►
From YouTube: 5/28/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
We
have
asked
questions
on
ab427,
most
of
our
committee
members
have
had
to
go
to
other
committees
and
I
hope
nobody
will
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect,
as
I
certainly
do
not
that
we
have
a
lot
going
on
in
the
building
right
now
and
they
will
be
sure
to
follow
up
offline
or
with
me
on
any
questions
regarding
the
bill.
I
think
there
is
one
issue
that
we
did
want
to
clarify
on
the
record,
and
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
anthony
to
do
that.
A
Looking
at
anybody
else
who
wants
to
to
chime
in,
but
I
think
mr
anthony,
if
you
could
just
confirm
for
me
that
I'm
understanding
properly
in
sections
33
and
I
think
in
section
34
as
well,
the
new
language
regarding
the
ceiling
of
a
violation
under
the
statute,
the
difference
in
the
law
going
forward
if
the
statute
were
to
pass,
would
be
that
the
celia
statute
now
has
that
seven
year
minimum
on
it.
Whereas
before
we
had
basically
removed
the
seven
year
minimum,
it
doesn't
change
the
mechanics
of
sealing
a
conviction.
B
That
is
correct,
chair
you're,
absolutely
correct
for
violations
of
200.485,
which
is
domestic
violence,
and
then
the
two
provisions
there
in
44c
relating
to
driving
under
the
influence
this
new
language
in
the
bill
would
just
clarify
that
for
the
period
of
seven
years
they
cannot
be
sealed.
A
Thank
you
and
is
that
the
intent
of
the
sponsors
as
well.
C
Yes,
yes,
one
of
the
issues
with
the
non-compliance
with
our
dui
laws
is
what
they
call
the
look
back
period
and
so
that
there
was
some
legislation
passed
on
last
session
that
impacted
that
look
back
period
when
you
seal
the
records
and-
and
that's
what
we're
attempting
to
address
in
in
in
this
language.
A
B
No
not
so
much
a
question.
I
just
appreciate
the
the
work
that
was
done
in
that
brief
recess
because,
again,
I'm
just
concerned.
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
when
we're
trying
to
protect
children
in
these
cases
that
we're
not
making
it
harder
to
get
the
facts
in
front
of
the
the
family
court.
So
with
that,
I
appreciate
the
effort
and
I
think
I'm
comfortable.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
I
think
that
concludes
all
of
our
questions,
so
I
will
close
the
here.
I'm
not
closing
the
hearing.
I'm
done
with
the
presentation
on
ab427
we'll
go
to
testimony
and
support.
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
support
testimony,
so
we
will
go
to
the
phones,
please.
I
think
we
have
mr
kyle
again
as
usual,.
D
D
A
All
right,
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
opposition.
Is
there
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
opposition
testimony.
A
E
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
and
members
or
member
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
First,
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
the
sponsor
and
all
the
different
agencies
that
we've
met
with
over
the
course
of
this
session
to
work
on
this
legislation,
as
you
can
see
in
the
documentation
that
was
provided.
E
A
lot
of
the
changes
that
were
here
is
about
to
ensure
that
we
do
receive
federal
grant
funding.
We
recognize
that
and
our
goals
with
trying
to
work
with
the
sponsors
is
to
ensure
that
we
aren't
doing
anything
that
will
interfere
with
that
federal
grant
funding.
I
did
provide
very
tardy,
and
I
apologize
for
that.
A
proposed
amendment
to
ab425
that
are
427
that
we
had
been
discussing
with
the
sponsors.
E
It
was
my
understanding
that
they
were
agreeing
with
most
of
it,
but
I'll,
let
them
if
they
want
to
provide
more
information
as
to
their
position.
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
it
hadn't
made
it
on
nellis
last.
I
checked
so
I'll,
just
briefly
go
through
it
for
the
first
amendment,
it's
in
section,
seven,
subsection
nine.
Where
would
strike
out
the
sentence?
E
We
were
concerned
with
this
language
because
it's
requiring
people
to
put
this
device
on
their
car
no
later
than
14
days.
However,
due
to
people's
situations,
that
might
not
be
something
that
they
can
do
within
14
days,
because
it
is
very
costly.
E
Amendment
number
two
is
regarding
section
20,
subsection,
4
c
2,
and
we
had
just
requested
for
it
to
it
currently
just
says
the
court
may
order
an
offender
to
be
admitted
to
residential
treatment
facility
and
we
had
just
requested
for
it
to
be
added
or
to
provide
without
patient
treatment
to
the
in
the
community.
Outpatient
treatment
may
not
be
counted
as
an
alternative
to
any
other,
mandatory
minimum
period
of
imprisonment
or
confinement
required
by
statute.
We
just
wanted
to
retain
the
ability
for
the
court
to
allow
outpatient
treatment
to
be
considered
as
a
sentencing
option.
E
E
The
last
amendment
that
we
had
is
amendment
5,
which
changes
section
28,
subsection,
1
and
I'll
email
this
to
all
the
members
of
the
committee,
just
because
this
is
a
little
more
complicated
to
explain,
but
really
it's
just
adding
not
changing
the
time
frame
for
the
amount,
the
duration,
that
someone
needs
to
have
an
internal
lock
device
put
on
their
car
and
just
really
converting
it
back
to
what
it
was.
I
know
that
jim
hoffman,
I
believe,
is
on
the
phone
and
he'll
be
able
to
provide
some
more
information.
E
As
to
this,
I
think
this
was
where
there
was
just
some
issues
where
we
couldn't
reach
a
consensus,
whether
or
not
the
duration
needed
to
be
extended
in
order
to
still
receive
that
grant
funding
from
our
reading
of
the
federal
statutes,
as
well
as
the
letter
that
was
provided
on
nellis
on
page
five
and
six,
it
does
indicate
that
what
we
currently
had
in
statute
does
comply,
and
so
we
don't
see
the
need
in
order
to
to
make
those
increases.
So
that
was
just
our
concerns.
E
I
will
let
the
committee
know
that
I
did
reach
out
to
the
individuals
who
wrote
the
letter
saying
that
we
were
potentially
out
of
compliance,
because
I'm
a
public
defender
and
a
lobbyist,
they
weren't
unable
to
speak
with
us
and
unfortunately,
only
provided
that
information
yesterday.
So
there
are
just
some
concerns,
I
believe
with
whether
or
not
we
would
still
be
in
compliance.
E
A
Thank
you
go
ahead
and
ask
a
question.
B
Thank
you,
chair
john
pirro,
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
just
wanted
to
echo
what
ms
burchie
said.
We
will
say
that
also
we
fully
understand
that
this
bill
is
necessary
to
keep
us
in
federal
compliance
based
on
what
happened
in
2019.
So,
even
if
these
amendments
weren't
to
be
accepted,
we
would
remain
neutral
and
not
opposed
to
the
bill,
with
the
hope
that
maybe
we
could
readdress
things
at
a
later
date.
A
Thank
you
so
the
way
that
I'm
reading
this-
and
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
we're
reading
this
the
same
is
that
the
current
statute
says
that
for
the
first
conviction
you
have
to
have
the
interlock
device
for
185
days
after
that,
it's
sometime
between
one
year
and
three
years.
That's
the
current
law
and
that
the
change
is
proposed
here
would
keep
the
first
conviction
at
185
days
with
the
interlock
device,
but
the
new
version
would
say
for
the
second
violation
it's
one
year
and
for
a
subsequent
violation.
A
E
Kendrick
for
the
record
so
with
the.
E
The
bill
it
is
increasing
the
durations,
the
required
durations,
which
we
believe
is
not
necessary
according
to
the
federal
statute.
So
what
we
are
hoping
to
do
is
in
subsection,
28,
subsection,
1
of
changing
it
back
to
our
current
statute.
So
for
a
first
or
second
violation,
it
would
be
for
a
period
of
185
days
and
then
for
a
subsequent.
That's
when
it
increases.
A
Okay,
I
thought
that
the
the
current
law
was
on
the
second
offense
that
you
already
bumped
up
to
that
one
year
to
three
year
range.
This
would
actually
lower
it
for
first
offenders
but
raise
it
for
third
or
sorry
yeah
low
for
second
time
offenders,
but
raise
it
for
third
time
offenders
and
beyond,
or
maybe
I'm
misreading.
E
Kendrick
burchie
for
the
record.
I
don't
have
all
that
information
in
front
of
me
and
I
know
that
jim
hoffman
worked
extensively
on
this
amendment,
so
I
know
that
he's
on
the
phone.
So
hopefully
he
can
answer
that
question.
If
not
I'm
happy
to
look
into
it,
and
we
can
talk
offline
about
that.
Thank
you.
A
All
right
that
sounds
good.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony
and
we
will
I'll
come
back
to
the
presenters
for
some
closing
comments.
After
we
finish
neutral
testimony,
I
don't
see
anybody
else
in
the
room
to
give
neutral
testimony,
so
we
will
go
to
the
phone
where
I
know
mr
hoffman
is
waiting
for
us.
D
F
Hi,
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
miss
davey
and
the
other
proponents
of
the
bill
for
having
extensive
discussions
with
us
on
this.
I
think
we
mostly
agreed
there's
just
some
minor
stuff.
I
would
also
echo
what
miss
bertie
and
mr
pirro
said.
F
So
if
you
look
at
the
existing
nrs
nrs484c.460,
which
this
is
amending,
subsection
1a,
it
says
accept,
is
otherwise
provided
in
paragraph
b,
a
violation
of
paragraph,
a
b
or
c
of
subsection
one
paragraph
b
of
subsection,
two
of
the
nrs
that
is
punishable
pursuant
to
paragraph
a
or
b
of
subsection
one.
F
So
a
is
that
last
a
that
I
said,
that's
the
first
offense
and
then
that
last
b,
that
I
said,
that's
the
second
offense
so
first
or
second
offense
dui
is
currently
185
days
and
then,
if
paragraph
b
1b
that's
the
felony,
that's
the
third
offense
and
that's
12
to
36
months.
F
So
what
we're
saying
is
we
should
keep
those
durations.
We
should
keep
the
second
offense
at
185.,
keep
the
third
offense
at
12
to
36
months
and,
like
ms
burchie
said,
that's
based
on
our
reading
of
that
letter
that
basically
this
was
part
of
the
statutory
scheme
before
ab316
and
then
ab316
is
the
reason
we
got
knocked
out
of
compliance
and
we've
lost
access
to
this
money.
F
F
F
If
you're
high
for
marijuana
or
high
from
prescription
painkillers,
the
interlock
can't
detect
that.
So
it
doesn't
do
anything,
it
doesn't
serve
any
purpose
and
what
the
bill
would
do
is
it
it
would
change
it
so
that
even
people
who
have
convictions
for
marijuana,
dui's
or
killed
the
uis
would
have
to
install
interlock
devices.
F
F
F
So
again,
I
would
just
close
by
saying
that
you
know
we
support
the
changes
that
are
necessary
for
nevada
to
get
these
grants.
We
don't
want
to
stand
in
the
way
of
those,
but
we
don't
think
that
these
specific
changes
are
necessary,
and
so
we
would
ask
the
committee
to
make
those
changes,
and
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
D
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much,
mr
kyle,
and
if
you
can
still
hear
me,
mr
hoffman,
thank
you
that
was
very
helpful
understanding
what
all
the
a's
and
b's
were,
and
now
I
now
I
get
what
you're
saying,
and
I
don't
see
anybody
else
here
to
testify.
So
we
will
go
back
to
the
presenters
to
give
some
closing
comments
and
maybe
address
some
of
the
questions
that
came
up.
C
Thank
you,
and
I
I
agree
with
miss
burchie
mr
pirro
and
mr
hoffman.
We
have
been
working
with
them.
We're
in
alignment
on
some
of
the
amendments
where
we
differ
is
with
respect
to
that
last
proposed
amendment
on
the
second
violation.
C
D
C
We
had
a
deputy
ag
looking
at
this
for
for
months
and
working
with
nitsa
for
months
on
the
language,
and
so
I'm
a
little
bit
reticent
to
make
a
decision
that
does
impact
this
large
of
an
issue.
C
You
know
on
behalf
of
the
state
agencies
so
danielle.
Do
you
want
to
clarify
with
respect
to
the
violation.
G
G
If
they
opt
to
go
to
a
24
7
program,
they
can
still
apply
with
the
department
to
get
a
restricted
license
instead
of
the
ignition
interlock.
So
at
that
point,
if
they're
approved
in
the
program,
they
would
not
need
the
interlock
privilege
they
would
just
need
the
restricted,
so
they
would
not
have
to
have
the
device
on
their
their
vehicle
at
that
time.
G
So
we're
not
adding
any
time
we're
just
saying
if
they
want
that
interlock
privilege,
they
have
to
maintain
it
for
a
year
and
as
amy
was
talking
earlier,
we
as
far
as
the
the
drug
portion,
we
do
not
have
a
problem
lifting
the
drug
portion,
because
the
interlock
does
not,
like
you
know
as
testify,
does
not
detect
drugs.
We
just
want
to
keep
it
for
the
alcohol
and
the
poly
substance
abuse,
but
as
far
as
additional
time,
this
is
not
going
to
add
the
additional
time
unless
the
offender
wants.
It.
A
Does
that
clarify
it
that
did
clarify
it
for
me,
and
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
you
clarifying,
so
thank
you,
everybody
for
for
your
comments
and
for
working
so
hard
on
this
bill.
Unless
anybody
else
wants
to
weigh
in
I
just
I
will
be
closing
the
hearing
with
my
thanks
and
appreciation.
H
Okay,
sean
sever
from
the
dmv.
We
were
able
to
get
an
answer
on
senator
pickard's
question
that
he
asked
earlier.
We
got
a
hold
of
our
administrative
law
judge
and
he
said
the
changes
changes
in
this
bill
will
not
change
the
plea
or
hearing
process.
H
In
fact,
we
changed
some
of
the
language
in
the
bill
to
hopefully
improve
the
process,
so
I
texted
that
to
the
senator.
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
A
D
A
All
right,
then,
we
are
meeting
again
tomorrow.
The
plan
is
for
sometime
around
one
o'clock,
of
course,
that
is
subject
to
the
the
changing
tides
of
the
legislature
and
the
floor
session
and
we'll
try
to
keep
in
good
touch
with
you
with
that.
We
are
adjourned.