►
From YouTube: 5/25/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
Upon Adjournment of the Senate Floor Session
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
B
A
With
four
of
us,
we
do
have
a
quorum
which
allows
us
to
dive
into
our
two
assembly
bills
on
for
hearing
today,
we
will
start
with
ab37.
I
understand
we
are
oh,
let
the
record
reflect
senator
pickard
is
here.
It
is
not
late
and
we
will
start
with
ab37.
A
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
the
hearing
on
ab37.
I
understand
we
have
our
presenters
with
us
via
zoom,
and
I
will
let
them
determine
the
order
that
they
go
in
whenever
you
both
or
either.
One
of
you
are
ready.
C
C
C
C
Although
the
definition
of
income
under
nrs
31a
includes
compensation
of
an
independent
contractor,
the
garnishment
of
that
income
under
nrs
31.295
is
written
in
terms
of
employees.
Amending
existing
statute
to
provide
clarification
on
individuals
subject
to
income.
Withholding
will
result
in
a
re
will
result
in
obligors
being
treated
equally,
whether
they
are
an
employee
or
an
independent
contractor.
C
C
Implementation
of
ab37
will
provide
clear
definitions
for
lump
sums
and
allow
for
withholding
of
these
payments
from
the
earnings
of
independent
contractors
in
the
same
manner
as
income
earned
by
employees.
It
will
establish
a
reporting
threshold
of
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
for
employers
and
provide
a
mechanism
and
process
for
employers
to
report
lump
sum
payments.
C
C
D
Hi
good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
family
support
division.
We
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
Currently,
the
family
support
division
manages
over
45
000
cases.
Passage
of
this
bill
will
positively
impact
a
number
of
children
further.
It
does
treat
all
parents.
Similarly,
irrespective
of
the
type
of
employment,
are
there
any
questions.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Ms
cliff,
it's
great
to
see
you
again.
I
think
the
last
time
we
met
was
actually
in
the
child
support
committee.
So
here
we
are
again
just
a
couple
of
questions
both
have
to
do
well.
Both
are
on
page
four.
First
one
section:
seven
sub
b,
where
requiring
a
10-day
advance
notice
before
a
paycheck
goes
out.
E
Excuse
me:
how
do
we
anticipate
employers
who
are
on
or
where
the
employee
is
on
an
hourly
basis
where
they
don't
have
a
standard
shift,
particularly
post-pandemic
we're
seeing
a
number
of
employers
are
employing
their
people
at
varying
lengths
depending
upon
demand,
so
they
won't
necessarily
know
what
the
amount
is
going
to
be
until
that
cut
off
date,
and
that's
usually
four
or
five
days
before
the
pay
day,
so
particularly
on
a
bi-weekly.
E
So
at
no
time
during
their
employees,
employment,
are
they
going
to
have
a
10-day
look
ahead
in
terms
of
the
amount?
So
how
did?
How
does
that
kind
of
employer
deal
with
section
7.
C
E
All
right,
so
maybe
I
missed
it,
but
I
didn't
see
a
distinction
between
the
lump
sum
payout
and
a
a
regular
payment.
I
just
figured
that
that
was
you
know
if
you're
giving
it
out
in
chunks,
because
I
didn't
see
a
distinction.
Can
you
point
me
to
the
distinction
between
the
lump
sum
and
a
regular
regularly
occurring.
E
E
E
All
right,
so
I
maybe
you
can
enlighten
me
what
kind
of
lump
sum
payments
are
you
contemplating
here
if
it's
not
in
the
form,
because
we're
talking
about
the
the
compensation
of
employment?
C
Kaplan
for
the
record
so
section
five
of
this
bill
defines
lump
sum
payments:
a
commission,
a
discretionary,
a
non-discretionary
bonus,
productivity
or
performance
bonus.
You
want
me
to
continue
or.
E
E
I
I
get
that,
but
okay,
let
me
just
go
to
my
next
question,
because
maybe
it
as
we
kind
of
hit
at
this
we'll
get
to
it-
we've
removed
bonuses
and
commissions
from
salaries.
E
E
Do
they
fall
in
a
gap
or
because
they
they
don't
meet
the
the
definition
of
lump
sum
in
terms
of
you
know
what
we're
what
we're
describing
here?
It's
you
know
many
in
particular.
At
the
higher
end,
many
compensation
packages
have
more
in
the
bonus
structure,
which
is
paid
typically
or
often
quarterly,
but
it's
based
on
performance,
but
it's
over
a
period
of
time.
It's
usually
a
pretty
consistent
amount.
E
So
I
I
I'm
concerned
about
the
language
here
where
that
we
seem
to
be
describing
one
time
like
commissions
and
I'm
thinking
real
estate
commission,
but
that's
one
of
many
different
types
of
commission
that
are
paid
just
once
versus
a
commission
that
is
paid
in
pieces
over
a
period
of
time.
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
leaving
understand
these
are
friendly
questions.
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
get
the
language
right,
so
we're
not
inadvertently
excluding
anything,
because
I
want
these
things
paid
as
much
as
anybody.
D
I'll
shed
some
light
briefly
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
kathy
senator
pickard.
It
is
very
nice
to
see
you
again,
so
you
are
correct
in
terms
of
the
commissions
and
envisioning
sort
of
a
a
real
estate
agent
or
a
broker
of
that
nature,
where
we
might
see
some
of
those
lump
sum
payments
and
obviously
the
the
goal
is
to
ensure
that
those
types
of
employees
are
treated.
D
Similarly,
to
someone,
for
example,
that
that
might
work
at
a
at
a
chain
retail
store
where
we're
able
to
to
garnish
easily
because
they're,
not
an
independent
contractor
and
that's
the
goal,
is
to
treat
an
independent
contractor,
a
1099
classified
employee,
the
same
as
other
types
of
employees
in
terms
of
how
we
would
garnish
if
it
was
monthly
as
it
stands
now,
whether
the
bonus
or
commission,
if
it's
wrapped
into
the
paycheck,
if
it's
been
considered
as
income
as
we've
defined
it
senator
pickard
through
the
guideline
commission,
we
can
garnish
it
up
to
50
percent.
D
D
C
Happy
kaplan
for
the
record
and
I
believe
the
removal
of
the
lump
sums
or
not
the
lump
sums.
The
bonuses
and
commissions
from
the
other
portion
of
the
bill
and
put
under
our
definition,
was
just
trying
to
maintain
consistency.
So
it
wasn't
in
two
locations,
but
if
you
believe
it
should
go
back
where
it
was
removed,
we
would
be
open
to
an
amendment
to
that.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
capturing
everything
that
we
need
to.
E
All
right,
no,
I
appreciate
that,
and-
and
given
I
didn't
know,
this
was
coming
until
last
night
at
about
11
30.,
I
haven't
spent
enough
time
to
really
kind
of
digest
it
and
come
up
with
different
language.
I
just
tripped
on
it
and
so
because
I
tripped
on
it.
I
thought
okay,
this
may
be
a
problem,
so
I
had
hoped
that
maybe
this
had
had
come
up
on
the
assembly
side
or
someone
had
thought
it
through.
E
My
last
question
also
related
has
to
do
with
nac
425025
the
definition
of
gross
income
that
we
put
in
the
in
the
regs,
and
we
we
defined
it
a
little
differently,
but
it
seems
that
we've
gone
a
little
past
that
definition
here
it
do.
You
know
miss
cliff
if
there's
any
intent
to
try
to
get
the
committee
also
to
adopt
this,
or
is
this
intended
to
be
separate
from
the
regs?
How
did
you
anticipate
these
meshing
in
terms
of.
D
Enforcement,
so
I
don't
believe
the
the
state
has
not
brought
to
this
is
karen
cliff
for
the
record.
The
state
has
not
brought
to
my
attention
that
this
is
something
that
that
would
need
to
be
addressed
through
the
guideline
commission.
The
goal
is
not
to
alter
the
definition
of
income.
The
goal
is
to
find
a
way
to
capture
different
types
of
employees
and
support
their
ability
to
pay
child
support.
So
many
of
them
would
like
a
garnishment
and
due
to
their
classification,
is
10.99.
It's
very
difficult.
D
E
E
Of
course,
most
of
the
judges
still
revert
to
the
pre-commission
language
of
any
source
of
income,
and
so
you
know
that
usually
will
resolve
itself,
but
I
just
maybe
what
we
can
do
is
offline,
miss,
cliff
and
and
whoever
else
we
can
talk
about.
You
know
why
this
may
be
problematic
and
and
look
at
language.
E
I
know
we
only
have
a
few
hours
before
this
thing
that
needs
to
get
to
the
floor,
so
I'm
willing
to
do
that
after
this
committee
hearing,
at
any
rate,
thank
you
for
bringing
it.
I
love
the
idea
of
making
more
employers
subject
to
garnishment,
because
it's
so
hard,
particularly
as
you
mentioned
on
the
1099s,
to
get
these
people
to
actually
pay,
especially
when
they're
in
control
of
of
their
hours
and
and
their
ability
to
hide
that
money.
So
thank
you
thank
you
for
bringing
it.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
B
Thank
you
very
much
sharon.
Thank
you
to
the
proponents.
I
just
wondered
right
now:
do
we
have
any
data
either
for
clark,
county
or
statewide
as
to
how
many
parents,
with
obligations
to
their
children,
are
in
arrears
that
are
not
currently
making
those
payments,
and
if
you
don't
have
it,
I
can
try
to
follow
up
offline,
but
I
appreciate
the
bill
and
I
appreciate
anything
that
might
try
to
make
sure
that
children
are
getting
getting
that.
C
Help
kaplan
for
the
record
and
in
my
testimony
there
are
67
500
obligors
that
are
in
arrears
and
about
44
000
of
those
have
not
made
any
payments.
A
All
right
any
other
questions
on
ab37.
I
don't
see
any
so
we
will
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
ap37.
I
don't
see
anybody
coming
to
the
table,
so
we
will
go
directly
to
the
phones.
Please.
F
F
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheibel
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
serena
evans,
s-e-r-e-n-a-v
ans
and
I'm
the
policy
coordinator
with
the
nevada
coalition
and
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
Keeping.
It
brief
just
want
to
say
that
many
victim
survivors
rely
on
child
support
to
properly
care
for
their
children,
and
we
are
in
favor
of
any
measures
that
would
expand
the
ways
in
which
victim
survivors
and
others
throughout
the
state
would
be
able
to
obtain
the
child
support
that
they're
entitled
to.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
F
A
F
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
unless
the
presenters
have
any
closing
remarks
that
will
conclude
the
hearing
on
ab37
all
right.
The
heron
ap
37
is
now
closed
and
we
will
be
in
recess
until
the
call
of
the.
A
A
All
right,
the
committee
is
now
back
in
order.
After
a
long
and
arduous
discussion,
we've
determined
not
to
hold
assemblywoman
win
in
contempt
as
she
was
on
the
assembly
floor.
While
I
was
rudely
calling
for
her
presence
here
and
now
that
assembly
far
has
concluded,
we
are
honored
to
be
joined
by
assemblywoman
win
to
present
to
us
ab
393,
and
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
ab393.
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
rochelle
nguyen.
I
represent
assembly
district
10
in
southern
nevada
and
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
bill
393,
to
put
it
short,
to
put
it
quickly
and
succinctly.
I
know
many
of
you
sat
on
this
committee
during
the
2019
session
when
we
passed
assembly
bill
236,
which
was
a
broad
criminal
justice,
reinvestment
bill
and
393
comes
to
you
with
recommendations
from
both
the
sentencing
commission
and
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice.
G
As
a
cleanup
bill
for
a
lack
of
betsy,
I've
always
wanted
to
say
it
was
a
cleanup
bill.
This
is
my
first
cleanup
bill,
so
this
had
a
bunch
of
cleanup
language
in
there.
I
I
think
it's
pretty
self-explanatory.
We
had
taken
recommendations
again
from
those
interim
committees
and
the
recommendations
from
the
various
agencies
that
were
involved
to
make
some
clarifying
cleanup
language
that
makes
the
implementation
of
236
more
efficient
and
more
consistent,
and
with
that
that's
kind
of
a
high
level
overview.
G
A
G
A
H
H
H
G
F
Chair
scheible
members
of
the
committee
corey
salfarino,
representing
the
washington
county
sheriff's
office
here
in
support
also
as
a
member
of
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice
during
the
interim,
representing
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association.
I
just
want
to
register
our
support.
Thank
you.
Ma'am.
I
Good
afternoon
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
today,
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
my
office
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
and
the
aclu.
We
are
proudly
here
testifying
to
support
this
bill.
I
can
say
that
I'm,
a
member
of
the
ecaj
and
holly
welborn
is
also
a
member
of
the
acha
and
the
sentencing
commission,
and
we
do
believe
that
this
is
necessary
in
order
to
advance
the
great
policies
that
we
implemented
in
the
last
session.
So
thank
you.
A
F
Please
press
star,
9,
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
cube
once
again
to
testify
in
support
on
assembly
bill
393,
please
press
star,
9,
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
342,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
and
maybe
again.
J
V-I-C-T-O-R-I-A-G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
that
supports
the
nevada
sentencing
commission,
I'm
here
to
testify
in
support
of
the
bill
that
we
have
collaborated
with
assemblywoman
win
on,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
assemblywoman
for
all
the
work
and
the
support
in
helping
get
these
changes
through
the
commission
and
the
commission
approved
these
changes
to
be
included
in
this
cleanup
bill
for
bdr.
J
That
helps
clarify
the
implementation
of
the
policies
that
were
enacted
in
ab236
and
helps
our
department
in
supporting
the
commission,
and
I
want
to
thank
again
the
stakeholders
and
all
those
that
we
work
with
in
advancing
and
admit
implementing
this,
that
our
data
driven
recommendations
for
the
commission.
Thank
you
and
if
there
are
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
those
as
well.
A
A
F
A
All
right,
then,
I
understand
I
skipped
over
mr
lawson,
who
was
on
zoom,
who
wanted
to
give
some
support
testimony,
and
we
will
go
back
to
you
now
if
you
are
still
interested
in
testifying.
Please.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
tom,
lawson
chief
of
parole,
probation
for
the
department
of
public
safety,
offering
testimony
and
support,
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
acha,
as
well
as
the
sentencing
commission,
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
work
with
some
of
women
nguyen
on
this
language
specific
to
the
elements
of
the
bill
that
relate
to
pro
and
probation.
K
The
cleanup
language
just
really
puts
the
language
for
parole
or
probation
into
the
proper
chapter
chapter
176,
a
deals
with
probation
suspense
of
sentence
as
a
title.
213
deals
with
pardons
and
parole.
However,
another
counter-intuitively
there
are
elements
in
213
that
deal
with
probation,
and
so,
when
you
read
through
the
language
specifically,
an
example
would
be
section.
8
and
21
of
the
bill.
K
You'll
see
that
there's
a
lot
of
strikeout
language
in
chapter
213
that
language
is
later
re-added
into
the
proper
channel
chapter
of
176a,
so
that
remember
the
public,
an
offender,
our
officers,
members,
you
know
the
the
attorneys
or
the
court.
If
they're
looking
for
the
rules
that
apply
to
parole
or
probation,
don't
have
to
read
the
chapter:
that's
not
parole
or
probation
to
find
all
the
applicable
statutes.
A
I
am
not
seeing
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee,
so
we
will
thank
you
for
your
contribution
and
for
helping
us
understand
the
bill
a
little
bit
better
and
thank
you
to
everybody
who
has
been
here
to
to
contribute
and
engage
in
the
conversation.
Do
you
have
any
closing
no
closing
remarks,
so
that
brings
us
to
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing
on
ab393.
A
F
A
All
right,
then,
public
comment
has
concluded.
That
brings
us
to
the
final
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
a
possible
work
session.
We
will
again
go
into
recess
a
very
brief
recess
and
we'll
be
right.
A
A
All
right,
we
are
back
in
session.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
your
patience.
Our
awesome
committee
manager
has
just
provided
us
with
work
session
documents
and
they
will
be
available
on
nellis
for
those
of
you
who
are
following
along
at
home
or
from
your
seats
they
may
it
may
take
a
few
minutes,
but
I
want
to
get
these
bills
moving
and
I
also
want
everybody
to
have
as
much
information
as
possible,
so
we're
going
to
go
first
to
the
work
session
on
ap
37,
which
we
just
heard.
A
I
don't
think
we
need
to
walk
through
the
work
session
document,
so
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
do
pass.
All
right.
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
orrinshaw.
Is
there
a
second?
A
L
Excuse
me
thanks
chair,
this
is
patrick
geiman
for
the
record
yeah
I
won't
go
through.
I
won't
go
through
the
whole
thing.
This
is
assembly
bill
116,
which
relates
to
traffic
offenses,
it's
sponsored
by
assemblyman,
woman,
wynn
and
others,
and
it
basically
provides
that
certain
violations
of
traffic
laws
are
civil
infractions
unless
a
criminal
penalty
is
prescribed
for
the
violation
by
a
specific
statute.
L
What's
in
the
mock-up,
it
removes
a
person's
social
security
number
from
a
list
of
information
to
be
included
on
a
citation.
It
replaces
the
first
initial
and
last
name
of
an
issuing
officer
with
a
personnel
number
or
other
unique
agency
identification
number
of
an
officer
volunteer
or
prosecuting
attorney,
who
issues
a
citation
and
inserts
some
new
language
relating
to
the
information
that's
to
be
provided
on
a
citation
issued
to
an
offender.
It
adds
an
online
dispute
resolution
program
as
an
option
for
satisfying
the
requirements
of
a
civil
citation.
L
It
adds
committing
a
civil
infraction
as
a
reason
that
a
person
may
be
detained
by
a
peace
officer,
along
with
an
internal
reference
to
the
definition
of
a
civil
infraction.
It
requires
that
a
residential
address
and
a
mailing
address
be
included
in
a
citation
if
the
two
addresses
are
different.
It
includes
an
internal
reference
in
the
bill
to
the
definition
of
civil
infraction
and
senators.
Pickard
and
hammond
will
be
added
as
co-sponsors
and
that's
the
whole
amendment
chair.
A
B
A
B
A
All
right
with
that,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
I
I
any
imposed
nay
senator
hansen-
is
the
solenei.
With
that
the
measure
passes
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
senator
harris
brings
us
to
ab393,
which
we
just
heard
today,
and
I
don't
think
we
need
to
walk
through
the
work
session
document
or
the
amendments.
A
E
A
All
right,
if
there
are
no
further
questions
or
discussions,
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
harris.
We
have
a
was
that
a
second
from
center.
Second
from
senator
orrinshaw
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
all
right,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
all
right.
The
motion
carries
and
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
to
senator
orrinshaw,
and
that
brings
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
work
session
and
our
agenda
for
today,
which
is
ab404.
A
We
heard
it
yesterday
and
I'll.
Have
mr
guyan
just
give
us
a
brief
reminder.
L
Thanks
chair,
patrick
garner,
for
the
record
ab404
revises
provisions
relating
to
orders
for
protection
against
domestic
violence.
It
was
sponsored
by
the
assembly
committee
on
judiciary
and,
like
the
chair
said,
we
heard
it
yesterday.
It
establishes
provisions
relating
to
proper
venue
for
filing
an
application
for
an
order
for
protection
against
domestic
violence
to
include
the
county
where
the
applicant
resides
the
county,
where
the
adverse
party
resides
a
temporary
location
away
from
his
or
her
county
to
avoid
threat
of
domestic
violence
and
the
county
where
the
act
of
domestic
violence
occurred.
L
Measure
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
information
included
in
an
application
for
protection
where
the
applicant
who
recently
reasonably
believes,
including
his
or
her
address
and
contact
information,
would
jeopardize
his
or
her
safety.
They
made
decline
to
disclose
that
information.
That's
all
chair.
E
On
the
record,
I
talked
to
the
presenter
yesterday
after
the
presentation
and
the
the
portion
that
I
struggled
with
was
the
ability
of
the
applicant
to
hear
the
case
in
a
county
in
a
place
other
than
where
the
adverse
party
lived,
because
that
presents
some
difficulties
in
terms
of
due
process
and
and
ability
to
confront
witnesses
and
evidence,
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
she
attempted
I
think
she
probably
did
get
it
on
the
record.
E
But
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear
that
this
is
permissive
language,
that
the
court
doesn't
need
to
agree
to
issue
the
order
in
a
different
county.
If
there's
some
question
of
veracity,
so
I
want
it
clear
in
the
record
that
the
courts
still
have
the
ability
to
deny
the
venue
change,
that
they
can
still
require
that
it
be
heard
in
the
adverse
parties
county
of
residence,
and
that
way
we
can
preserve
their
due
process
right.
So
with
that,
I'm
I'm
supportive
of
the
bill.
A
Thank
you
senator
pickard,
and
I
think
that
does
comport
with
what
we
heard
yesterday,
and
so
if
there
are
no
other
questions
or
comments,
I
would
take
a
motion
to
do
pass.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
orrinshaw
and
a
second
from
senator
harris
any
discussion
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
all
right.
The
motion
carries
and
is
there
a
volunteer
to
take
the
floor
statement?
A
I
will
assign
it
to
myself
and
that
concludes
our
work
session.
For
today
we
have
already
taken
public
comment
for
today.
So
that
concludes
our
meeting.
For
today
we
don't
have
any
more
bills
on
the
schedule,
but
I
sure
hope
this
is
not
our
last
meeting
and
that
we
will
get
to
see
all
of
you
again
at
a
time
and
date
to
be
determined.
We're.