►
From YouTube: 2/23/2021 - 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
ms
wells,
it
is
in
fact
one
o'clock
and
I
will
now
open
the
senate
judiciary
committee
meeting
on
wednesday,
tuesday,
tuesday
february
23rd,
and
we
have
one
bill
to
hear
today
before
we
get
to
that.
I
will
ask
that
our
secretary,
please
call
the
role.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
and
we
also
have
staff
present
with
us
today,
mr
guyan,
if
you
would
please
put
those
on
the
record.
B
Chair
schedule,
this
is
patrick
guyan,
community
policy
analyst
and
our
legal
counsel
nick
anthony-
and
I
are
both
present
thanks.
Thank.
A
D
D
D
D
I
mean
that
that
estimate
does
not
include
costs
incurred
by
homes,
home
home
and
landowners
recently
as
a
part
of
prosecution,
in
this
case
the
nevada
supreme
court,
opined
that
our
current
statutory
structure
requires
that
to
prove
any
degree
of
arson,
the
state
must
prove
that
the
arsonist
had
an
evil
intent
to
harm
or
injure,
and
the
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
change.
Nevada's
required
criminal
intent
for
arson
to
be
consistent
with
some
common
law
and
the
laws
of
many
other
jurisdictions.
D
This
bill
would
seek
to
increase
as
well
the
penalties
for
the
separate
crime
of
destroying
timber
crops
and
vegetation
under
nrs
or
750-400,
and
it
increases
the
penalty
depending
on
the
amount
of
damage
done
to
the
land,
churchill
and
committee.
I
I
have
the
honor
and
privilege
of
representing
the
north
shore
of
lake
tahoe
and
much
of
mount
rose
on
the
melrose
highway
and
I'm.
D
I
am
constantly
afraid
that
that
it's
all
going
to
go
up
and
doing
so
would
result
in
damage
that
we
would
not
be
able
to
quantify
it
easily,
but
billions
of
dollars
that
would
be
lost
would
could
never
truly
be
recovered
and
almost
equally
importantly,
the
the
ecological
damage
done
to
lake
tahoe
through
the
ashen
soot
draining
into
the
lake,
with
reverse
decades
of
efforts
to
maintain
lake
clarity
and-
and
it
would
be
a
catastrophic
event
for
our
state,
our
region
and
our
natural
environment.
D
So
I
will,
at
this
point
turn
it
over
to
jennifer
noble,
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
specifically
about
the
bill.
E
Thank
you
senator
keith
kaffer,
and
we
want
to
thank
her
for
working
with
us
on
this
bill.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
jennifer
noble.
I
am
a
chief
deputy
district
attorney
in
the
washoe
county
district
attorney's
office.
I
also
represent
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
with
me
to
help
present.
The
changes
that
we
are
seeking
to
make
to
the
nrs
is
matthew.
E
Lee
mr
lee
is
a
chief
deputy
district
attorney
in
our
office
and
he
prosecutes
in
the
area
of
arson
among
other
areas,
and
so
he'll
help
me
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
following
my
brief
run-through
of
the
language
that
we're
seeking
to
amend
before
I
dive
into
the
bill
structure.
I
wanted
to
quickly
provide
just
a
overview
of
our
arson
statutes.
I
know
some
of
you
may
not
be
familiar
with
them.
E
Chapter
205
of
the
nrs
outlines
the
degrees
of
arson
and
there
are
four
degrees
and
it
depends
essentially
on
what
the
person
sets
fire
to
so
first
degree.
Arson,
for
example,
that's
a
category
b
two
to
15
years,
and
that's
where
someone
sets
fire
to
somebody's
health
house.
Rather,
a
dwelling
house.
E
The
one
to
ten
third
degree,
arson,
that
is
where
someone
might
set
fire
to
shrubbery
crops,
grass
vegetation
that
don't
belong
to
that
person.
That's
a
category
d,
one
to
four
fourth
degree:
arson,
that's
essentially
attempted
first
or
second
degree
arson,
as
I
understand
it,
also
a
category
d
one
to
four,
so
we're
looking
at
those
sections
of
the
nrs
and
this
bill
also.
I
want
to
mention
we're
seeking
to
amend.
E
Nrs
475
and
vegetation
so
moving
into
section
one
of
the
bill,
as
senator
kiker
mentioned.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
change
essentially
the
definition
or
I'm
sorry.
The
intent
element
of
arson
in
nevada
to
be
consistent
with
the
common
law
jurisdictions
are
split
on
this
issue.
There
are
a
number
of
states
that
senator
key
keffer
just
mentioned
that
follow
sort
of
the
common
law
general
intent
requirement
for
arson
in
nevada.
E
We
didn't
have
a
lot
of
case
law
on
this
issue
in
reference
to
our
statutes,
which
are
pretty
similar
to
california's,
but
not
identical
in
a
recent
case.
Radonski
vs
state,
the
nevada
supreme
court
clarified,
however,
that
for
us
to
prove
that
the
fire
was
set
willfully
and
maliciously,
we
have
to
show
that
at
the
time
the
person
ignited
the
match
or
whatever
they
used
to
start
the
fire
that
there
was
quote
an
evil
intent
to
do
harm
or
injure.
E
This
is
a
pretty
pretty
high
burden
for
us
to
meet
from
an
intent
perspective.
So
our
first
goal
is
to
change
that
specific
intent
to
conform
with
the
other
jurisdictions.
E
California,
florida
michigan,
mississippi
new
mexico,
oklahoma,
south
carolina,
vermont
west
virginia
louisiana,
and
I
think
some
others
that's
reflected
in
section
one
of
the
bill
where
we
seek
to
change
the
definition
from
or
just
the
definition
of
malice,
only
as
it
applies
to
the
crime
of
arson,
not
any
other
nevada,
revised
statutes
to
a
wish
to
vex,
annoy
or
injure
another
person
or
to
intent
to
do
a
wrongful
act
and
that
language
is
taken
from
a
specific
california
case.
E
The
second
proposed
change
in
section
two
of
the
bill
is
to
adjust
475.040
to
include,
first
of
all,
the
destruction
of
structures
not
only
vegetation
etc,
but
also
to
adjust
the
value
elements
and
the
felony
severity
to
be
consistent
with
the
property
value
amendments
that
were
approved
by
the
legislature
last
session
during
assembly
bill
236.
So
we
adjusted
those
felony
levels
to
be
commensurate
with
those
property
crimes
from
last
session
and
in
some
instances,
because
right
now
it's
set
at
5000.
E
The
person
may
actually
come
in,
who
commits
this
type
of
crime
may
be
facing
a
lesser
felony,
depending
on
the
amount
of
structure
that's
destroyed.
E
So
what
we've
done
is
for
25
000
or
more
we've
kept
a
category
b.
E
Five
thousand
to
twenty
five
thousand
that'd,
be
a
category
c
felony
and
twelve
hundred
to
five
thousand
category,
I'm
sorry,
twelve
hundred
to
five
a
category
d
felony
and
then,
if
it's
1200
or
less
that's
a
misdemeanor
in
in
discussing
these
changes,
I
would
like
to
make
this
committee
aware
just
remind
you
that
this
legislation
wouldn't
change
the
eligibility
of
persons
charged
with
arson
to
enter
diversion
courts,
mental
health
court,
drug
court,
whatever
might
be
appropriate
because
we
do
know
we
are
mindful
that
often
our
nursing
cases
are
connected
to
somebody.
E
Who's
got
a
mental
health
condition
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
However,
there
are
some
folks
who
set
fire
to
our
lands,
who
engage
in
really
irresponsible
conduct
that
they
should
know
will
result
in
this
type
of
devastation
that
was
described
earlier,
and
they
don't
have
a
mental
health
issue,
but
either
way
changing
the
intent
element
helps
us
get
those
folks
into
diversion
court
that
need
it
and
helps
us
hold
accountable
in
a
jury
trial.
E
Perhaps
those
folks
who
certainly
engaged
in
the
conduct
without
any
sort
of
excuse
or
mitigating
circumstance,
so
having
described
that,
I
would
now
thank
you
for
your
time
and
mr
lee
and
I
are
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation.
I
I
have
a
few
questions.
I
see
members
of
the
committee
have
a
few
questions.
I
will
go
to
senator
harris
first.
F
Oh,
thank
you
so
much
chair
scheible.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
I'll
just
throw
them
at
you
at
once,
because
I
know
you
can
handle
it.
F
Why
did
we
make
the
choice
to
delineate
the
felonies
here
or
I'm
sorry,
delineate
the
the
kind
of
new
punishments
here
as
opposed
to
amending
193.155
and
keeping
that
reference.
E
E
And
if
you
could
just
put
your
name
on
the
record
and
it's
my
understanding
of
hugh
chair
jennifer,
noble
for
the
record,
it's
my
understanding
that
we
included
the
word
structure,
so
that
could
be
like
a
shed
something
on
the
property
because,
as
interpreted
and
mr
lee
may
want
to
jump
in,
I
don't
know,
but
as
currently
interpreted
it
was
just
the
land
itself,
because
that
statute
specifically
is
talking
about
timber
crops
and
vegetation.
E
E
In
response
to
your
second
question,
it's
a
great
question
as
usual
and
as
usual,
you
may
have
stumped
me
a
bit,
but
we
were
thinking
that
really
the
category
of
the
crime,
because
this
is
a
crime
that
destroys
property,
should
be
really
analogized
to
our
other
property
crimes,
are
stolen
property
crimes,
destruction
of
property
crimes.
E
F
Okay,
thank
you.
You
know
I
would.
I
would
just
note,
I
think
193.155
is
all
about
the
penalty
for
public
offenses
proportionate
to
the
value
of
property
affected.
So
you
know
you
may
want
to
consider
also
making
amendments
there.
If
you
feel
that
that
is
necessary,
and
then
I
just
also
wanted
to
note
that
we,
it
seems
like
we've
lost
the
ability
now
to
find
anyone
when
the
loss
is
under
25
and
we
jump
straight
to
a
misdemeanor
as
well
as
getting
rid
of
the
option
of
a
gross
misdemeanor.
F
G
Thank
you
chair.
Sorry,
it
takes
me
a
little
while
to
get
off
my
mute
button.
I
appreciate
the
intent
of
the
bill.
I
know
there
were
several
situations
in
the
past
in
northern
nevada.
Sadly,
where
people's
careless
reckless
actions
were
causing
fires
and
then
there
was
no
ability
to
go
after
them
because
they're
able
to
get
off
in
court.
So
I
appreciate
the
intent
of
the
bill.
I
agree
with
my
previous
colleague
about
maybe
an
intermediate
step
between
the
misdemeanor
and
the
felony,
because
again,
there's
not
much
variance
there.
G
It
seems
that
we're
not
giving
the
judicial
department
much
options
in
that
respect.
I
wanted
to
hit
more,
though,
on
the
definition
of
malice
and
try
to
see
where
you've
got
that,
because
in
reading
black's
law
dictionary
it
seems
that
we'd
go
with
a
reckless
disregard
of
the
law
or
a
person's
legal
rights.
E
Senator
meyer
senator
settlement,
as
currently
in
the
bill
I
was
taken
from
people
versus
atkins,
which
is
a
california
case
from
2001.
E
E
When
you're
just
got
circumstance
that
we
had
the
black's
law,
dictionary
definition
is
always
one
to
look
at,
but
in
looking
at
all
the
common
law
jurisdictions
that
I
was
able
to
research
and
working
on
that
particular
supreme
court
case.
The
definitions
were
similar
in
those
common
law
jurisdictions
where
we
have
a
general
intent
crime,
and
so
that's
why
that
specific
language
was
selected
with
respect
to
the
intent
element.
G
Appreciate
that
and
thank
you
chair
for,
let
me
ask
that
question.
I
still
feel
there
might
be
a
little
bit
better
definition.
Maybe
we
could
find
maliciously,
maybe
borrowing
it
from
other
statutes
or
something
of
that
nature.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
chair
thanks
for
the
presentation,
jennifer
great,
to
see
you
as
always
question
the
evil
intent
argument.
Okay,
in
this
case
now,
the
perry
fire
actually
occurred
in
my
disc,
and
I
don't
know
how
this
guy
was
prosecuted,
but
in
my
mind,
if
somebody
is
reckless
and
irresponsible
with
fireworks,
it
would
that
in
fact
be
considered,
or
should
it
be
considered,
evil?
Okay,
because
really
what
we're
doing
here
is
going
back
and
saying
dang
if
we
would
have
a
little
better,
broader
definition,
we
could
have
really
nailed
this
guy.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
hansen,
it's
nice
to
see
you
too
jennifer
noble
for
the
record.
First,
the
supreme
court
case
actually
in
an
interlocutory
appeal
on
that
specific
case
on
mr
radonski's
case
explained
what
evil
intent
meant
and
it
it
wasn't
simply
doing
some
thing.
You
know
reckless
or
stupid
that
caused
all
this
damage,
something
that
you
know
you're
not
supposed
to
be
doing,
but
you're
doing
it
anyway
that
wouldn't
fit
necessarily
the
evil
intent
element,
or
you
know
it's
it's
tougher
to
prove
that
to
a
jury.
E
B
Please
yeah
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
because
you
know
if
we're
going
to
change
the
statute
based
on
this
one
law,
I'm
kind
of
curious
as
to
what
the
actual
outcome
was
in
the
existing
law.
It
sounds
like
maybe
he's
still
in
court,
though
yeah
mr
lee
could
elaborate.
I
would
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
G
Good
good
afternoon,
matt
lee
for
the
record,
senator
hansen
that
that
case
is
still
pending
right
now,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
get
in
too
many
details
of
it,
but
mr
radonski
was
charged
with
two
counts
of
first
degree:
arson,
a
count
of
third-degree
arson,
another
count
of
third-degree
arson
and
then,
lastly,
the
the
crime
of
the
gross
negligence,
which
we
see
in
chapter
475,
which
is
a
part
of
this,
and
so
with
the
supreme
court
decision
requiring
that
evil
intent
under
as
defined
by
militias.
G
Let's
just
say,
it
hurts
anyways
further
efforts
to
prosecute
these
types
of
cases
in
the
future,
because
not
only
do
we
have
to
show
these
reckless
acts,
lighting
say
fireworks
firecrackers,
whatever
they
may
be
in
a
dry
brush
in
july,
when
conditions
are
let's
say
perfect
for
such
fires
to
take
off.
G
The
definition
of
malice
that
we
currently
have
is
defined
by
the
supreme
court
now
requires
us
to
show
that
the
intent
was
not
just
to
be
careless
or
reckless,
but
actually
cause
the
harm,
so
the
resulting
fire.
So
it's
not
enough
just
to
show
that
he
was
lighting
firecrackers
under
these
terrible
conditions.
G
We'd
have
to
show
that
he
intended
to
actually
start
such
a
fire,
such
as
the
perry
fire.
B
Well,
honestly,
that
that
seems
kind
of
reasonable
to
me
that
the
way
it
is
currently
structured,
I
hate
to
rain
on
the
parade
there
a
little
bit,
but
the
guy
didn't
have
evil
intent.
He
was
out
there.
He
was
irresponsible.
Now
let
me
throw
a
hypothetical
that
one
of
our
colleagues
mentioned
earlier
today,
not
during
this
hearing,
but
during
our
caucus
meet.
What,
if
you
have
a
catalytic
converter
on
your
car,
that
you
know
is
not
functioning
properly
and
you
drive
through
cheatgrass
and
cause
a
fire.
B
B
Okay,
well,
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
because
the
the
firecracker
example
to
me
I
mean
yeah
careless,
irresponsible,
remarkable
degrees
of
damage,
but
would
it
should
it
be
considered
an
evil?
Intent
is
something
that
you
know,
I'm
a
little
uncomfortable
with
that,
but
we'll
hear
hear
the
rest
of
the
testimony
and
see
what
everybody
else
thinks.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
E
And
madam
sheriff,
I
may
just
briefly
respond
to
senator
hansen's
last
comment.
Thank
you,
jennifer
noble
for
the
record,
so
actually
senator
hansen.
What
we're
trying
to
do
not
is
not
necessarily
characterize
that
as
malicious,
but
in
order
to
hold
somebody
responsible
under
any
degree
of
arson,
that's
what
the
supreme
court
is
requiring,
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
move
from
that
specific
intent
requirement
to
a
more
general
intent
requirement
used
by
the
other
jurisdictions.
H
Thank
you,
chair
schaible,
and
thank
you
to
senator
keith
keffer
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
appreciate
the
intent
and
I
appreciate
the
work
we've
done
in
the
past
on
trying
to
you
know,
prevent
forest
fires
and
what
a
champion
you
are
on
those
issues
and
and
thank
you
to
chief
deputy
noble.
I
know
we've
worked
together
on
legislation
in
the
past.
H
A
couple
of
questions
I
have
and
some
of
the
scenarios
that
others
have
talked
to
me
about-
and
I
know
one
of
them
started
a
forest
fire
a
couple
years
ago
here
in
northern
nevada,
where
fella
was
out
target
shooting-
and
I
don't
know
if
he
was
legally
or
illegally
target
shooting,
but
for
the
purposes
of
argument.
H
If
he,
if
he'd
been
illegally
target
shooting
out
somewhere
and
that
caused
a
fire,
he
hadn't
intended
to
cause
a
fire
on
on
any
land,
but
he,
let's
say,
was
a
legally
target
shooting
under
current
law.
With
the
current
criminal
penalties,
the
court
can
still
order
restitution
for
whatever
damage.
That
does
is
that
correct.
E
G
So,
thank
you,
matt
lee
for
for
the
record
currently
such
as
target
shooting
legally
or
illegally.
Sometimes
those
do
create
a
spark
that
can
cause
a
fire.
However,
I
can't
imagine
how
I
could
make
that
an
arson.
G
The
recast,
recoupment
of
costs
for
the
suppression,
efforts
and
investigation
are
only
available
under
nrs
205.034
for
an
arson
charge
itself,
and
so,
as
it
stands
right
now,
someone
target
shooting
that
caused
the
fire
there
may
be
some
depend
on
what
a
charge
is,
such
as
a
failure
to
extinguish
a
fire
which
is
a
misdemeanor
there
may
be
restitution
for
any
damage
done,
but
certainly
not
to
recoup
suppression
and
investigation
costs
oftentimes.
Those
are
the
larger
costs
than
even
homes.
Burning
down.
C
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
I
also
appreciate
the
bill.
I
think
we're
heading
in
the
right
direction.
If
we're
trying
to
hold
people
accountable
for
catastrophic
loss
due
to
idiotic
behavior,
even
if
they
don't
intend
to
burn
somebody's
house
down,
if
they
should
have
known
that
they're
they're
lighting,
a
fire
in
a
particular
area,
is
likely
to
result
in
that
sort
of
destruction.
I
think
we
ought
to
hold
them
accountable.
C
So
all
this
is
looking
to
do
is
removing
the
evil
intent
piece,
which
is
what,
as
I
read
the
state
v
second
district
case,
what
they
were
kind
of
honing
in
on.
In
fact,
I
thought
it
was
interesting
that
they
that
the
court
said
that
they
we
agree
that
the
state
lacks
an
adequate
remedy
law.
In
this
case,
I
I
understand
that
you
guys
are
kind
of
in
a
gap
where
we
need
to
fix
that.
C
But
my
concern
is
by
changing
the
definition
of
maliciousness
to
all
arson
and,
as
I
understood
the
statutory
scheme,
the
the
the
crime
of
arson
is
different
from
a
property
crime.
To
the
extent
that
arson
has
an
intent
to
do
damage
to
a
structure,
to
someone's
home
down
to
property
and
it's
a
more
serious
crime
than
destruction
of
private
property,
and
so
won't.
C
This
change
make
arson
a
more
inclusive
crime
that
now
we're
moving
from
the
specific
intent
to
burn
somebody's
house
down
to
a
careless
act
where
maybe
they
should
have
known
that
it
would
result
in
in
the
destruction.
Doesn't
this
significantly
broaden
the
scope
of
who's
now
going
to
be
caught
up
in
this
net?.
E
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question,
senator
pickard
a
couple
of
comments
and
and
trying
to
answer
your
question.
First
of
all,
it
had
to
do,
although
we
have
the
word
malicious,
and
there
is
part
of
that
definition
that
talks
about
a
wish
to
vex,
annoy
or
injure
another
person
in
nevada,
there's
also
the
evil
intent
right,
that's
required
by
the
nevada
supreme
court
as
they
interpret
our
statutes.
E
But
these
the
term
maliciously,
is
actually
used
in
a
lot
of
these
common
law
states,
but
it
has
a
little
bit
of
a
different
meaning,
so
we'd
still
have
to
show
either
that
they
were
trying
to.
You
know:
vex,
annoy
or
injure
another
person;
in
other
words,
I'm
going
to
burn
down
or
set
a
fire
in
my
neighbor's
yard,
and
you
know
make
him
mad,
or
we
also
have
changed
the
definition
to
include
an
intent
to
do
a
wrongful
act,
in
other
words
an
unlawful
act.
So
I
have
fireworks.
E
I
know
I'm
not
supposed
to
light
him
right
here.
I
know
that's
against
the
law,
I'm
going
to
do
it
anyway
and
then
I'm
going
to
my
actions
are
going
to
cause.
You
know:
50
000
acres
worth
of
damage,
so
it
would
include
those
type
of
folks,
yes,
but
I
think
in
order
to
incentivize
people
to
stop
engaging
in
this
type
of
behavior,
this
change
is
necessary.
C
All
right,
I
I
guess,
I
would
think
that
the
better
approach
might
be
to
enhance
or
create
a
new
statute
regarding
this,
rather
than
making
all
arson
more
inclusive,
particularly
since
you
know
we're
talking
about
putting
people
away
for
a
long
time.
I
just
I
I
think
that
might
be
a
little
excessive
anyway
I'll,
let
it
go
with
that.
Thank
you,
manager.
A
Of
course,
I'm
gonna
go
to
senator
cazarro
next.
I
Thank
you,
church
rival,
and
I
appreciate
you
all
being
here
and
asking
questions,
and
I
will
say
this:
one
is
probably
in
the
same
vein
as
some
of
my,
but
I
thought.
Maybe
if
I
am
eloquent
enough
to
phrase
it
a
little
differently
that
maybe
we
can
kind
of
answer
the
question
I
don't
know
if
I
will
be
successful
with
that.
I
So
the
biggest
thing
that
I
see
in
these
in
these
definitions
and
how
we
would
typically
define
or
have
to
prove,
maliciously
versus
how
we
would
have
to
do
that
if
it
were
under
this
bill
for
the
wish
to
vexing
or
injure
another
person
or
intent
to
do
a
wrongful
act
seems
to
be
around
this
idea
of
an
evil
intent
which
I
guess
the
first
question
is
that
evil
intent
as
I
understand
it
and
I'll
just
ask
you,
ms
noble
or
mr
lee,
that
that
evil
intent
seems
to
pertain
specifically
to
the
specific
intent
to
do
harm
to
cause
the
harm.
E
Correct
jennifer,
noble
for
the
record:
yes
vice
chair,
cannazara
and.
I
So
because
my
understanding,
okay,
sorry,
I
didn't
mean
to
cut
you
off
sort
of
froze
on
my
end
and
because
we're
removing
that
piece
of
it.
I
I
think
where
everyone's
hesitation
seems
to
be
that
removing
that
starts
to
feel
like
if
someone
was
doing
something
that
they
never
intended
to
cause
harm,
but
that
harm
nonetheless
results
that
we
are
now
sort
of
adding
that
to
the
punishment.
And
can
you
talk
just
a
little
bit
about
what
it,
what
it
would
mean
from
a
practical
circumstance?
And
I
know
we've
heard
a
few
hypotheticals
to
remove
something
like
needing
to
show
an
evil
intent.
E
Well,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Jeff
jennifer
noble
for
the
record
to
vice
chair,
cam,
zero.
What
we're
trying
to
do
essentially,
is
you
know
there
are
things
that
happen
right.
You
could
have
something
occur
with
your
vehicle
or
a
generator.
That's
an
accident
that,
and
now
all
of
a
sudden
we've
got
a
fire
and
it's
catastrophic,
etc,
but
I
mean
most
nevadans.
If
you
grow
up
here,
you
know
that
there
are
certain
areas
where
it's
you
can't
be
using
fireworks.
E
Because
it's
dangerous!
So
if
you
go
in
there
and
you
violate
a
law-
and
this
is
the
result,
I
think
people
are
on
notice
that
you're
not
supposed
to
be
doing
that
and
one
comparison
in
discussions
that
I've
had
with
others
is
to
the
dui
statute.
For
example,
when
you
drive
under
the
influence
of
alcohol,
you
know
that
that's
illegal,
you
know
you're
not
allowed
to
do
that,
and
the
consequence
for
that
crime
could
vary
right
right
because
you
could
get
lucky
get
back
to
your
house
and
not
kill
anybody.
E
You
could
get
pulled
over,
not
kill
anybody
and
get
a
misdemeanor
or
you
could
kill
a
family
of
four
and
now
you're,
looking
at
a
felony
dui
causing
death
charge,
so
it
really
depends.
But
the
important
part
is
that
you
made
that
first
decision
to
violate
a
law
to
do
a
wrongful
act
and
the
consequence
could
vary,
but
the
reason
that
we
treat
that
crime.
That
way
is
because
we
know
of
the
potential
consequence,
and
so
I
think
you
know
as
we're
discussing
this.
E
Evil
intent
for
each
of
the
we're
trying
to
protect
the
community
when
we're
trying
to
protect
our
lands
from
this
type
of
behavior.
That
has
catastrophic
catastrophic
effects
when
people
are
violating
the
law
with
no
regard
for
what
the
consequences
might
be
and
then
not
even
trying
to
ameliorate
anything
by
calling
they
should
be
held
accountable,
and
it
should
be
easier
for
us
to
prove
arson
at
trial.
E
In
drafting
that,
I
believe
my
intent
or
my
thinking
or
you
know
in
requesting
that
language
was
essentially
an
illegal
act,
an
act
that
violates
the
law.
California
uses
the
word
wrongful
act.
I
think
that
an
illegal
act
could
also
be
used,
something
that
violates
the
law,
because
we
do
want
to
get
away
from
something.
That's
a
complete
accident,
where
there's
no
wrong
doing
on
the
part
of
the
person.
I
I
guess
that's
kind
of
what
I
think
all
these
are
trying
to
get
at
is
whether
this
would
punish
something
that
was
merely
accidental,
but
the
way
that
I
read
this
it
would.
It
would,
in
some
instances
expand
liability
for
folks
who
are
engaging
in
an
illegal
act
that
causes
a
destructive
fire.
E
That's
correct:
jennifer,
noble
for
the.
H
Thank
you
very
much
chair
for
the
second
question
and
again
I
appreciate
the
intent
of
the
sponsor,
but
you
know,
looking
back
historically,
when
we've
looked
at
an
increasing
penalties,
enhancing
penalties,
you
know
we
haven't
always
been
able
to
take
that
route
to
solve
societal
problems,
and
here
I
am,
I
am
concerned
about
expanding
this
net
and
having
more
more
people
punished
as
felons
who,
maybe
you
know,
didn't,
have
that
intent
towards
causing
a
fire
and
one
scenario
that
was
broached
to
me
before
the
hearing-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
how
the
bill
would
work
out
in
reality
or
not.
H
But
if
someone,
you
know
buys
an
illegal
firework
and
they
shoot
it
off
and
it
hits
my
shed
and
shed
catches
fire
burns
down
the
shed
that
they
would
be
treated
the
same
as
if
some
someone
poured
gasoline
on
my
shed
and
lit
a
match
because
they
wanted
to
burn
down
the
shed
the
the
way
the
bill
is
written.
Both
both
people
would
be
treated
the
same.
H
The
one
person
obviously
broke
the
law
written
illegal
firework,
but
you
know
probably
didn't
intend
to
cause
a
fire,
but
whereas
the
other
one
clearly
did
intend
to
cause
a
fire
and
burn
down
the
property,
and
I
think
that's
the
concern
I
have.
But
I
hope
that
the
district
attorney's
office
will
work
with
all
the
other
interested
stakeholders
and
maybe
look
at
common
ground.
A
All
right,
I
also
have
a
few
questions
for
our
bill
sponsors
and
our
subject
matter.
Experts
and,
like
my
colleagues,
have
said.
I
also
appreciate
that
we
are
facing
problems
with
fires
that
are
started
by
wrong
actors
or
bad
actors.
That
are
not
necessarily
intentional,
but
you
know
a
wrongful
nonetheless,
and
I
understand
why
we'd
want
to
change
from
a
general
intent
or
from
a
specific
intent
crime
to
a
general
anti-crime.
A
My
my
question
stems
around
the
the
mechanism
that
you've
chosen,
because,
if
I'm
understanding
it
correctly,
basically,
you
know
there
are
a
number
of
different
ways
that
we
could
make
arson
a
general
intent
crime,
specific
crime,
the
strategy
or
the
mechanism
that
this
bill
takes
is
to
keep
the
word
maliciously
in
the
statute
in
205.010
through
205.025,
keep
maliciously
exactly
where
it
is,
and
then
add
this
definition
of
maliciously.
A
That
includes
the
intent
to
do
any
other
wrongful
act,
and
so
I
have
a
series
of
three
questions
that
just
seemed
to
me
like
less
cumbersome
ways
to
to
do
the
same
thing,
but
I'm
wondering
what
I'm
missing
and
so
the
first
one
is:
why
don't
we
utilize
the
language?
That's
used
in
the
breaking
injury
for
champion
with
the
motor
vehicle
statute,
206.310,
which
uses
willful
or
militias.
A
Okay
and
then
my
other
question
was
why
we're
using
the
term
wrongful
instead
of
unlawful,
either
in
the
definition
or
putting
into
205.010
through
0.025
a
person
who
willfully
or
unlawfully
sets
fire
to
and
then
continue
the
statute.
I
think
that
would
also
create
a
general
intent
crime
without
then
having
definitions
of
militias
that
are
different
for
fire
setting
versus
slashing
tires
of
a
car
versus
placing
graffiti
on
a
an
electric
box.
Those
are
the
other
places
that
I
think
we
use
the
term
malicious.
E
Jennifer
noble
for
the
record
no
chair,
I
don't
think
you're
missing
anything
and
originally
looking
at
this
language.
The
intent
was
sort
of
take
it
straight
from
the
other
common
law
jurisdictions,
but
there
may
be,
and
it
sounds
like
there
may
well
be
more
than
one
way
to
thread
that
needle
so
if
you
want
to
take
perhaps
the
word
malicious
out
of
it
all
together
and
change
it
to
willfully
or
unlawfully.
E
A
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
explore
those
options
and
I
appreciate
your
your
responsiveness.
A
K
Once
again
to
testify
in
support
on
sb
113,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
721,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin
once
again,
caller
with
the
last
three
digits.
Seven,
two
one,
please
press
star
six
now
to
unmute
yourself,
then
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
K
B
This
is
todd
inglesby,
t-o-d-d,
last
name
I-n-g-a-l-s-b,
as
in
boy
e-e
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
todd
ingles
inglesb,
representing
the
professional
firefighters
in
nevada.
We
want
to
support
sb
113.
We
would
like
to
thank
senator
keith,
kepper
and
jennifer
noble
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
As
senator
keycapper
said
in
his
presentation,
we
have
seen
the
impact
of
these
fires
over
the
past
few
years.
Firsthand
as
we
increase
our
urban
interface
and
more
people
are
calling
these
areas
home.
The
risks
are
becoming
even
more
dangerous
and
the
costs
greater.
B
These
fires
have
a
huge
economic
impact,
an
environmental
impact
and
our
members
have
seen
firsthand
the
devastation
and
destruction
these
fires
leave
behind.
We
have
also
lost
brothers
and
sisters
fighting
these
fires.
I
feel
this
bill
could
close
some
existing
loopholes
in
our
current
statute.
I
want
to
thank
the
chair
and
committee
members
for
your
time
and
your
consideration
on
this
matter,
and
that's
all
I
have
unless
you
have
any
questions
for.
K
L
113
arson
should
be
addressed
as
a
crime
that
it
is
police
support,
113
to
re-establish
arson
as
a
viable
and
chargeable
crime
in
the
state
of
nevada,
without
the
deterrent
of
arson
pyramid
lake
believes
that
nevada
will
not
have
the
proper
deterrence
on
the
book
to
prevent
future
reckless
acts
of
fire
in
our
arab
state
because
of
their
personal.
You
know,
participation
in
the
perry
fire
and
the
losses
that
they
had
there.
It
is
sort
of
a
personal
issue
to
them
when
the
supreme
court
case
did
come
down
and
then
hearing
the
arguments
today.
L
I
I
don't
think
it's
the
opinion
of
people
like
that
it
has
to
be
a
felony
and
or
some
other,
you
know
misdemeanor
or
gross
misdemeanor,
but
it
does
have
to
be
a
crime,
that's
chargeable
in
the
state
that
can
be
stuck
to
somebody
who
who
did
create
a
mass
destruction,
act
via
an
act
of
arson.
So
thank
you
and
again,
please
support
senate
bill.
113.
appreciate
it.
K
A
All
right
there
being
nobody
else
wishing
to
give
testimony
in
support
of
sb113.
I'm
sorry
chair,
I'm.
K
K
K
A
K
K
K
M
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
david
westbrook
d-a-v-I-d,
w-e-s-t
b-r-o-o-k,
I'm
a
chief
deputy
pd
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
attorney
for
criminal
justice.
Nacj
opposes
sb
113
because
it
would
needlessly
expand
criminal
liability
under
nevada's
arson
statutes
and
treat
people
with
innocent
motives
as
though
they
had
malicious
criminal
intent.
M
Fire
is
unpredictable.
It
can
be
set
by
accident
and
spread
rapidly,
which
is
why
our
arson
statute
was
carefully
written
to
require
specific
intent.
The
statute
criminalizes
the
willful
and
malicious
burning
of
property,
because
lawmakers
recognize
that
there
is
a
difference
between
a
man
who
burns
down
his
house
because
he
forgot
a
pot
on
the
stove
and
a
man
who
torches
his
own
house
for
the
insurance
money.
In
short,
there
can
be
no
accidental
arsonists,
but
sb
113
would
change
that
and,
like
the
perry
fire
itself,
the
result
would
be
unintentionally
devastating.
M
If
sp
113
passes
it
will
effectively
criminalize
unintentional
and
even
unforeseeable
acts
that
result
in
fire.
It
will
do
this
by
allowing
prosecutors
to
use
misdemeanor
statutes
like
laws
against
littering
or
creating
a
public
nuisance
as
a
basis
to
charge
felony
person
a
tourist
who
didn't
grow
up
in
this
area,
who
accidentally
lets
a
campfire
get
out
of
control
could
receive
the
same
felony
charge
as
a
real
arsonist
who
douses
the
campsite
in
gasoline
because
he
wants
to
watch
the
forest
burn.
The
catalytic
converter
point
made
earlier
was
a
great
example.
M
If
failing
to
fix
that
car
falls
under
any
misdemeanor
statute,
even
traffic,
then
the
driver
can
be
charged
with
felony
arson
under
sb
113.
So
can
the
guy
shooting
in
the
desert
by
the
way
it
is
any
wrongful
act,
and
that
is
the
danger.
None
of
us
want
to
see.
Tragedies
like
the
perry
fire,
but
broadening
our
criminal
laws
and
creating
harsher
prison
sentences
will
do
nothing
to
prevent
them.
It
is
logically
impossible
to
deter
someone.
K
J
Hello,
this
is
vinnie
spottelson
v,
I
n
n
y
s,
p,
o
t,
l
e
s,
o
n,
calling
from
eight
nine
one,
two
three,
I'm
calling
in
opposition
to
this
bill.
As
an
environmentalist,
I
don't
like
when
people
associate
protecting
the
environment
with
big
brother,
I'm
worried
that
this
won't
actually
prevent
any
fires,
because
the
people
who
do
this
stuff
don't
follow
the
legislature
or
obscure
changes
in
nrs.
J
What
would
actually
help
prevent
these
fires
from
getting
catastrophic
is
more
funding.
I
don't
know
for
maybe
the
division
of
forestry,
but
definitely
more
funding
to
remove
invasive
weeds
and
grasses,
that
spread
fires
and
to
continue
fighting
climate
change
by
continuing
to
reduce
our
reliance
on
fossil
fuels
for
transportation
and
electricity.
J
So,
overall,
I
just
think
that
we
need
less
authoritarian
governance.
That's
just
going
to
increase
fines
and
jail
time
for
people
that
you
know
can't
pay
those
fines
anyway
and
it
doesn't
solve
the
problem
of
the
actual
wildfires,
which
is
what
we're
trying
to
get
at
we're
really
trying
to
prevent
these
from
happening,
and
I
don't
think
this
bill
does
anything
to
actually
prevent
them
from
happening.
It
just
changes
the
law
and
makes
the
punishment
after
it
happens
more
severe.
Thank
you
so
much.
K
N
Hello
and
thank
you
chair,
scheible
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
nick
chipak
and
I
c-k-s-h-e-p-a-c-k
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
stand
in
opposition
with
our
colleagues
from
the
defense
bar
and
echo
their
sentiments
this
poli.
The
policy
of
this
state,
has
been
to
move
away
from
arbitrarily
establishing
new
category
be
selling.
N
I
myself
grew
up
in
lake
tahoe
and
have
seen
firsthand
how
negligent
use
of
fireworks
cigarettes
in
one
time
a
can
of
gasoline
and
live
lizards
can
devastate
a
community,
destroy
homes,
cancel
sports
seasons
for
kids
and
scar
landscapes.
For
days
I
would
be
lying
if
I
said
that
as
a
kid
in
the
tahoe
basin,
we
never
brought
home
fireworks
from
sports
trips
to
battle
mountain
or
that
we
didn't
gather
around
illegal
fires
in
the
woods
in
high
school
to
enjoy
the
exploits
of
our
new
friend
with
a
fake
id.
N
We
got
lucky
too
many
times
and
I
hope
my
future
kids
are
much
safer
and
more
educated
on
the
dangers
than
we
were.
What
we
did
not
know,
and
what
most
nevadans
are
unaware
of-
is
a
level
of
felony
or
misdemeanor
of
any
given
crime,
including
arson
that
causes
damage
more
than
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
a
concept
completely
foreign
to
any
kid
and
most
adults.
Even
as
someone
who
works
in
the
criminal
justice
field,
I
am
often
surprised
to
find
out
how
certain
crimes
are
categorized.
N
The
protection
of
our
beautiful
state
and
the
force
my
family
call
home
is
a
noble
venture,
but
this
bill
is
not
likely
to
deter
the
behavior
it
aims
to
address.
This
can
be
done
in
part
through
education
of
both
local
residents
and
visiting
tourists.
We
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
people
are
sending
wildfires
through
neglectful
behavior,
because
they
are
aware
that
the
penalties
are
currently
acceptable
to
them.
We
would
love
nothing
more
than
to
find
ways
to
ensure
the
protection
of
our
public
lands
and
communities,
but
we
cannot
endorse
the
creation
of
new
felonies.
N
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
seeing
as
there
is
nobody
else
in
the
queue
for
opposition
testimony,
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
sb
113.
K
M
M
Thank
you
chair.
I
wanted
to
say
a
few
things.
This
is
john
pirro
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office.
Sb
113
represents
an
old
way
of
solving
problems
with
the
criminal
code
in
nevada
that
we
moved
away
from
last
session,
with
the
passing
of
ab236,
as
senator
pickard
said
that
this
proposal
would
broaden
to
catch
people
without
criminal
intent.
M
There
are
plenty
of
good
wildfire
policy
bills
that
will
become
before
this
legislature,
such
as
ab-100
and
ab-139,
which
represent
bipartisan
efforts
to
try
to
curb
the
problems
that
wildfires
present,
because
we
all
care
about
preserving
the
land
that
we
live
in.
Proposing
a
change
to
malice
for
one
type
of
case
is
a
dangerous
president
to
set
again
with
the
diversion
thing
that
mrs
noble
said,
I
would
say
yes,
mostly
mentally
ill
people
are
charged
with
arson.
M
However,
diversion
is
not
an
option
because
people
with
mental
illness
that
commit
arson
cannot
go
live
at
group
homes
due
to
the
risk,
so
diversion
is
not
an
option
for
these
people
and,
as
senator
picker
pointed
out
that
catalytic
converter
example,
I
would
not
put
that
past
some
prosecutorial
minds.
M
Nrs475.040
covers
gross
negligence.
This
bill
is
not
a
matter
of
good
policy
and
I'd
ask
this
committee
to
not
pass
this
bill.
That
concludes
my
testimony.
Thank
you,
chair.
K
O
Good
afternoon,
this
is
kendra:
burchie
k,
e
n
d,
r,
a
b
e
r
t
s
c
y.
Thank
you
sheriff
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary.
As
you
know,
I'm
the
lobbyist
for
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
believe
I
will
also
have
mr
don
petty,
who
is
our
chief
appellate
deputy
public
defender,
testifying
opposition
to
this
bill,
but
I
just
want
to
provide
some
brief
remarks
regarding
why
we
are
opposing
this
bill.
O
And
so
we
are
objecting
for
this
reason,
and
I
would
just
note
that,
as
mr
pearl
indicated,
I've
had
clients
with
mental
health
issues
who
accidentally
or
who
do
set
fire
to
a
brush
or
to
some
land,
and
then
it
is
very
difficult
in
order
to
get
them
into
that
treatment
when
they
are
charged
with
arson,
because
it
is
considered
a
violent
offense.
So
with
that,
I
thank
you
so
much
for
allowing
me
to
test.
If
I
appreciate
it.
K
A
A
I
think
there
may
be
somebody
already
in
the
queue
do
you
show
somebody
in
the
queue
mr
kyle.
K
P
A
P
I
think
that
some
of
the
testimony
that
was
heard,
of
changing
to
willful
or
unlawfully
is
also
another
potential
avenue
for
this
for
truckee
meadows
fire.
One
of
the
things
that
we
had
discussed
was.
We
would
like
to
see
number
four
in
penalties
of
section.
2
of
this
proposed
bill
be
amended
to
gross
misdemeanor
rather
than
a
misdemeanor,
because
this
is
for
an
act
of
gross
negligence.
A
All
right,
due
to
our
technical
difficulties,
I'm
going
to
go
through
each
category
one
more
time
very
quickly,
because
I
do
also
see
that
there
are
a
couple
of
callers
still
on
the
line.
If
there's
anybody
else
who
miss
support,
testimony
go
ahead
and
hit
star
9.
A
A
Perfect
all
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
help,
mr
kyle.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
your
patience
with
that
and
to
everybody
who
provided
their
thoughts
via
testimony
today,
either
in
writing
or
on
the
phone.
That
concludes
our
hearing
on
sb
113.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
today.
We
do
have
a
bill
draft
request
for
introduction.
A
It
is
number
14-377
that
is
the
next
item
on
our
agenda.
So,
pursuant
to
senate
joint
standing
rule,
14
committee
members
must
vote
to
approve
the
drafting
of
legislative
measures
requested
by
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary.
Please
remember.
A
vote
in
favor
does
not
indicate
your
support
for
the
bill,
but
merely
allows
these
bills
to
be
drafted
today.
Request
the
committee's
approval
of
one
bill.
Draft
bdr
14-377
establishes
provisions
relating
to
conditions
of
release
that
prohibit
the
contact
or
attempted
contact
with
certain
persons.
A
A
Matter,
I
am
not
seeing
any
so
will
the
secretary
please
take
a
roll
call
vote
and,
as
always,
I
will
ask
our
members
to
answer
with
yes
or
no
for
clarity.
O
C
C
A
Also,
yes,
thank
you,
everybody
with
that.
The
motion
passes
and
we
will
move
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda.
For
today,
which
is
public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
wishing
to.
A
K
K
A
All
right,
I
think
we
did
plenty
of
cue
entering
exercises
today,
so
I
will
trust
that
none
of
them
are
here
for
public
comment,
and
that
will
conclude
today's
meeting.
We
do
not
have
a
meeting
tomorrow
enjoy
a
long
lunch
and
I
will
see
you
all
on
thursday
for
our
work
session
at
1pm.