►
From YouTube: 4/23/2021 - 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
Well,
nothing
is
working
right
now,
but
I
would
like
to
call
this
meeting
to
order
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
and
ask
the
secretary
to
please
take
the
role.
C
A
Scheible
sorry,
I
am
here.
I
also
thought
I
saw
senator
orrin
shaw's
assistant
on
the
zoom,
so
when
he
is
here
either
in
zoom
or
in
person,
if
the
secretary
would
please
mark
him
present,
I
will
try
to
let
you
know
when
that
is.
We
have
three
bills
up
for
hearing
today
we
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
ab23
and
our
presenter,
I
believe,
is
dr
neighbors
via
zoom.
D
D
D
Requested
by
the
prosecutor
in
criminal
cases
under
nevada,
revised
statute,
178.461,
subsection
2.
and
just
as
a
little
background
to
that
nevada.
Revised
statute
178.461
allows
for
an
individual
who
is
incompetent
without
probability
of
attaining
confidence
and
who
is
charged
with
a
category
a
felony
and
a
limited
list
of
category
b
felonies
to
be
committed
to
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health
for
up
to
10
years.
D
Too
dangerous
to
be
committed
to
the
civil
system.
This
comprehensive
risk
assessment
once
a
person
has
been
found,
incompetent
provides
information
to
the
court
to
assist
in
making
this
decision,
which
is
obviously
a
pretty
weighty
decision
for
the
lengthy
time
that
the
person
can
be
committed
in
all
cases
other
where
the
charge
is
other
than
murder
or
sexual
assault.
D
D
D
And
so
this
has
resulted
in
repeated
requests
for
extensions
to
the
court
pretty
much
consistently
with
almost
all
of
them
that
we
have
to
complete.
And
so
we
are
trying
to
make
the
time
frames
with
this
bill
more
reasonable
and
to
allow
the
evaluators
to
do
the
really
responsible
assessment
that
they
would
that
they
need
to
do.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just,
and
thank
you,
dr
neighbors.
That
was
helpful.
I
just
I'm
not
a
criminal
lawyer,
but
this
is
certainly
this
seems
to
be
aligned
with
what
is
currently
in
practice,
except
for
the
time.
Is
there
anything
else
in
this
bill
that
changes
the
procedure
other
than
the
timing
in
any
material.
A
E
A
D
We
can
thanks.
Oh
okay,
thank
you
through
you,
chair
to
senator
pickard.
No,
it
doesn't
change
anything
except
the
time
frame
it.
Actually,
the
time
frame
enhances
us
being
able
to
follow
national
standards
and
completing
what
would
be
an
acceptable,
comprehensive
risk
assessment.
D
They
involve
a
number
of
standardized
instruments
and
requirements
for
data
collection.
That
is
very
time-consuming,
so
it
really
helps
us
meet
those
standards
that
are
expected
nationally.
For
these
types
of
reports,.
E
A
All
right,
then,
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
in
support
of
ab23.
A
A
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
kyle.
There's
no
one
present
here
today
to
give
testimony
in
any
position
on
any
bill,
and
I
will
let
everybody
know
if
that
changes.
F
F
G
F
H
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheibold
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
also
would
like
to
thank
dr
neighbors,
as
well
as
her
staff
for
speaking
with
us
on
several
different
occasions
regarding
this
bill
for
the
timing.
As
indicated,
we
do
understand
that
these
are
very
comprehensive
risk
assessments
and
they
need
to
have
additional
time
than
the
normal
guidelines
set
forth
for
other
evaluations.
H
F
F
C
Hi,
jim
hoffman
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
nacj
supports
ab23.
Our
ideal
preference
would
be
to
keep
the
seven
days
deadline.
That's
currently
in
statute.
In
a
practical
sense,
we
understand
that
this
takes
a
lot
of
work
from
the
division
and
with
their
current
level
of
funding.
It's
simply
not
practical
to
do
it
on
such
a
short
turnaround.
C
So
on
the
assumption
that
the
legislature
is
not
going
to
find
any
new
sources
of
funding
40
days
is
an
acceptable
compromise
with
us.
I'd
also
like
to
echo
the
previous
testimony.
We
appreciate
dr
neighbors
and
her
staff
for
working
with
us.
There
were
some
extensive
discussions
and
we
support
this
bill.
Thank.
F
D
D
Okay
for
the
record
again,
my
name
is
elizabeth
nabors,
e-l-I-z-a-b-e-t-h
capital-n-e-I-g-h-b-o-r-s,
and
I
am
the
statewide
forensic
director
for
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health,
and
I
am
here
today
to
testify
in
support
of
ab25,
which
is
again
kind
of
an
extension
of
our
management
of
our
folks
who
are
committed
under
nrs
178.461.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
However,
given
the
complexities
of
docketing
hearings,
it
may
be
with
the
agreement
of
all
the
parties
extended
up
to
10
days.
So
really,
the
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
improve
the
safety
of
this
process
and
respond
quickly
when
there,
if
there
should
be
an
incident
with
an
individual
that
we
have
placed
in
the
community.
We
hope
we've
done
a
good
enough
job
that
that
won't
happen.
D
With
this,
we
did
do
some
amendments
that
everyone
was
agreeable
to,
and
we
appreciate
the
time
and
effort
that
everyone
put
into
reaching
the
final
product
that
we
have
here,
and
we
appreciate
the
committee
considering
this,
hopefully
in
sport.
Today
and
again,
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
about
this
procedure.
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
dr
neighbors.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
I
guess
my
question
is
just
currently
under
the
present
statutory
framework.
Have
there
been
difficulties
when
someone
you're
supervising
has
a
crisis
and
what
just
trying
to
understand
why
you
need
this
change
in
the
law?
What
have
been
the
difficulties
you've
encountered
with
the
current
system
of
notifying
the
court.
D
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
these
are
not
large
numbers.
Obviously
this
the
the
population
who
are
placed
in
the
community
come
from
a
very
small
pool
of
people,
so
we
don't
have
large
numbers.
D
But
yes,
we
have
had
some
situations
where
we
had
to
under
very
pressured
circumstances,
try
and
get
the
order
to
bring
a
person
back
who
was
being
violent
in
a
facility
and
where
there
was
a
risk
of
injury
to
staff
or
peers.
D
If
you
would
like
more
information
about
any
of
those
kinds
of
events,
I'd
be
happy
to
get
them
for
you,
but
but
that
was
our
concern
in
changing
this
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
with
the
then
to
have
to
incorporate
all
of
this
into
the
orders
that
we
get
from
the
court
each
time
we
place.
Somebody
is
one
way
to
you
know
accommodate
for
this,
but
it
would
be
preferable
if
it
was
in
the
statute,
so
that
it
was
clear
and
everyone
was
following
the
same
rules.
F
F
F
G
Good
afternoon,
chair
chavel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pierre
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
and
again
we'd
like
to
thank
dr
neighbors
for
bringing
this
measure
forward,
hearing
our
concerns
and
working
with
all
interested
parties
to
bring
forward
the
best
bill
possible.
We
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
F
C
F
H
Good
afternoon
sarah
scheibel
members
of
the
committee-
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
want
to
echo
our
support
and
appreciation
for
dr
neighbors
and
her
staff
for
discussing
our
concerns
and
addressing
them
with
the
amended
version
of
this
bill.
I
would
just
add
that,
in
our
conversations
that
this
really
only
applies
to
less
than
20
individuals,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
committee
had
that
information
with
the
small
population
that
we
are
dealing
with.
Additionally,
the
way
that
it
to
answer
senator
orrinshaw's
question.
H
The
way
that
this
is
currently
handled
in
practice
is
a
lot
of
the
times.
Our
clients
will
end
up
back
at
the
washoe
county
jail
or
back
in
custody.
We
believe
that
this
will
help
aid
to
facilitate
getting
the
individual
directly
to
the
treatment
center,
which
recognizes
the
fact
that
a
mental
health
crisis
is
a
public
health
crisis
and
not
a
police
matter.
So
we
really
appreciate
this
bill
and
urge
your
support.
Thank.
F
A
J
Okay,
good
afternoon,
chair
tribal
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
kathy
kaplan,
the
chief
of
child
support
enforcement
with
the
division
of
welfare
and
supportive
services.
I
will
be
presenting
ab30
or
406
today
with
amendment
326
also
on
the
call
is
candace
mcdaniel.
She
is
our
deputy
administrator
over
field
operations
for
the
division
of
welfare
and
supportive
services.
J
J
Existing
statute
allows
for
the
withholding
for
support
for
a
child
from
any
money
due
in
obligor
as
a
judgment,
a
settlement
or
the
prize
from
any
contest
or
lottery
ab406,
as
amended
seeks
the
authority
to
provide
gambling
winnings
as
a
qualifying
source
of
money
from
which
to
be
withheld,
whether
payable
periodically
or
in
a
lump
sum.
Gambling
winnings
are
to
be
defined
as
winnings
at
a
licensed
gaming
establishment,
which
are
required
to
be
reported
to
the
internal
revenue
service
on
form.
J
W2G
additional
collections
from
gambling
winnings
distributed
to
custodial
parents
will
increase
the
self-sufficiency
of
children
and
families
while
reducing
the
burden
on
state
resources
in
the
form
of
public
assistance
programs.
As
with
other
enforcement
tools
utilized
by
the
program,
procedural
due
justice
will
be
applied
and
obligors
will
be
provided
with
the
opportunity
to
contest
the
withholding.
B
Thank
you
so
much
chair
schaible.
My
question
relates
to
how
much
we
anticipate
this
bringing
in,
given
that
I
know
we
have
locals
who
who
participate
in
gambling
at
a
lot
of
our
casinos.
But
you
know,
tourism
is
is
really
the
the
key
here,
and
so
I
I'm
imagining
most
winners
of
of
large
pots
of
money
are
are
from
out
of
state
and
we
don't
really
have
jurisdiction
to
collect
that.
So,
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
much
additional
child
support
you
anticipate
this
being
able
to
recover.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
kathy
kaplan
for
the
record.
At
this
time,
we
don't
have
a
projection
of
what
it
would
look
like
the
bill
with
the
amendment
is
just
giving
us
the
ability
to
give
a
withholding
to
a
gaming
establishment
if
we're
aware
of
the
gambling
winning.
B
I
Thank
you,
chair
strebel.
I
think
my
question's
in
line
with
senator
harris
is,
I
was
just
wondering
if,
if
this
passes
and
let's
say
a
custodial
parent
informs
your
office
that
the
other
parent
who's
arrears
in
child
support-
let's
say
you
know
regularly
goes
to
a
certain
establishment
or
as
part
of
the
the
players
club,
you
know
to
win
prizes,
the
more
they
play.
I
Would
you
be
able
to
just
submit
that
order
to
that
casino
and
just
try
to
make
sure
that
when
there
are
winnings,
whether
they're
a
hundred
dollars
or
five
thousand
dollars
that
that
portion
could
be
deducted
for
their
arrears
child
support?
Or
do
you
think
that
would
that
would
work?
Or
do
you
think
there
need
to
be
regulation
from
the
the
gaming
commissioner
gaming
control
board?
I
just
wondered
how
you
see
implementing
this,
to
make
it
most
effective,
because
it
seems
like
a
great
idea
just
would
like
to
see
it
implemented
effectively.
J
Kathy
kaplan
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
For
the
next
couple
of
years,
we
plan
on
working
with
our
stakeholders
to
try
to
implement
this
process,
to
make
it
more
effective.
This
just
kind
of
lays
the
foundation
that
if
we
are
aware
that
there
is
a
a
big
payout
to
somebody,
we
could
get
that
income
withholding
order
in
place.
A
F
F
G
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
deshaun
jackson
v-a-f-h-u-n-j-c-k-s-o-n
I
serve
as
the
director
of
children's
safety
and
welfare
policy,
the
children's
advocacy
alliance.
The
alliance
stands
in
support
of
assembly
bill
406.
Thank
you.
So.
F
B
B
F
B
F
F
A
Thank
you,
mr
kyle,
and
with
that
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
ab406.
Thank
you
to
our
presenters
for
joining
us
and
presenting
the
bill
and
answering
the
questions.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
those
people
who
called
in
and
testified
and
demonstrated
with
excellent
skill
how
you
can
use
far
less
than
two
minutes
to
make
your
point,
and
with
that
we
will
move
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
Mr
kyle,
is
there
anybody
wishing
to
give
public
comment.