►
From YouTube: 3/2/2021 - 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
miss
wells,
and
it
is
indeed
one
o'clock.
I
will
call
the
senate
judiciary
to
order
today
is
march
2nd,
and
I
would
like
to
start
with
the
rule.
If
you
would
please
esteemed
secretary.
C
A
Thank
you
and
mr
guyan,
if
you
could
put
on
the
record
any
staff
members
who
are
present.
D
A
Thank
you
so
much.
I
don't
think
we
really
have
any
housekeeping
to
do
today.
Rules
are
the
same
as
always,
so
we
encourage
people
to
submit
written
testimony
if
they
would
like
also
to
participate
by
phone.
You
have
to
click
on
the
participate
button
on
nellis,
give
us
your
name
and
phone
number
so
that
you're
registered
with
broadcast
services.
We
have
one
bill
to
here
today.
It
is
being
presented
by
a
member
of
our
committee,
the
inevitable
senator
james
settlemyer,
and
that
will
be
sb
94..
A
If
you
are
ready,
senator
settlemyre,
then
please
go
ahead.
I
will
open
the
hearing.
D
Thank
you
chair
again,
james
settlemeyer,
for
the
record
district
17..
First,
I
need
to
apologize
to
the
entire
committee.
As
this
bill,
I've
found
out
over
the
last
24
hours
magically
has
become
less
soup
than
I'd
hoped,
and
in
that
respect
I
want
to
apologize
for
that.
This
still
started
out
as
an
offshoot
of
a
bill
from
two
bills.
From
last
session,
the
first
one
this
committee
passed
out
was
senate
bill
221.
D
Finally,
solving
the
issue
that
if
land
is
cultivated,
it
is
pretty
much
assumed
to
be
private
property
and
therefore
people
should
not
be
hunting
and
fishing
on
people's
cultivated
lands
without
asking
permission.
So
I'm
very
grateful
for
that
off
of
that
one
of
my
colleagues
senator
hanson
and
myself,
he
had
an
issue
which
I
agreed
with.
People
also
should
not
be
locking
off
property
that
is
public
to
individuals
and
unfortunately,
we
had
some
bad
actors
out
there
that
were
taking
public
roads
and
putting
locks
on
them
on
the
gates
that
are
on
those
roads.
D
That,
of
course,
creates
another
problem,
and
if
you
look
on
xmap
or
anything
of
that
nature,
you'll
see
parcels
that
are
in
this
particular
picture.
I'm
trying
to
show
on
the
screen
all
around
in
the
green
is
owned
by
the
forest
service,
but
this
person
has
a
private
lot
in
the
direct
middle
of
forest
service
property.
D
I
do
not
believe
that
that
was
the
body's
intent
when
we
passed
senate
bill
316.
Last
time,
however,
the
da's
are
saying
it
is,
and
that
comes
from
d.a
in
douglas
county
sam
taylor,
humboldt
county
d.a
was
kind
of
saying
the
same
thing
since
then.
This
bill
coming
out
senate
bill
94..
Some
of
the
language
that
was
proposed
was
to
clear
that
up
that
a
person
did
have
a
right
to
have
a
gate,
but
then
individuals
indicated
well.
D
You
clearly
need
to
market
it's
a
public
road,
because
also
we
had
situations
where
individuals
had
a
gate
and
they'd
say
private
property,
but
it's
a
public
road,
and
so
people
were
coming
up
to
the
gate
and
saying
well:
okay,
I
don't
have
the
right
to
be
here
so
then
they
turn
around
that's
wrong.
That
person
was
using
the
terminology
on
a
sign
to
kind
of
scare
people
away.
So
we
put
language
in
again
working
with
sam
taylor
from
douglas
county,
the
da
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
alleviate
these
problems.
D
That,
unfortunately,
has
created
many
issues
within
the
cattlemen's
association
and
the
farm
bureau,
because
the
signage
could
be
an
incredible
increase
in
cost
and
also
who
then
now
keeps
the
sign.
Now
myself,
when
we
had
rangeland
in
california,
we
actually
just
took
out
a
router
and
made
the
sign,
and
then
I
got
the
privilege
of
having
to
paint
it
and
upkeep
it
every
year.
But
you
tried
to
get
in
arguments
about
signs.
Naco
had
many
concerns.
D
They
were
worried
that
it
creates
a
pretty
burdensome
problem
for
the
counties
to
jump
forward
and
make
the
determination
at
this
point
in
time.
What
seems
to
be
the
most
logical
and
again,
I'm
continuing
to
meet
with
john
pirro
he's
very
concerned
with
section
five
wants
it
to
go
away:
alex
ortiz
the
cattle
association
and
the
farm
bureau
representatives
were
meeting
we're
trying
to
find
a
solution.
I
will
loop
in
the
committee
chair
when
something
comes
a
little
bit
more
in
that
respect,
but
it
seems
more
likely.
It
may
be
easier.
D
D
Otherwise
the
fence
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
use,
and
with
that,
madam
sure,
I'll
gladly
stand
for
questions.
I
apologize
to
you
chair
rather
sorry
chair
for
not
having
this
more
consistent,
but
it
as
it
is
always
amazing
how
often
things
come
up
once
it
gets
scheduled
for
hearing
that
tends
to
sometimes
flush
out
some
issues
and
problems.
But
I
will
assure
you
chair.
A
All
right
well,
thank
you.
Senator
settlemeyer,
we've
all
been
in
your
shoes
trying
to
pass
legislation
and
then,
when
the
hearing
comes
around,
sometimes
we
learn
new
things,
so
I
am
going
to
open
up
for
questions
from
the
members
of
our
committee.
A
F
Thank
you
chair.
Actually,
unfortunately,
our
legal
counsel
isn't
here
today.
That's
really
who
I
have
these
questions
for
so
we
may
have
to.
We
may
have
to
wait
on
some
of
this,
because
there
are
a
couple
of
things
in
the
law
that
I
think
will
help
address
the
concerns
that
were
brought
up
here.
One
is,
I
know
there
was
a
statute
in
law.
Maybe
patrick
can
look
it
up
right
now.
F
If,
if
you
come
to
a
gate,
you
have
to
leave
the
gate
in
the
same
position
that
you
find
it
it's
open,
you
leave
it
open
it's
closed.
It's
close,
so
I
think,
there's
an
implication
in
law
already
that
allows
gates
on
roads
that
could
be
public
easements,
but
that's
something
I'd
like
to
get
addressed.
The
other
concern
is
I
I
haven't
the
humboldt
county
d.a,
for
example,
that's
in
my
district.
F
My
my
concern
with
the
bill
from
last
session
is
the
right
of
the
public
to
access
the
public
domain
and
what
I've
seen
consistently
over
the
years
in
nevada
is
slowly
but
surely
private
landowners
are
locking
these
gates
that
are
on
roads
that
are
essentially
either
rs247.
Rs2477
easements
or
a
prescriptive
easements
have
been
used
for
a
long
time.
So
I
think
that
this
is
already
addressed
in
law,
but
certainly
I
I
share
with
senator
settlemyre.
F
My
concern
is
to
make
sure
that
these
easements,
that
the
public
uses
to
access
public
land
for
multiple
these
purposes
remain
open,
so
I'm
certainly
going
to
work
with
senator
settlemeyer
on
any
of
these
things,
but
I
do
think
we
have
some
some
issues
here.
That
may
not
really
be
issues
if
we
had
some
legal
counsel
that
could
kind
of
address
it,
but
anyway
patrick
interview
and
chairman
tribal.
If
you
want
to
jump
into
on
that,
I.
A
Do
I
do
senator,
and
I
appreciate
I,
I
appreciate
your
interest
in
this
issue
and
it
does
sound
like
senator
settlemyre
is
willing
to
work
on
this
issue.
As
all
of
you
know,
our
fantastic
committee
council,
nick
anthony,
is
busy
drafting
all
of
the
bills
that
we
want
to
introduce
and
run
this
year,
so
he
has
been
excused
to
do
that
today
and
we
will
certainly
follow
up
with
him.
A
I
will
ask
him
your
question
specifically,
and
also
it
sounds
like
there
may
be
changes
coming
anyway
and
we'll
be
sure
to
run
all
of
those
by
mr
anthony
will
provide
the
answers
back
to
the
whole
committee
at
the
time
of
the
work
session.
If
there's
a
work
session
scheduled
for
this,
this
bill
and
senator
settlemeyer,
would
you
like
to
weigh
in
as
well
I'm.
D
Going
to
elaborate
chair
that
just
doing
a
quick,
google
search
yeah,
an
nrs
207.22
describes
the
penalties
associated
with
not
closing
a
gate,
so
I
did
find
that
mr
hansen,
as
we
were
talking
just
now
online,
so
I
will
continue
to
work
with
mr
hanson
on
that
particular
issue.
But
if
I
could
redirect
almost
to
mr
hansen,
I
think
mr
hansen
you'd
agree
on
the
record
that
the
intent
of
your
bill
was
never
to
create
a
situation
where
someone
didn't
have
a
right
to
have
a
gate
on
their
private
property.
D
A
Not
right
now,
I'm
going
to
ask
that
members
of
the
committee
can
ask
questions
of
the
sponsors
of
the
bill
if
the
sponsors
want
to
clarify
with
members
of
the
committee
offline
you're
welcome
to
do
that.
Is
there
anybody
else
with
a
question.
E
E
G
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
settlemeyer
for
hearing
our
concerns
and
is
going
to
put
us
in
a
working
group
on
this
bill.
Our
objection
is
to
one
small
part
of
the
bill.
It's
section
one
subsection,
five,
subsection
a5,
which
deals
with
the
word
public
way.
G
G
E
C
Hello,
thank
you.
My
name
is
russell
coleman.
That
is
spelled
k-u-h-l-m-a-n.
My
comment
is
regarding
section
two.
I
also
feel
that
this
wording
is
fairly
broad
and
am
concerned
that
this
would
mean
if
I
was
to
legally
access
a
public
road
and
cause
rut,
marks
or
become
involved
in
an
accident
and
slide
off
the
road
damaging
the
nearby
road
property
I
could
be
held
accountable
and
sued
by
that
property
owner.
I
feel
that
that
wording
should
be
more
towards
the
deliberate
damage
of
private
property
instead
of
the
blanket
language
that
it
currently
is.
Thank
you.
E
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
colby
prout.
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
at
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
Sorry
colby,
prout,
c-o-l-b-y
p-r-o-u-t.
H
H
H
However,
if
a
county
were
to
restrict
access
to
that
road
under
an
application
made
under
this
section,
they
may
actually
be
undermining
their
own
right
of
access
or
title
to
that
public
way
or
even
contravening
the
state's
rights
or
ownership
over
the
public
way.
This
could
create
a
long-term
controversies
between
property
owners
and
counties,
and
even
federal
agencies
at
expense
to
all
parties
and,
most
importantly,
detrimentally
impact,
otherwise
existing
rights.
H
We
do
have
other
concerns
with
the
section
of
the
bill,
including
the
bill's
efforts
to
give
private
landowners
a
cause
of
action
against
one
who
damages
their
property
while
using
a
public
way.
This
section
does
not
add
a
right
that
doesn't
already
exist
under
state
law.
Instead,
adding
this
language
may
only
confuse
the
parties
involved
or
courts
going
forward
as
to
the
proper
remedies
and
the
same
confusion
would
result
from
the
section
pertaining
to
signage
and
again
put
the
onus
on
counties
to
patrol
signage,
fencing
and
disputes
on
distant
and
remote
lands
and
roads.
H
E
I
A-L-E-X-O-R-T-I-Z
representing
clark
county
today,
clark
county,
opposed
that
senate
bill.
94
is
written
first,
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
senator
settlemeyer
for
taking
time
to
discuss
some
of
our
concerns
yesterday.
Some
of
the
concerns
we
have
relate
to
in
particular
section
one
as
written.
It
appears
that
it
allows
for
the
posting
of
no
trespassing
signs
or
other
signs
on
any
highway
or
road,
specifically,
including
those
where
the
governmental
body
has
an
easement
in
clark
county.
I
I
These
two
signs
may
be
confusing
to
the
public
who
uses
the
roads,
and
also
these
signs
would
not
necessarily
change
the
status
of
the
road
either
in
section
two
where
it
gives
the
private
property
owner
upon
which
a
highway
or
road
is
located
a
right
of
action.
If
the
user
of
a
highway
or
road
causes
damage
or
injury,
this
is
very
broad
and
it
it
only
pertains
to
the
highway
or
road,
or
does
it
pertain
to
a
higher
road
of
private
property
that
is
not
encumbered
by
the
highway
or
road?
I
If
the
governmental
entity
receives
a
request
and
finds
it
will
not
be
inconveniencing
the
public,
the
traveling
public
subject
to
conditions,
such
a
gate
must
be
kept
locked,
unlocked
and
private
for
public
access,
even
though
the
gig
would
be
accessible.
There
is
an
argument
it
would
inhibit
the
public
roadway
access
is
taken
seriously,
as
demonstrated
in
nrs
405.19,
which
provides
a
fairly
stringent
process
for
closing
the
road.
This,
though,
would
potentially
be
burdensome
for
the
public
body
with
respect
to
processing
requests
for
gates
and
weighing
whether
or
not
the
factors
exist
in
support
of
it.
I
Further,
it's
unclear
how
the
government
body
makes
the
determination
for
the
gate
again.
We
want
to
thank
the
the
sponsor
senator
selmeyer
for
reach
for
speaking
with
us
yesterday
and
looking
forward
to
working
with
him
on
this
bill.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
B
B
K-E-N-D-R-A-B-E-R-T-S-C-H-Y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
I
want
to
thank
senator
settlemyre
for
speaking
with
mr
peer
about
our
concerns
and
we
are
looking
forward
to
working
with
him
to
ensure
that
the
unintended
consequences
that
we
believe
may
come
from
this
legislation
are
taken
care
of.
So
we
really
appreciate
him
speaking
with
us
and
are
looking
forward
to
working
with
him.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
we
will
close
opposition
testimony.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
the
neutral.
E
A
All
right,
then,
that
concludes
our
hearing
on
sb
94.
We
will
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you
again
senator
settlemyre
when
there
is
something
to
hear
about
this
bill,
and
we
appreciate
your
presentation.
I
will
now
conclude
or
close
the
hearing
on
sb94
move
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
today,
which
is
public
comment.
Do
we
have
anybody
here
for
public
comment.