►
From YouTube: 3/1/2021 - 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
We
will
go
ahead
and
bring
this
meeting
to
order
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
On
march
1st
of
2021
welcome
everybody
to
march
with
the
esteemed
secretary.
Please
call
the.
B
C
A
A
And
with
that,
I
will
ask
mr
guyan
to
make
a
record
of
any
staff
who
are
present
today.
D
Thanks
chair
cyborg
pack,
guidance
for
the
record
committee
policy-
analyst
I
am
present
today
and
as
you're
aware,
our
legal
counsel
is
not
present
today
been
pulled
for
drafting
purposes.
D
A
All
right,
thank
you.
We
have
one
bill
to
hear
today,
which
will
be
presented
by
one
of
our
own
committee
members
senator
harris.
Whenever
you
are
ready,
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
147.
A
E
All
right,
thank
you,
chair,
scheible
and
good
afternoon
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
dallas
harris
representing
senate
district
11,
which
is
in
the
southwest
part
of
clark
county,
I'm
here
to
present
senate
bill
147,
which
establishes
provisions
relating
to
non-monetary
conditions
of
pretrial
release,
prohibiting
contact
commonly
referred
to
as
no
contact
orders.
E
This
bill
arose
out
of
the
scr
11
interim
study
of
issues
relating
to
pre-trial
release
of
defendants
and
criminal
cases,
cases
which
I
had
the
distinct
pleasure
of
chairing
this
past
interim
I'd
also
like
to
thank
and
recognize
assemblywoman
nguyen,
who
served
as
vice,
chair,
chair,
scheible,
senator
hammond,
assemblyman,
flores
and
assemblyman
roberts,
who
all
admirably
served
on
the
committee
during
this
covet
19
interim.
E
By
way
of
brief
background,
and
I
promise
I'll
try
and
keep
it
brief,
but
you
guys
will
likely
see
five
or
so
bills
from
this
committee.
So
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
little
background
on
generally,
as
you
may
recall,
from
several
measures
introduced
last
session
and
you
may
have
heard
in
various
news
reports
regarding
the
status
of
recent
litigation.
E
The
issue
of
pre-trial
release,
sometimes
commonly
referred
to
as
the
bill
process,
has
been
an
issue
facing
our
great
state.
What
we're
talking
about
is
a
defendant
being
held
in
detention
prior
to
trial
or
a
formal
adjudication
of
guilt
under
the
nevada
constitution,
an
existing
law,
all
persons
arrested
for
offenses
other
than
murder
of
the
first
degree,
are
required
to
be
offered
the
opportunity
to
be
released
on
bail.
E
During
the
2019-2020
interim,
the
committee
held
three
substantive
meetings
and
a
work
session
throughout
the
interim.
The
committee
received
formal
presentations
from
interested
stakeholders
and
national
experts
and
also
heard
public
testimony
on
a
broad
range
of
topics
involving
pre-trial
detention
of
defendants
and
criminal
cases.
E
The
full
68
page
final
report
is
available
online
on
the
scr
11
committee's
website
and
I'd
be
remissed
in
also
not
thanking
the
staff
who
worked
on
this
committee
and
did
fantastic
work
in
what
is
still
unprecedented
circumstances.
E
I'd
now
like
to
provide
a
brief
overview
of
the
bill.
Section
1
of
section
1
of
the
bill
allows
a
victim
to
request
that
the
court
issue
an
order
which
prohibits
the
defendant
from
contacting
or
attempting
to
contact
a
specific
person
or
having
another
person
contact
or
attempt
to
contact
that
specific
person.
E
E
E
Subsection
4
allows
a
prosecutor
or
court
to
seek
such
an
order
without
first
receiving
such
a
request
from
the
victim.
The
idea
here
is
that
such
a
request
should
not
be
used
as
a
basis
for
necessarily
delaying
a
bail
hearing.
Subsection
5
defines
the
term
cancel
and
condition
of
release
prohibiting
contact
for
purposes
of
the
bill.
E
Finally,
section
two
of
the
bill
makes
conforming
changes
for
replacement
nrs.
If
this
bill
is
enacted
and
codified
as
you'll
see.
Also
in
the
amendment,
we
have
placed
a
90-day
maximum
to
allow
for
there
to
be
some
expiration,
and
we
have
also
added
a
provision
that
would
make
it
clear
that
knowingly
violating
these
types
of
stay-away
orders
constitutes
a
trespass
conclusion.
I
believe
senate
bill
147
strengthens
the
pre-child
protections
for
victims
by
providing
appropriate
notice
to
law
enforcement
and
the
community.
E
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
harris
for
bringing
the
bill
you
and
I
had
a
conversation
about
it
and,
and
one
question
that
I
guess
I
didn't
get
solid
on
was
how
does
this
differ
from
current
law,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
the
jurisdiction
and
the
authority
of
the
the
judge
to
issue
a
stay
away
order
currently,
and
how
does
this
differ
from
a
temporary
protective
order
which
is
always
available
to
people
which
I
believe
is
a
lower
standard
of
just
satisfaction
report?
E
Sure
I'll
I'll
take
your
second
question.
First,
the
tpo
is
a
civil
remedy,
and
one
of
the
goals
of
this
legislation
is
actually
to
give
people
some
time
with
the
stay
away,
order
to
be
able
to
apply
for
the
temporary
protective
order.
I'm
not
clear
on
whether
the
standards
are
much
higher
or
lower.
It's
my
understanding
that
you
know
the
tpo
process
has
due
process
built
in
and
is
actually
a
an
effective
mechanism
to
achieve
this
goal.
E
My
understanding
is
this
bill
does
not
change
any
of
the
standards
or
the
process
by
which
courts
can
already
issue
these.
It
really
just
gives
victims
the
ability
and
and
the
knowledge
in
the
nrs
to
be
able
to
make
that
request.
C
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
follow-up,
madam
chair,
thank
you
all
right
and-
and
I
do
a
fair
amount
of
tpo
work
in
my
own
practice,
so
these
are
typically
orders
that
can
be
obtained
at
pretty
much
at
any
time
day
or
night,
much
of
it's
on
line
so
that
we
can
get
those
usually
within
hours
of
a
person
needing
to
get
it
and
the
the
difference.
C
I
think,
and
the
thing
that
I'm
kind
of
keying
on
is
that
under
a
tpo,
a
violation
can
be
or
a
violation
results,
often
in
criminal
action.
It's
a
misdemeanor
to
violate
a
tpo,
whereas
here
it
only
affords
a
trespass,
there's
no
criminal,
except
for
content
power
which
the
court
always
possesses.
C
E
Well,
senator
pickard,
I
think
you
hit
on
something
that
has
been
a
problem
with
stay
away:
orders
in
the
past
and
that's
their
enforceability.
That
is
actually
why
you
see
the
trespass
language.
E
C
Thank
you
ma'am
sure,
and
thank
you
senator
hearns.
B
Well,
thank
you,
chair,
scheible
and
senator
harris.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
compliment
you
for
tackling
this
issue
during
the
interim
and
chairing
the
interim
committee
looking
at
bail
reform
here
in
nevada
and
no
no
small
task.
I
I
really
commend
your
hard
work
and,
and
I'm
so
just
it's-
it's
just
great-
to
see
the
the
bills
coming
out
of
that
interim
committee.
B
B
F
Go
ahead,
thank
you
mandatory.
I
actually
have
a
couple
if
you
would
so
indulge
me,
so
I
I
just
because
I
think
that
we
just
had
an
interesting
conversation,
and
I
wanted
to
know
that
this
process
is
directly
rated
relating
to
chapter
178,
which
deals
with
pre-trial
release,
and
there
are
a
number
of
factors
in
our
current
statute
by
which
the
court
has
to
take
into
account
all
while
focusing
on
in
the
context
of
the
val.
Does
he
ministering,
which
I
think
senator
hearst?
F
He
did
a
good
job
of
sort
of
giving
us
the
basics
of
that.
This
relates
to
where
a
court
feels
as
though
this
would
be
necessary
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
community
and
to
ensure
that
a
defendant
would
come
back
to
court.
I
feel
so.
F
This
particular
mechanism
relates
specifically
to
the
safety
of
the
community
generally
and
then
more
more
specifically
to
the
specific
victim,
and
so
this
this
to
me,
is
generally
used
in
common
practice
and
would
be
sort
of
outlined
in
this
process
in
senate
bill
147
as
something
that
would
relate
directly
to
why
somebody
should
be
released
and
what
we
can
put
in
place
to
ensure
those.
Those
two
things
is
that
an
accurate
statement.
F
E
Yes,
all
of
the
considerations
that
we
we
statutorily
and
by
the
nevada
constitution
have
to
take
into
consideration
when
deciding
what
the
appropriate
conditions
will
be
will
still
govern
this
process.
F
And
I
think
that
that's
why
I
bring
that
up,
because
it
is
a
little
bit
different
than
a
restraining
order,
although
they
may
function.
Similarly,
this
is
really
a
condition
to
say
to
the
defendant
like
we
are
going
to
release
you,
but
we
don't
want
you
to
have
contact
with
the
victim
and
that
becomes
pretty
apparent
in
cases
like
domestic
violence
or
in
sexual
assault
abuse
of
a
child,
those
types
of
situations.
F
We
see
it
in
a
lot
of
gang
cases
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
community
and
sort
of
saying
hey.
You
know
you
can't
be
going
in
and
continuing
to
make
contact
with
someone
who's
been
victimized
while
the
case
is
still
pending,
and
so
this
is
a
little
bit
different
to
me
than
the
protected
order,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
on
the
record,
because
it
does
function
a
little
differently.
F
With
respect
to
the
amendment
that
you
have
in
here,
and
I
wanted
to
just
get
some
clarification
on
a
couple
of
things,
because
there's
change
to
the
language
here
that
says
that
the
victim
may
request
in
section
one
subsection
one.
F
Instead
of
the
prosecuting
attorney,
which
I
think
makes
sense
because
we
want
victims
to
be
able
to
ask
for
that
as
a
condition
so
that
they
can
feel
safe
if
someone
is
going
to
be
released,
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
ask
about
the
interplay
with
section
1
subsection
4,
where
it
says
that
a
prosecuting
an
attorney
or
a
court
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
have
that
request,
and
so
this
language,
as
I
read
it,
means
the
victim-
has
a
pathway
to
ask
for
that,
irrespective
of
the
court
or
the
or
the
prosecutor
asking
for
it,
but
there's
also
a
mechanism.
F
E
Yes,
thank
you
vice
chair
ken
azaro
to
you
through
chair
scheible.
That
is
correct.
F
And
then
on
the
the
issue
with
the
90
days
for
the
temporary
protective
order.
This
seems
to
when
I
read
it.
It
reads
as
though
this
would
be
active
for
90
days
and
could
be
extended,
but
only
to
allow
the
opportunity
to
seek
a
temporary
restraining
order
or
temporary
protective
order.
Could
it
be
extended
for
other
reasons,
or
was
the
intent
to
allow
merely
for
that
process
to
take
place.
E
To
you
vice
chair
ken
azaro,
through
you,
chair
scheible,
the
intent
here
is
to
allow
courts
to
have
the
appropriate
amount
of
flexibility
that
they
need
in
order
to
maintain
them
or
in
order
to
ensure
that
both
the
victim
has
the
protections
that
they
need,
as
well
as
the
defendant
has
the
due
process
protections
that
they
are
in
fact
afforded
courts
in
fact
can
go
even
less
than
90
days
if
they
feel
that
that
is
sufficient,
and
I
would
leave
it
up
to
the
courts
to
to
decide
when
it
should
or
should
not
be
renewed.
E
F
And
that
makes
that
makes
sense
to
me,
because
my
concern
is
always
we
have.
We
have
a
lot
of
cases,
and
especially
in
more
serious
cases,
if
you
were
to
think
of
a
child
sex
abuse
case,
those
can
tend
to
go
on
for
very
long,
sometimes
with
the
child
victim.
F
That
can
become
a
little
more
complicated
as
well,
and
so
I
agree
that
having
that
review
for
90
days
makes
perfect
sense,
because
it
builds
in
that
due
process
that,
I
think
only
happens
when
then
a
defense
attorney
brings
it
back
up
to
the
court.
F
If,
for
example,
we've
had
instances
where,
where
no
contact
order
is
no
longer
maybe
necessary,
and
if
they
have
a
tpo,
then
potentially
it's
not
necessary
as
well,
but
as
long
as
I
think
we're
allowing
for
the
leeway
to
have
a
regular
review
of
those,
but
then
also
to
allow
for
that
to
be
extended,
regardless
of
whether
there's
an
actual
tpo
just
because
some
of
these
cases
take
longer
than
90
days
by
their
nature
makes
sense
to
me.
So
I
definitely
appreciate
that.
E
F
A
You
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
I'll
kind
of
work
backwards,
because
we're
just
talking
about
that
90-day
threshold
that
was
put
into
subsection
three
and
is
my
understanding,
and
I
want
to
check
this
that
without
an
expiration,
it
is
very
difficult
for
law
enforcement
to
keep
records
of
these
kinds
of
orders,
because
you
can't
just
put
into
somebody's
scope
for
those
who
you
know.
Work
in
law
enforcement
regularly
know
that
you
can't
run
somebody
and
have
an
order.
A
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair
schaible,
it's
my
understanding.
This
will
make
it
easier,
although
I
know
that
not
all
law
enforcement
agencies
are
technologically
capable
of
you
know
putting
these
into
some
database,
and
so
this
bill
by
no
means
is
requiring
that
they
do
so.
But
for
those
who
are
set
up
to
track
these
types
of
things,
it
should
make
it
a
bit
easier
for
them
to
to
enforce.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
That
is
exactly
correct,
and
this
bill
would
require
the
immediate
transmittal
of
a
revocation
or
any
change
in
the
same
way
that
it
would
require
the
immediate
transmission
of
the
establishment
of
the
order.
A
Okay-
and
so
then-
and
I
don't
mean
to
you-
know-
hammer
too
hard
on
one
point,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
that
it
would
allow
a
judge
then
to
make
a
decision.
A
Whether
or
not
this
order
is
still
necessary
and
they
could
they
could
make
that
choice
as
one
way
to
handle
the
question
of
whether
or
not
the
victim
and
the
defendant
need
to
stay
away
from
each
other.
A
G
G
G
D
D
J-O-H-N-J-O-N-E-S
we
want
to
thank
senator
harris
and
appreciate
her
amendments
to
the
bill.
We've
had
several
discussions
with
her
over
the
past
week
since
the
bill
dropped.
We
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
No
contact
orders
issued
through
the
criminal
case
can
be
difficult
to
quickly
enforce
and
may
give
victims
a
false
sense
of
security
upon
the
release
of
the
alleged
perpetrator.
D
Victims
often
think
that
no
contact
orders
issued
to
the
criminal
case
case
have
the
full
force
and
effect
of
a
protective
order,
but
in
actuality
this
is
not
the
case.
As
senator
harris
said.
Tpos
are
civil
remedies
and
often
judges
in
those
civil
cases
do
not
have
access
to
all
of
the
information
that
we
have
in
the
criminal
system.
D
G
H
Hi
liz
ortenberger
l,
I
z,
o
r
t
e
n
r,
I'm
the
ceo
for
safe
nest,
safe
nest
as
part
of
our
suite
of
domestic
violence.
Services
includes
advocates
in
clark,
county
justice,
court
annually.
Safe
nest
supports
over
25
thousand
victims
of
domestic
violence
each
year
within
the
clark
county
justice
court.
We
support
more
than
two
thousand
domestic
violence
survivors
each
year.
The
survivors
are
navigating
the
court
case
associated
with
the
violence
that
was
committed
against
them.
Clark.
County
justice
court
is
currently
using
no
contact
orders.
H
However,
they
lack
enforcement
necessary
to
provide
more
than
a
piece
of
paper
to
survivors,
while
judges
work
to
ensure
a
defendant
understands
the
order
without
enforcement
once
they
leave
the
courtroom,
it
does
not
help
a
survivor
feeling
safe
or
supported
here
is
what
we
see.
Violation
of
a
no
contact
order
is
not
a
crime.
Just
leverage
for
the
da's
office
to
address
in
front
of
the
presiding
judge,
depending
on
the
judge,
the
proof
of
violation
and
the
defendant
may
or
may
not
be
reprimanded.
H
The
law
enforcement
does
not
have
a
copy
of
the
no
contact
order
as
they
do
of
protection
orders.
So
if
it's
violated
and
the
survivor
calls
the
police
and
says
they
have
a
no
contact
order,
they
don't
know
what
they're
talking
about.
If
the
no
contact
order
is
violated,
the
burden
of
notification
and
proof
is
on
the
survivor.
H
The
survivor
has
to
call
the
staff
at
the
da's
office
or
a
safe
nest
staff
advocate
and
then
notify
the
da
that
they
have
court.
They
have
to
ask
the
court
to
put
it
back
on
the
calendar,
which
can
take
a
few
weeks
depending
on
the
judge
and
the
and
d.a
a
no
contact
might
be
placed
automatically
at
the
time
of
arraignment.
If
this
happens,
the
survivor
has
to
ask
for
it
to
be
removed.
H
Safeness
supports
this
bill,
as
it
includes
three
critical
elements
that
help
our
court
system.
It
gives
survivors
a
voice
to
ask
for
a
no
contact
order.
It
makes
survivors
safer
because
it
is
enforced
and
it
includes
law
enforcement,
a
critical
element
in
combating
domestic
violence
and,
in
this
case,
domestic
violence.
Homicides.
Thank
you.
G
G
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
in
that
case
we
will
close
support
testimony.
I
would
encourage
that
caller,
if
maybe
they
didn't
realize
it
was
them
to
submit
some
written
comments,
or
perhaps
they
were
just
in
the
wrong
queue,
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
and
opposition
to
sb-147.
G
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-t-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
are
neutral
in
this
bill
and
we'd
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
hearing
our
concerns
and
trying
to
work
through
the
bill.
If
the
bill
were
to
revert
to
its
original
form,
then
we
would
be
in
opposition.
D
We
understand
that
this
is
filling
a
gap
in
the
system
and
we
senator
harris
for
making
it
clear
that
this
bill
will
not
delay
bail
hearings,
because
the
prosecutors
will
have
the
chance
to
ask
for
a
no
contact
order
and
follow
this
process
laid
out
in
the
bill
if
the
victim
is
unavailable
at
the
bail
hearing,
and
we
thank
senator
harris
again
for
working
with
us
on
this
bill.
That
concludes
my
testimony.
G
I
Afternoon,
chair
shy
bowl:
this
is
serena
evans,
f-e-r-e-n-a-e-v-a-n-s
and
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence,
we're
here
today
neutral
on
the
proposed
bill.
I
Orders:
for
example,
protection
orders
clarify
specific
people
such
as
children
and
pets,
specific
places
such
as
work
homes
in
schools,
where
perpetrator
is
not
allowed
to
go
because
of
the
high
risks
associated
with
leaving
an
abusive
relationship
or
calling
the
police
on
a
perpetrator.
We
still
strongly
encourage
victim
survivors
to
access
traditional,
temporary
and
then
extended
protection
orders
rather
than
these
stay
away
orders.
I
We
thank
senator
harris
for
their
work
on
this
and
that
for
their
attention
to
victim
survivor
safety,
and
we
understand
that
this
process
is
filling
a
gap
which
allows
victim
survivors
the
opportunity
to
seek
limited
safety
while
applying
for
a
longer
term
protection
order.
But
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
not
being
used
as
a
tool
for
long-term
safety
planning
and
that
victim
survivors
of
domestic
and
sexual
violence
are
still
encouraged
to
seek
traditional
protection
orders.
Thank
you
very
much.
G
J
J
G
G
C
Hi
this
is
chuck
callaway
c-a-l-l-a-w-a
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
sorry
I
was
on
the
cue
to
speak
in
support,
but
unfortunately
I
got
kicked
out
still
trying
to
get
the
hang
of
the
the
system,
but
I
am
here
in
support
of
the
bill.
I
know
we're
on
neutral
testimony,
so
I
apologize,
but
I
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
our
support.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
chuck,
callaway,
just
that's
all
I
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
was
our
support
and
we
appreciate
senator
harris
communicating
with
us
on
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Perfect
thank
you
and
if
we
could
have
the
record
reflect
that
mr
calloway's
testimony
was
in
support
of
the
bill.
I
understand
we
have
all
been
experiencing
these
technical
difficulties
and
I'm
glad
that
you
are
able
to
provide
your
testimony
and
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
147
and
that
will
take
us
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
a
committee
bdr
introduction.
A
A
B
Your
honor,
if
there's
no
comments,
I
would
pardon
me
chair
one
move,
introduction.
E
A
C
C
C
A
A
Thank
you
to
our
esteemed
secretary.
The
motion
passes
with
a
unanimous
vote
in
favor
of
introducing
the
bdr,
and
so
we
have
now
closed
the
hearing.
Sp
147
we've
moved
to
introduce
bdr
14-514,
and
that
takes
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda.
Public
comment,
mr
kyle.
If
you
could,
let
us
know
if
anybody
is
here
for
a
public
comment,
please.