
actually
simpler.
So
if,
in
fact
we
failed
to
say,
madam,
we
don't
get
in
trouble.
B
A
A
And
with
that,
I
believe
we
are
ready
to
move
into
our
first
bill.
Hearing
of
the
day,
we
will
be
hearing
sb19
from
our
friends
at
the
department
of
public
safety.
It's
my
understanding
that
miss
mindy,
mckay
and
erica
souza
yamas
are
both
here
to
present
the
bill,
and
I
will
open
the
hearing
now.
If
I
didn't
already
say
that.
E
Wonderful,
thank
you
so
much
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
good
afternoon
for
the
record,
I'm
mindy
mckay
and
I'm
the
division
administrator
with
the
records,
communications
and
compliance
division
within
the
department
of
public
safety,
and
we
are
here
today
to
introduce
two
of
our
bills:
senate
bill
19
and
senate
bill
31,
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
erica
susie,
yamas
and
she's.
Going
to
take
over
from
here.
F
Current
currently,
these
background
checks
are
being
conducted
under
the
national
child
protection
act.
Volunteers
for
children
act
also
known
as
the
ncpa
vca
federal
authority
up
until
2019,
the
f,
the
fbi
allowed
states
to
utilize
the
federal
authority.
In
the
absence
of
a
state
statutory
authority
in
january
2019,
the
fbi
issued
a
notification
to
all
states
regarding
amendments
to
the
ncpa
vca,
which
now
requires
states
to
have
a
state
statute
that
authorizes
the
national
background
checks
of
covered
individuals
to
continue
utilizing
the
ncpa
vca
authority.
F
F
F
With
that,
I
request
the
committee
support
for
senate
bill
19
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have.
I
would
like
to
also
note
that
we
do
have
an
amendment
coming
forth
to
amend
some
of
the
language
in
this
bill.
A
You
it
looks
like
senator
hanson,
has
a
question.
D
Thanks
chair
just
a
question:
why
is
this
a
two-thirds
bill?
I
guess
this
question
is
illegal,
really
not
for
for
mindy
does
that
makes.
Is
I
don't
see
any
tax
in
it
or
anything,
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
why
it's
listed
as
a
two-thirds
bill.
B
Ahead
senator
hansen,
I
note
that
there
is
a
fee
added
in
looks
like
paragraph
three
of
section
one,
and
that
may
be
the
offending
provision.
D
Hey
I'll
bet,
you're
right.
I
wonder
if
nicholas
anthony,
is
that
your
take
too?
Is
he
still
there?
Yes,.
G
D
A
Sure-
and
I
appreciate
both
of
you
weighing
in
on
that
it
looks
like
we
have
another
question
from
senator
pickard:
go
ahead.
H
Database
that
shows
convictions
to
a
database
that
shows
every
kind
of
interaction
with
law
enforcement
or
a
tpo,
so
arrests
and
and
citations,
and
all
of
those
things
are
going
to
be
added
to
the
criminal
history
database.
F
H
It
says
that
existing
law
authorizes
the
state
to
establish
a
repository
and
says
to
determine
whether
the
certain
persons
have
been
convicted
of
a
crime
that
bears
on
the
person's
fitness
and
then
further
down,
starting
in
at
line
10
on
page
one.
It
talks
about
qualified
entity
to
obtain
information
relating
to
the
criminal
history
of
employees
and
then
moving
on
to
the
next
page,
starting
at
line
15.
H
It
says
the
bill
will
require
our
the
bill
requires
a
qualified
entity
to,
and
then
it
goes
through
the
list
of
things
that
are
submitted
to
the
repository,
and
it
includes
the
let's
see.
H
Okay,
let
me
rephrase
the
question
this
way.
Is
there
anything
in
this
bill
that
requires
the
repository
to
take
the
records
regarding
anything
other
than
convictions?.
F
Erica
susie
yamas
for
the
record
this
th
this
bill,
we're
already
conducting
background
checks
under
this
federal
authority,
so
nothing
that
we
provide
or
receive
from
the
authorized
entities
will
change
with
the
passage
if
this
bill
should
pass.
H
Okay,
then,
can
you
just
outline
quickly
again
the
the
purpose
of
this
bill,
who's
it
benefiting
and
and
what
kind
of
impact
this
will
have
on
the
department.
F
F
F
Population,
so
these
backgrounds
we
currently
conduct
are
for
the
most
vulnerable
populations,
which
is
children,
elderly
and
individuals
with
disabilities.
H
Okay,
and
is
there
any
threat
of
losing
that
authority.
F
A
All
right,
thank
you,
and
if
our
esteemed
secretary
would
please
mark
senator
settlemyre
president,
I
noticed
that
he
has
joined
us
and
he
also
has
a
question.
Go
ahead.
Senator.
I
Thank
you
chair.
I
apologize
for
not
being
here
right
on
time.
I
was
having
a
problem
getting
my
zoom
connection
correct.
My
question
was:
is
who
currently
has
been
paying
this
fee
and
since
we're
talking
about
the
vulnerable
and
you
keep
saying
that
it
primarily
benefits?
You
know
the
alternating
children
of
that
nature?
Have
they
not
been
paying
it,
and
now
we're
going
to
require
people
that
are
vulnerable,
elderly
and
seniors
and
children,
and
so
forth?
To
pay
this
fear
how's
it
being
paid
for
currently
versus
how
the
bill
will
change
it.
F
Erika
suzuyamas
for
the
for
the
record.
So
currently
we
are
charging
our
state
and
fbi
background
fee
for
these
background
checks.
So
this
wouldn't
be
a
new
fee
imposed
on
this
population.
I'm
not
sure
who
pays.
I
there
may
be
a
combination
of
the
authorized
entities,
so
the
employer
that
pays
the
backgrounds
or
the
applicants
that
may
pay.
I
Thank
you
for
your
follow-up,
madam
chair.
I
guess
mr
anthony,
I
guess
I'm
confused,
then.
If
somebody
could
like
mr
anthony
or
somebody
could
look
up
and
get
to
me,
if
we
don't
change,
if
you're
saying
they're
already
paying
it,
then
why
do
we
need
to
add
more
authority
within
this
bill?
Then
why
is
it
here
and
if
not
then
who's
it
changing
for
no
offense?
I
don't
want
to
vote
for
a
bill
that
now
says
a
bunch
of
senior
citizens
have
to
pay
this
fee.
G
G
What
this
bill
is
doing
is
further
codifying
that
authority
pursuant
to
a
directive
under
federal
law.
So
in
essence,
it's
not
necessarily
a
brand
new
out
of
nowhere
fee,
but
just
codifying
what's
currently
exists
in
practice,
which
is
either,
as
ms
suzuyama
stated,
either
the
applicant
paying
the
fee
or
the
employer
paying
the
fee
for
the
background
check.
A
A
Seeing
none.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
information.
We
will
now
open
testimony
in
support
of
sb19.
J
To
testify
in
support
of
sb
19,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
again.
If
you
are
testifying
in
support
of
sb19,
please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
five
to
eight,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
J
K
Good
afternoon,
for
the
record,
my
name
is:
barry
gold,
I'm
the
director
of
government
relations
for
aarp
nevada,
I'm
testifying
in
support
of
this
bill.
Sb19
the
state
needs
to
continue
to
have
the
authority
to
reach
out
and
get
the
information.
For
these
background
checks.
It
is
critically
important
that
we
make
sure
that
people
who
take
care
of
are
responsible
or
provide
services
both
for
children
and
seniors.
K
Older
adults
who
may
be
frail
and
vulnerable
need
to
be
protected,
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
people
who
are
taking
care
of
them
are
passed,
these
background
checks
and,
and
it's
safe
and
secure.
I
think
we
heard
that
most
likely.
These
are
the
same
fees
that
have
been
going
on
for
a
while.
It's
just
giving
the
state
the
authorization
to
continue
doing
that
so
again.
So
on
behalf
of
aarp
nevada
and
our
members,
our
344
thousand
members
across
the
state,
we
support
sb
19
and
urge
this
committee
to
pass
it.
J
L
We
support
this
bill,
witness
just
basically
doing
what
we
already
do,
except
from
our
perspective,
it
has
slightly
more
procedural
protection,
which
is
good,
but
I
wanted
to
raise
a
question
that
we
would
like
some
clarification
on
last
session,
the
legislature
passed
the
ban,
the
box
bill
which
doesn't
quite
ban
the
box
but
recovers
employers
or
requires
employers
to
go
through
the
normal
employment
process
and
then
make
a
background
check.
L
Our
concern
is
that
we
don't
want
this
bill
to
change
that,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
someone
the
sponsor
or
someone
could
give
clarification
as
to
that
point,
but
otherwise
we
support
the
bill.
Thank
you.
J
J
B
C
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
justin
watkins
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association,
and
our
position
is
in
opposition
of
sb19
on
the
basis
of
section
eight
of
the
bill
on
page
six,
which
provides
for
immunity
from
damages
for
failing
to
obtain
any
information
related
to
the
records
of
criminal
history
when
protecting
our
most
vulnerable
populations,
children
and
the
elderly.
C
If
there
is
immunity
from
accessing
that
information,
then
it
disincentivizes
the
qualified
entities
from
doing
so
language
in
this
provision,
I
think,
could
be
altered
fairly
easily
to
make
it
to
meet
its
mark.
That
would
be
to
provide
a
limitation
of
damages
solely
arising
out
of
the
accuracy
of
the
information
included
or
admitted
from
the
records,
thereby
if
the
information
in
the
depository
is
incorrect,
the
qualified
entity
is
not
held
liable
for
those
damages
which
they
should
not
be.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
I
will
note
for
our
presenters
that
we
did
have
two
questions
come
up
during
the
testimony
one
about
the
interaction
between
this
bill
and
the
so-called
ban,
the
box
bill
from
last
session,
as
well
as
an
objection
to
section
eight
page,
six
on
the
immunity
provisions.
I'm
not
going
to
put
you
on
the
spot
to
respond
to
those
right
now
unless
you
would
like
to,
but
would
just
advise
you
that
we
will.
A
I
will
be
asking
for
some
follow-up
on
that
before
we
schedule
a
work
session,
and
I
see
you
not
in
your
head
so
I'll.
Take
that
as
an
affirmative.
A
A
Sorry
all
right.
In
that
case
we
will
be
closing
the
hearing
on
sb19.
We
will
be
opening
the
hearing
on
sb
31
right
now,
which
will
also
be
presented
to
us
by
mindy
mckay
and
erica
souza
yamas.
F
Great
all
right,
erica,
souza
yamas
again
for
the
record
and
I'm
the
records
bureau
chief
for
the
department
of
public
safety
records,
communications
and
compliance
division,
the
records,
communications
and
compliance
division
houses,
the
central
repository
for
nevada
records
of
criminal
history
pursuant
to
nrs
179a
075,
which
maintains
statewide
records
of
nevada,
arrests
and
dispositions,
and
is
also
responsible
for
administering
the
state's
uniform
crime
reporting
program
and
conducting
name-based
background
checks.
Pursuant
to
nrs
179.
A
103.
F
section.
1
of
this
bill
amends
the
definition
of
a
record
of
criminal
history
under
nrs
179,
a
0
7
0
by
replacing
district
attorney
with
prosecuting
attorney
to
ensure
that
the
central
repository
receives
charging
decisions
from
all
prosecuting
offices
across
the
state,
which
will
include
not
only
district
attorneys
but
city
attorneys,
as
well
as
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
F
Section
2
of
this
bill
pertains
to
the
division's
uniform
crime
reporting
program
which
we
refer
to
as
ucr
section.
2
amends
subsection
8g
of
nrs
179
a
zero
seven
five.
Currently,
this
section
requires
the
division
to
prepare
and
post
on
the
central
repository's
public
website,
an
annual
report
containing
statistical
data
relating
to
crime.
F
The
amendment
proposes
to
provide
an
electronic
means
to
access
the
data
on
the
central
repositories.
Public
website,
currently
repository
staff
spend
months
preparing
the
annual
report
for
publication.
The
repository
has
recently
implemented
the
theme-oriented
public
site,
which
we
refer
to
as
tops.
F
Repealing
5a
will
allow
the
authorized
participants
to
receive
a
full
criminal
history
record
to
afford
them
the
information
needed
to
make
a
final
determination.
Our
program
offers
a
research
service
which
allows
the
authorized
participants
to
request
that
our
staff
conduct
further
research
on
a
record
to
obtain
additional
information
to
make
an
informed
final
determination.
F
As
a
result
of
a
supreme
court
ruling
issued
in
march
of
2020,
the
department's
legal
counsel
advised
that
the
central
repository
was
not
authorized
to
disseminate
parole
and
probation's
information
under
nrs
213-1075,
going
back
to
the
uniform
crime
reporting
program.
Section
4
of
this
bill
amends
subsection
8a
of
nrs
179a
350,
similar
to
the
amendments
taught
in
section
2..
F
Currently,
the
central
repository
compiles
an
annual
written
report
concerning
various
temporary
and
extended
orders
for
protection
and
provides
the
report
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
on
or
before
july
1st
of
each
year,
as
with
section
2
of
this
bill.
These
amendments
provide
for
the
same
mechanism
of
data
access.
F
The
data
pursuant
to
this
section
will
be
placed
on
the
tops
website
where,
as
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
may
access
the
information
at
his
or
her
leisure
and
finally,
section
5
mirrors
section
4
of
this
bill.
However,
the
report
pertains
to
statistical
data
on
the
abuse,
neglect,
exploitation,
isolation
or
abandonment
of
older
persons
or
vulnerable
persons.
F
Currently,
the
central
repository
compiles
an
annual
written
report
concerning
statistical
data
for
the
aforementioned
vulnerable
population
and
provides
the
report
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
on
or
before
july
1st
of
each
year,
as
with
section
2
of
this
bill.
These
amendments
provide
for
the
same
mechanism
of
data
access.
The
data
pursuant
to
this
section
will
be
placed
on
the
top's
website,
whereas
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
may
access
the
information
at
his
or
her
leisure.
F
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
with
that
I
request
the
committee
support
for
senate
bill
31
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have
I'd
like
to
also
add
that
we
would
be
more
than
happy
to
meet
with
any
of
you
separately
to
discuss
any
of
our
programs
to
provide
additional
information.
Thank
you.
F
A
You
so
much-
and
I
am
remiss
and
having
failed
to
ask
our
esteemed
secretary
to
mark
vice
chair
and
majority
leader
canizarro
here
as
well.
She
did
join
the
meeting
some
time
ago
and
we
appreciate
that.
So
with
that
we
are
open
to
questions
on
sb
31.
I
will
start
with
senator
hansen.
D
Thanks,
madam
chair,
just
a
quick
question:
the
current
law
requires
a
report
once
a
year
by
july
1st,
while
you
mentioned
that
this
should
make
it
much
more
frequent.
Is
there
any
do?
F
Erica
suzy
yamas
for
the
record,
the
the
data
on
the
website,
the
tops
website
would
be
available
whenever
anybody
researching
the
data
would
want
it
so,
as
opposed
currently
the
way
that
we're
handling
the
reports.
Currently,
we
have
to
wait
six
months
so
there's
a
six
month
waiting
period
to
to
gather
the
information
for
the
previous
year.
F
D
So
bottom
line
is:
this
is
going
to
improve
the
accessibility
to
this
kind
of
stuff.
I
just
was
concerned
by
removing
that
guaranteed
once
a
year
thing
that
might
be
leaving
a
little
too
much
flexibility
and
you
know
people
being
what
they
are.
Sometimes
they
push
stuff
out
and
then
it
doesn't
get
posted,
but
typically
you
have
after
that
six
month
window
a
one
month
or
six
week.
Turnaround
time
is
that
kind
of
what
I'm
hearing.
F
Generally,
it
takes
erika
suzuyamas
for
the
record
I
apologize
generally.
It
takes,
I
think,
about
three
to
four
months
for
us
to
gather
the
the
data
as
it
is
currently
written.
We've
just
received
this
new
technology
and
and
reporting
mechanism,
and
we
we
thought
we
would
take
advantage
of
it
and
amend
the
statute.
H
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
the
question
on
the
right
bill,
so
it
looks
like
we're
changing
the
definition
of
criminal
history
to
include
warrants,
arrest,
citations,
detentions,
decisions,
not
to
prosecute
indictments,
charges
and
dispositions
of
charges,
and
then
we
make
that
in
the
prior
bill
available
to
anyone
who
signs
up
and
of
course
this
impacts.
The
question
that
was
raised
about
down
the
box.
H
H
I
would
note
that
tpos
are
decided
and
even
extended
protection
orders
are
decided
merely
on
the
standard
of
satisfaction
of
the
court,
rather
than
even
a
clear
and
convincing
versus
a
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
standard,
and
thus
we
kind
of
get
away
from
the
innocent
until
proven
guilty
kind
of
thing,
not
that
I'm
trying
to
suggest
that
we
protect
the
perpetrators.
But
how
does
this
then
square
with
the
ban?
The
box,
where
we're
not
supposed
to
be
looking
at
a
mere
arrest
as
basis
for
not
hiring
someone.
F
Erica
suzy
yamas
for
the
record,
so
I
I
do
want
to
make
note
that
we
do
not.
We
do
not
provide
protection
order.
Information
in
conjunction
with
our
civil
applicant
background
checks,
the
the
information
we
provide
today
so
so
modify.
I'm
sorry
modifying
the
the
definition
of
a
record
of
criminal
history
is
not
going
to
change
the
information
that
we
already
provide
in
our
background
checks
today,.
H
All
right
so,
even
though
you're
collecting
the
information
on
non-disposition
types
of
entries,
those
are
not
disseminated
in
any
reports,
is
that
correct.
F
Erica
suzumas
for
the
record,
what
we
we
deem
them.
We
call
them
naked
arrests,
so
any
arrests
that
don't
have
any
disposition
information
in
them.
We
do
release
full
criminal
history
for
fingerprint,
based
background
checks
today
and,
and
this
bill
would
align
our
current
practices
with
with
the
fingerprint
based
background
checks.
H
Okay
and
and
then
can
you
explain
how
this
squares
with
the
idea
of
ban
the
box,
where
we
don't
have
that
information
going
to
employers
so
that
they
don't
use
a
naked
arrest
as
a
basis
for
not
hiring.
H
E
Mindy
mckay
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
The
previous
caller
had
a
question
about
the
same
type
of
thing.
So,
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
maybe
please
provide
our
answer
to
senator
pickard's
question,
along
with
the
answer
to
the
caller's
question
on
the
last
bill.
Is
that
okay?
Is
that
amenable.
H
But
sure
I
think
we
need
to
get
it
on
a
record,
not
just
an
email.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
available
to
the
members
of
the
committee
and
to
the
public.
So
maybe
if
you
can
provide
that
in
written
form
and
copy
the
the
committee
secretary,
so
we
can
get
that
in
the
record.
I
would
appreciate
that.
H
All
right-
and
my
other
question
was
answered
so
very
good.
No
thank
you
sheriff
schneiderlin.
M
F
I
Thank
you,
sir
me,
the
first
time
around
this
community.
I
was
curious
who
can
see
this
information?
Is
this
information
just
for
law
enforcement
or
who
can
access
this
information?
Anybody
or
how
does
that
work?.
F
I
Okay,
if
I
could
follow
madam
chair,
so
as
an
employer,
I
have
the
ability
to
come,
make
that
request,
or
do
I
have
to
be
of
a
certain
category
of
employer,
I.e,
working
with
senior
citizens,
something
of
that
nature
or
or
again
it's
just
a
rancher
who's
employing
somebody
and
I'm
suspicious.
Do
I
have
the
right
to
come
down
and
make
that
request.
F
I
F
Okay,
so
for
civil
applicant
purposes
it
has
to
be
an
authorized
statute,
so
the
state
has
to
enact
a
statute
that
requires
or
authorizes
a
fingerprint
based
background
check
through
my
office
and
up
to
the
fbi.
J
J
J
L
Hi,
jim
hoffman
h,
o
f,
f
m,
a
n
for
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
So
nacj
opposes
this.
I
would
echo
most
of
the
concerns
that
senator
pickard
raised.
L
So
I
had
a
client
once
who
was
arrested,
something
like
40
or
50
times.
He
just
like
angered
somebody
or
something,
or
he
got
on
some
list.
He
only
had
one
conviction
for
like
a
small
amount
of
marijuana,
but
he
was
arrested,
40
or
50
times
and
so
think
about
you're
an
employer.
You
run
a
background
check
on
this
person.
It
comes
up
he's
been
arrested,
40
times,
you're,
not
going
to
hire
him
right,
never
mind
that
he
only
did
something
wrong
once
you're
going
to
see
40
arrests
and
you're.
L
Just
going
to
you
know,
throw
out
the
application,
and
I
think
that
that
that's
an
unusually
extreme
example,
but
I
think
that
that
happens
a
lot
and
I
you
know
I
you
may
or
may
not
find
it
surprising
that
this
client
was
black.
We
know
that
there
are
racial
disparities
and
who
gets
arrested,
and
you
know
people
who
are
arrested,
they
don't
have
the
courts
or
the
d.a
as
a
check.
Right
like
a
prosecutor,
can
look
at
something
and
say:
oh,
this
isn't
really
a
case.
So
someone
like
my
client
doesn't
get
a
conviction.
L
J
You
thank
you
caller.
If
you
have
recently
joined
the
call
and
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
sb
31,
please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
again.
If
you
have
just
recently
joined
the
call
and
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
sb
31,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
and
call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
of
6
1
1,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
N
Good
afternoon
senators,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o,
representing
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
speak
in
opposition
to
this
bill
as
well.
The
main
section
being
section
three,
the
same
section
that
senator
pickard
was
talking
about
that
seeks
to
give
all
information,
not
just
convictions
or
active
involvement
in
the
criminal
justice
system.
We
do
believe
this
section
goes
against
the
ban.
The
box
legislation
of
2017
brought
by
everybody's
friend,
assemblyman
tyrone
thompson
and
our
system
that
honors
the
presumption
of
innocence
would
be
greatly
impacted
by
a
change
in
this
magnitude.
N
We
believe
it
goes
against
the
progress
we
have
made
in
the
last
two
sessions
and
is
a
tremendous
step
backwards.
Father
gregory,
boyle
who's
done
great
work
in
los
angeles.
Reforming
gang
members
has
a
famous
quote
where
he
says
nothing:
cures,
criminal
activity
like
a
good
job,
and
we
think
that
this
would
prevent
and
put
up
a
barrier
to
employment.
N
We
spoke
with
the
women
at
the
criminal
repository
and
we
are
thankful
that
they
took
our
call
and
heard
our
concerns.
Part
of
the
things
that
they
are
working
on
is
programming,
and
this
pro
this
in
order
to
do
these
redactions,
it
takes
computer
programming
and
far
too
long.
N
The
legislature
has
left
the
criminal
history
repository
behind
the
times
on
its
computer
system
and
its
funding,
and
sometimes
the
state
employees
are
asked
to
do
so
much
with
so
little
that
they
are
physically
redacting
documents
themselves.
They
they
do
need
support
from
this
body
in
order
to
make
sure
that
something
like
section
three,
we
could
do
effectively
where
we
redact
things
that
are
not
conviction.
So
at
this
time
we
are
in
opposition.
J
O
Now
hello
and
thank
you
chair,
my
name
is
nick
chipak
s-h-e-p-a-c-k.
I
am
a
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
oppose
sbe
31
for
the
same
reason
stated
by
the
callers
before
us.
We
concerned
that
individuals
who
have
been
arrested
but
have
had
prosecuting
attorneys
choose
not
to
prosecute,
will
have
to
explain
these
criminal
charges
to
an
employer
and
may
be
denied
employment.
We
do
not
believe
decisions
not
to
prosecute
should
be
part
of
a
criminal
record
through
our
discussions
with
the
department.
O
We
understand
that,
with
the
without
increased
funding
and
system,
modernitization
providing
records
to
employers
or
other
authorized
entities
that
differentiate
between
arrests
and
convictions
is
extremely
difficult
in
time.
Because
of
this,
we
are
unable
to
offer
a
fix
to
our
concerns
with
this
bill
at
this
time
and
believe
that
the
sponsor's
hands
are
tied.
We
urge
this
body
to
continue
to
support
the
department
and
its
modernization
efforts
so
that
they
may
address
the
issues
raised
by
this
belt.
They
are
currently
being
asked
to
do
too
much
with
too
little.
O
J
P
Good
afternoon,
this
is
kendra
birchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a,
virtue,
b
e
r
t
s
c
h
y
and
I'm
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I'm
testifying
in
opposition
to
this
bill
and
again
thank
you,
chair
schaible,
as
well
as
members
of
the
judiciary
for
allowing
us
to
be
able
to
participate
remotely.
P
P
P
P
This
would
impact
not
only
those
whose
cases
were
dismissed
due
to
allegations
being
false
or
for
unable
to
prosecute,
but
also
for
those
that
we
have
allowed
to
participate
in
specialty
court
programs
where
their
conviction
or
where
at
least
their
arrest
would
appear
until
their
disposition
were
then
potentially
could
be
completed
two
years
later.
So
during
that
time,
while
we're
attempting
to
allow
individuals
to
rehabilitate
and
to
take
advantage
of
specialty
courts,
they
then
have
this
issue
on
their
record,
which
may
preclude
employment.
P
J
A
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
all
of
your
assistance
and
to
everybody
who
joined
us
today
for
these
hearings,
both
our
presenters,
as
well
as
everybody
who
called
in
to
testify.
That
does
conclude
our
hearing
on
sb
31.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
and
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
introduction
of
committee
bdrs.
Today
we
do
have
a
committee
bdr
and
pursuant
to
senate
joint
standing
room,
14
committee
members
must
vote
to
approve
the
drafting
of
legislative
measures
requested
by
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary.
A
Please
remember
that
a
vote
in
favor
does
not
indicate
your
support
for
the
bill,
but
merely
allows
the
bill
to
be
drafted,
and
today
I
request
the
committee's
approval
of
one
bill
draft,
which
is
bdr
14-549,
which
establishes
provisions
relating
to
the
administration
of
justice.
All
of
you
received
a
copy
of
this
bdr
via
email.
Before
this
meeting
began,
I
will
accept
a
motion
and
I
see
hands.
H
Manager,
I
did
not
receive
that
email,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
we're
looking
at.
I
don't
see
it
in
the
exhibits
either.
A
Well,
it
won't
be
published
to
the
exhibits
until
we
approve
it,
but
all
of
you
received
an
email.
A
From
our
committee
manager
at
11
sorry
1005
this
morning-
oh
sorry
that
was
my
email
at
11
03
this
morning.
A
I
don't
see
any
other
hands,
so
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
from
senator
orrinshaw
to
draft
bdr
14-549.
Do
I
have
a
second
again
senior.
B
A
I
am
not
seeing
any
hands
or
hearing
anybody
to
chime
in
so
at
this
point
we
will
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote
on
this
measure.
Pursuant
to
the
virtual
committee,
the
virtual
nature
of
this
committee
and
the
rules
set
forth
by
lcb,
we
are
going
to
do
a
roll
call
vote,
which
I
think
we
would
normally
do
anyway,
and
I
will
ask
our
esteemed
secretary
to
take
that
vote
now.
B
D
A
Yes,
at
this
time,
the
motion
does
pass,
and
that
leads
us
to
our
last
item
on
today's
agenda.
Public
comment:
if
our
wonderful
staff
at
bps
would
please
open
up
the
lines-
and
let
me
know
if
there's
anybody
here
to
make
a
public
comment.