►
From YouTube: 4/29/2021 - 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
C
A
Chair
shivel,
I
am
here,
thank
you
and
we
have
a
couple
of
bills
on
the
agenda
today.
We
are
going
to
take
them
in
an
order
that
may
look
random,
but
it
is
designed
to
accommodate
the
schedules
of
our
hard-working
lawmakers
agency
staff
and
other
participants
in
this
hearing
or
in
these
hearings,
and
so
I
will
start
today
with
ab157
and
I
will
now
open
the
hearing.
E
Good
afternoon
tara,
schreibel
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I
am
assemblywoman
danielle
monroe
moreno.
I
represent
assembly
district,
one
which
is
primarily
in
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
I'm
here
today
to
present
for
your
consideration
assembly,
bill
157,
which
addresses
a
serious
problem
that
has
recently
gained
national
recognition.
E
This
the
discriminatory
use
of
false
9-1-1
emergency
calls
against
certain
groups,
especially
against
communities
of
color.
This
bill
represents
an
effort
to
call
attention
to
the
problem
and
provide
a
legal
remedy
to
victims
of
discriminatory
practices
as
a
point
held
in
the,
whereas
is
clause
beginning
on
page
two
of
the
bill.
E
Many
specific
occurrences
went
viral
on
social
media
and
incidents
like
the
bird
watcher
in
central
park.
Asking
the
woman
to
put
her
dog
on
a
leash
were
recorded
and
gained
national
attention
during
a
weekly
news
cycle,
as
is
so
often
the
case.
This
media
exposure
led
to
more
and
more
of
these
types
of
cases
coming
to
light.
E
The
sense
of
harm
extends
to
the
community
as
a
whole
to
communities
of
color
and
to
our
judicial
and
law
enforcement
communities
as
well.
The
social
harm
of
such
incidents,
splits
the
fabric
of
our
society
and
contributes
to
the
distrust
of
government
in
general
and
our
law
enforcement.
Specifically,
we
need
to
find
ways
to
rebuild
trust,
and
I
believe
that
ab157
can
be
a
part
of
that
effort.
E
I
would
like
to
note
that
similar
bills
have
already
been
passed
in
new
york,
oregon
and
washington.
In
fact,
the
sponsor
of
the
oregon
bill.
A
fellow
legislator
encountered
the
very
type
of
incident.
This
bill
will
address
oregon
state
representative,
janelle
bynum,
who
is
black
walks.
Her
district,
like
most
of
us,
walk
ours,
going
door
to
door
to
talk
to
voters.
E
E
E
I
myself
spent
almost
30
years
working
in
law
enforcement
as
a
corrections
officer,
and
I
personally
saw
how
sometimes
people
of
communities
in
our
community
can
try
to
use
the
police
as
their
own
weapon
and
as
a
law
enforcement
officer.
Our
time
is
precious
we're
there
to
serve
and
protect
and
to
address
real
crimes
being
committed
in
our
society
and
tying
up
our
police
officers.
Hands
on
these
frivolous
sensical
and
criminal
cause
has
to
come
to
an
end.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation.
Assemblywoman.
Are
there
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
we'll
go
first
to
senator
harris.
E
F
A
Any
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
all
right.
I
would
also
like
to
express
my
appreciation.
I
don't
have
a
question,
but
I
think
this
is
a
fantastic
idea
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
through
the
bill.
So
with
that
we
will
move
to
testimony.
We
will
start
with
testimony
in
support
of
ab157
and
it
looks
like
we
have
at
least
one
person
present
in
the
room
to
give
testimonies.
We
will
start
in
the
room
and
each
testifier,
as
always,
we'll
get
two.
A
G
Good
afternoon
tara
schaible
members
of
the
senate
judiciary,
it
is
a
pleasure
to
be
here
in
person.
My
name
is
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
We
just
want
to
put
our
support
on
the
record.
We
believe
that
this
is
an
important
bill
that
will
help
aid
our
community
members
to
feel
safer
and
also
to
ensure
that
our
community
is
not
weaponizing
the
police.
So
we
really
appreciate
this
bill
and
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
A
C
H
C
C
G
A
J
J
J
C
C
J
K
Good
afternoon,
tara,
scheibel
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jared
luke
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e,
I'm
the
government
affairs
director
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
just
throw
our
support
behind
ab157
and
state
simply
that
we
denounce
all
harassment,
especially
harassment,
that
comes
from
a
racial
nature.
K
J
C
C
We
have
seen
through
recent
viral
videos
and
for
many
decades,
including
cases
like
emmit
till
where
false
accusations
can
lead
to
great
harm
and
even
death,
especially
for
people
of
color.
This
bill
creates
a
process
of
accountability
for
people
who
use
the
police
with
ill
intentions.
We
ask
for
your
support.
Thank
you.
J
C
Good
afternoon
sheriff
schreible
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
quentin
fabwa
q-u-e-n-t-I-n
last
name
s-a-b-w-o-I-r,
I'm
the
deputy
director
at
make
it
work
nevada.
We
stand
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
157
and
deeply
appreciate
assembly
women,
danielle
monroe
moreno
for
bringing
forth
this
legislation.
C
I
echo
many
of
the
sentiments
that
my
colleagues
and
comrades
have
already
expressed
we're
facing
a
time
of
racial
reckoning
where
frivolous
calls
to
police
on
the
basis
of
skin
color
can
no
longer
be
acceptable.
Thank
you
so
much
for
presenting
this
legislation
and
we
urge
bipartisan
support
for
ab157.
J
A
A
J
A
L
A
L
Thank
you
chair.
I
apologize
for
not
walking
in
late.
I
had
another
meeting
and
I
guess
I
have
to
be
careful.
How
close
I
get
to
the
microphone
today.
In
that
respect,
I
was
thinking
that
we
ought
to
take
this
even
further
that
even
just
take
it
out
of
the
section
if
you
prevail.
If
someone
takes
your
constitutional
rights,
if
you
prevail
in
an
action
against
anyone
on
a
constitutional
issue,
just
as
you
have,
I
think
it's
called
a
usca
1983
case.
If
you
prevail,
you
get
your
attorney
fees.
L
E
This
is
assemblywoman
danielle
monroe,
moreno,
senator
sotomayor
had
not
thought
about
that,
but
I
I
will
look
into
that.
Yes,
I
and
drafting
the
bill.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
the
cost
for
the
false
reports
for
the
the
time
and
effort
from
our
law
enforcement
agencies
or
and
first
responders
would
be
taken
care
of
as
well.
E
A
Sure
this
is
melanie,
I
believe,
for
the
record,
I'm
just
going
to
weigh
in
that.
There
is
a
clause
in
section
1,
subsection,
2
sub
c.
That
says
that
the
person
bringing
the
civil
action
may
recover
costs
and
reasonable
attorneys
fees
incurred
in
bringing
the
action,
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
thinking
of
something
more
specific
or
if
that
would
address
your
question.
L
A
M
Fees
if
you
prevail,
I'm
not
sure
that
nevada
has
that
same
provision,
and
I
could
further
look
into
it
but
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I'm
unaware
that
we
currently
have
that
same.
A
Provision
all
right,
then
sounds
like
a
fun
research
process
project.
Thank
you
for
bringing
it
up
senator
settlemyre.
Thank
you
to
mr
anthony
and
assembly
monroe
moreno
for
responding,
and
with
that
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
ab157.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on.
A
E
Good
afternoon
again,
josh
eibald
and
committee
for
the
record,
I
am
assemblywoman
danielle
monroe,
moreno,
representing
assembly,
district
1
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
for
your
consideration
assembly
bill
158,
which
addresses
the
penalties
for
youth,
cannabis
and
alcohol
purchases.
Consumption
and
possession.
A
E
E
Virtually
is
ms
aisha,
goings
of
black
joy,
consulting
to
explain
the
reasons
why,
in
the
intent
of
this
legislation
and
miss
kendra
bertie
from
the
washoe
county
deputy
public
defender,
who
will
walk
you
through
the
bill's
conceptual
amendment
that
you
received.
So
with
your
permission,
madam
chair,
I
will
turn
the
rest
of
the
presentation
over
to
them.
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
aisha,
goins
and
a
youth
magazine
interviewed,
incarcerated
youth.
How
does
it
feel
to
lose
your
freedom?
It
hurts
more
than
any
kind
of
punch
slap.
Anything
that
was
ever
done
to
me
having
my
freedom
taken
away
is
the
worst
thing
that
ever
happened
to
me.
It's
not
the
fact
that
I'm
in
jail
that
I'm,
that
I'm
scared
for
a
while,
I
didn't
know
what
was
gonna
happen
to
me
or
when
I
was
gonna
get
out.
I
felt
the
whole
world
was
going
on
without
me,
and
I
was
stuck.
O
I
have
a
little
sister
born
after
I
started
running
away,
and
I
don't
even
know
her.
My
family
came
out
twice
this
year.
You
get
special
visits
for
a
half
an
hour
for
the
past
year.
I've
seen
someone
I
know
from
the
outside
for
like
an
hour.
They
asked
that
same
youth.
What
do
you
think
your
parents
could
have
done?
That
would
have
helped.
O
O
O
The
report
also
said
that
1009
youths
that
have
been
referred
for
possession
of
marijuana
803
of
those
youth
were
black
and
hispanic.
The
intent
of
ab158
is
to
ensure
fairness
and
equality
in
the
justice
system.
As
it
relates
to
possession
of
alcohol,
tobacco
and
cannabis
for
those
juveniles
and
persons
under
21
to
offer
a
second
chance
to
those
youth
that
may
have
just
made
a
bad
choice
today,
I
urge
the
senate
to
pass
this
bill
for
my
son
and
my
other
community
nieces
and
nephews.
G
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
kendra
burchie,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
for
the
record
I'll
start
with
the
conceptual
and
amendment,
and
I
do
appreciate
your
staff's
very
hard
work
with
getting
it
already
uploaded
on
nellis.
Just
so
everyone
aware
it
really
does
not
change
the
bill
very
much.
It's
a
lot
of
cleanup
language
as
well
as
just
complying
with
what
the
parties
had
all
agreed
to
in
the
assembly.
G
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear
on
the
record
the
goals
with
this
amendment
and
this
bill
is
to
ensure
that
our
criminal
sanctions
are
proportional
to
the
offense
committed
and
to
promote
equity
in
the
justice
system.
So
we'll
start
with
section
one
of
this
bill-
and
this
is
specifically
referring
to
offenses
for
alcohol,
with
youth
aged
18
to
21.
So
this
is
not
for
those
under
the
age
of
18
and
obviously
it's
not
for
those
over
the
age
of
21,
because
it
is
illegal
and
not
a
status
offense
at
that
point.
G
So
in
section
one
section
three
and
section
four:
it's
all
the
changes
are
the
same
of
what
we're
doing
is
just
changing
the
structure
for
the
penalty
for
a
first
offense,
the
penalty
could
be
attending
a
vic.
Basically
was
a
victim
impact
panel.
That's
what's
outlined
in
nrs
484c
0.530,
and
so
it's
just
basically
providing
different
options
for
the
court
to
ensure
that
you
know
we're
not
over
criminalizing
individuals
and
then
it
also
provides
increased
penalties.
G
If
somebody
continues
that
offense
so
for
a
second
offense,
then
it's
not
more
than
100
hours
of
counseling
or
participation
in
the
educational
program
or
other
treatment
program.
Again.
That
gives
the
judicial
officers
more
discretion
to
take
a
look
at
that
case
and
see
what
is
really
going
on
to
ensure
that
we're
providing
the
most
appropriate
penalty.
G
Then,
if
somebody
who's
between
that
age
of
18
to
21
continues
to
engage
in
this
conduct
so
for
a
third
or
subsequent
offense,
then
they
shall
be
punished,
as
provided
in
nrs
193.15,
and
that's
just
the
punishment
for
all
misdemeanors.
So
then
again,
it
just
provides
the
court
with
the
discretion
to
determine
what
they
see
is.
G
Most
appropriate,
then,
if
you
look
in
that
subsection
three
in
section
one,
this
is
an
extremely
important
piece
of
this
bill,
because
it
allows
for
automatic
sealing
when
that
child
or
then,
when
that
person,
age
18
to
21,
has
completed
what
is
necessary
in
for
what
the
judge
decided
should
be.
The
appropriate
punishment,
that's
different
than
normal
misdemeanors,
where
the
person
would
have
to
petition,
but
this
ensures
that
the
individual
has
that
taken
off
of
their
record
when
they
have
earned
it
in
section
2.2
of
the
bill.
G
So
the
what's
important
in
that
first
section
is
that
it
brings
these
punishments
or
these
violations
of
a
marijuana
small
amount
or
an
alcohol
offense
into
a
child
in
need
of
supervision,
a
chin's
offense.
The
reason
that
is
important
is
because
it
provides
it
as
a
status
offense,
instead
of
as
a
delinquent
offense.
G
G
The
amended
changes
in
that
subsection
that
you'll
see
in
that
amendment,
that
was
posted,
is
really
doesn't
change.
Much,
as
I
indicated
just
make
sure
that
we're
encompassing
all
offenses
that
are
related
to
alcohol
and
marijuana.
G
G
The
amended
language
includes
in
there
that
it
must
not
be
a
shelter
used
for
the
protection
of
children
under
nrs
432
b.
There
is
some
concern
with
the
district
attorney's
office
that
we
would,
instead
of
be,
that
the
law
enforcement
may
first
be
looking
at
those
shelters.
So
just
to
be
clear
on
the
record,
the
shelters
that
we
were
considering
for
this,
where
the
children
should
not
be
placed
would
be
places
like
child's
haven
in
las
vegas.
Kids
cottage
in
washoe,
county
and
austin's
house
and
clark
are
in
a
carson
city.
G
In
section
2.8,
this
is
where
it
sets
out
the
framework
in
section
four,
these
offenses
for
youth
under
the
age
of
18.
in
subsection
one
this
is
what's
really
important-
is
that
it's
describing
that
this
is
a
chin's
offense,
and
so
it
would
be
handled
informally
for
a
second
offense
again.
We
believe
that
if
somebody
continues
to
commit
these
offenses
that
the
punishments
should
increase,
that's
where
they
could
be
referred
to
probation
officer
and
handled
by
not
more
than
24
hours
of
community
service
and
then
for
a
third
offense.
G
What
I
would
just
say
on
the
record
is
it's
been
very
interesting
in
learning
about
how
this
is
currently
in
practice
across
all
of
nevada,
where
the
different
jurisdictions
are
handling
these
offenses
very
differently,
and
so
we
do
believe
that
it
is
important
to
codify
that
we
are
treating
our
kids
the
same
regardless
of
what
jurisdiction
they
are
in.
So,
although
there
are
some
jurisdictions
where
we
currently
are
having
lower
penalties
for
these
offenses,
we
do
believe
that
this
is
appropriate.
E
E
I
believe
collectively
we
can
agree
that
children
are
just
that
they're
their
children
and
we
as
adults.
We
have
an
obligation
to
meet
them
where
they
are
hold
them
accountable.
Yes,
for
their
actions,
while
giving
them
all
the
necessary
tools,
they
need
to
learn
from
mistakes
that
they
make
and
to
assist
them
into
becoming
healthy,
productive,
successful
adults,
and
with
that
I
urge
your
support
for
assembly
bill.
158.
P
Thank
you
very
much,
chair
and
kind
of
a
combination,
comment
and
question
assemblyman
monroe
moreno.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
bill
and
I've
had
the
pleasure
of
serving
with
you
on
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice.
You
chaired
it
in
the
prior
interim
and
we're
the
able
vice
chair
this
interim,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
dedication
to
children
and
I
really
do
I
do.
P
I
think
this
bill
will
help
a
lot
of
kids
not
get
caught
up
in
the
system
and
possibly
just
you
know,
get
the
the
guidance
they
need
without
having
to
either
be
in
court
or
in
a
detention
facility.
P
One
question
I
have
and
I'm
not
sure,
if
maybe
I
need
to
wait
for
someone
later
on,
but
if
would
if,
let's
say
a
child
is
on
juvenile
probation
or
on
youth
parole
and
is
found
with
a
small
amount
of
marijuana
under
this
legislation,
do
you
think
that
that
would
still
qualify
as
a
violation
of
juvenile
probation
or
a
violation
of
youth
parole?
Or
do
you
think
that
this
might
might
change
that
if
this
passes
into
law.
E
However,
I
just
as
a
citizen,
I
would
believe
if
there
were
conditions
of
parole
or
probation,
and
that
was
a
condition
that
the
child
could
not
use
alcohol
or
marijuana
being
caught
with
the
possession
of
it
would
be
a
violation.
But
I'm
not
an
attorney.
M
Hey,
madam
chair,
I
I
don't
remember
if
it
was
miss
goins
or
miss
bertsy,
who
made
a
reference,
and
I
may
have
misheard
it,
and
I
hope
I
did
because
I
think
there
was
a
reference
to
marijuana
having
been
legalized
for
those
under
21..
That's
not
my
understanding.
G
Kendrick
urged
you
for
the
record
and
just
to
be
clear
if
any,
if
that
was
stated,
it's
that's
not
the
case.
It
is
legalized
for
those
over
the
age
of
21..
It
is
not
legal
for
those
under
the
age
of
21,
which
is
why
we're
bringing
forward
this
bill
and
just
to
be
clear
on
the
record.
This
does
not
decriminalize
the
use
of
marijuana
for
those
under
the
age
of
21.
It's
just
providing
for
different
penalties
and
punishments.
M
M
This
doesn't
seem.
This
seems
to
replace
that
my
understanding
of
the
diversion
program
and
there's
also
a
drug
diversion
program
for
those
over
the
age
of
18
in
clark
county,
and
so
this
seems
to
replace
it,
but
if
it
doesn't
replace
it,
where
does
that
fit
in,
because
one
of
the
things
that
I
have
been
taught
is
that
the
best
time
to
catch
the
the
youth
is
on
their
first
exposure.
M
Their
first
use
the
first
time
they're
caught
essentially
right
and
if
we
can't
get
them
into
a
diversion
program
and
ultimately
into
some
kind
of
treatment
program,
but
we
instead
allow
them
to
continue
to
use.
It
is
far
less
likely
to
take
hold.
They
are
far
more
likely
to
continue
and
then
end
up
in
the
the
the
adult
justice
system.
So
how
does
this
intersect
with
the
diversion
programs.
E
E
Had
I
got
in
trouble
as
a
child,
and
you
told
me
I'm
going
to
call
the
police
or
call
your
mom.
I
would
have
said.
Please
call
my
don't
call
my
mom
call
the
police
and
sometimes
that's
what
children
need.
Is
that
guidance
from
the
parent
or
the
grandparent
or
the
aunt
or
the
uncle
instead
of
putting
them
right
into
that
diversion
program,
because
putting
a
child
in
that
diversion
program
is
truly
that
first
step
into
the
system
and
not
every
child
needs
to
be
in
that
system.
E
And
yes,
if
we
catch
them
early,
we
can
stop
behavior,
but
stopping
that
behavior
might
be
the
conversation
with
mom,
letting
mom
and
dad
know
what's
happened.
But
if
we
get
them
that
second
time
that
third
time
that's
where
I
see
that
diversion
program
coming
in,
because
we've
utilized
that
first
and
second.
M
All
right,
so
can
you
point
me
so
what
I
hear
you
saying
is
that
this
would
be
the
the
I
had
to
use
the
term
strike,
because
that
is
horribly,
overused,
but
we've
got
this
progressive
system
first
offense
second
offense
and
then-
and
I'm
I'm
starting
I'm
in
section
one
sub:
three.
No
it's
sub
four!
M
Is
that
right?
Oh!
No,
I'm
sorry!
It's
sub
two
for
first
offense
24
hours
of
community
service;
second
offense
100
hours
of
counseling
in
an
educational
program
or
support
group.
This
is
why
it
sounds
like
we're
replacing
the
diversion
courts,
because
that's
kind
of
what
the
diversion
court's
doing
and
then
third,
as
provided
in
193.150.,
and
so
it
seems
to
bypass
the
diversion
program.
G
If
I
may
kendra
burchie
for
the
record
so
first,
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
talking
about
the
same
section
where
we
are
specifically
looking
at
in
section
one,
those
who
are
aged
18
to
21-
and
you
are
correct
for
the
first
and
second
offense.
G
So
this
is
what
we're
hoping
will
take
that
into
consideration
where
for
us
for
minor
offense
for
that
first,
one
where
it's
there's
no
other
criminal
activity
involved
that
you're
just
treating
that
and
giving
them.
You
know
that
carried
in
the
stick
approach.
If
you're
saying
hey,
this
is
the
punishment.
You
can't
do
this
you're,
not
legal,
to
be
drinking
or
using
marijuana.
G
You
need
to
correct
this
and
you're
going
to
be
because
the
way
that
this
is
as
an
enhanceable,
offense
you're
going
to
have
the
judge
significantly
scold.
That
person
on
the
record
and
have
to
say
here
are
all
the
ways
that
if
you
continue
down
this
path,
your
life
will
be.
You
know
what
will
happen
to
you
so
and
I
would
just
say
for
your
information.
G
G
G
M
And-
and
I
really
do
appreciate
you
mentioning
that,
because
I
have
a
bill
that
will
put
the
harbor
in
every
county
in
nevada,
we'll
see
if
it
gets
a
hearing,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
I
would
love
to
see
those
studies,
because
the
the
studies
that
I'm
aware
of
I
mean
it's
no
secret.
M
At
least
what
I'm
recalling
is-
and
I
may
have
this
wrong-
because
I'm
not
the
one
who
was
studying
these
studies
to
to
implement
them.
But
it's
my
understanding
that
the
children
you
know
once
they're
once
they've
been
picked
up,
they've
had
a
petition
filed.
M
These
are
children
who
don't
have
the
kind
of
mothers
that
you
and
I
had
that,
made
sure
that
we
didn't
get
into
this
stuff,
and
so
they
end
up
with
something
in
need
of
more
than
just
a
good,
solid
scolding.
Knowing
that
there
would
be
worse
because
I'm
in
the
same
boat,
my
mom
would
not
have
tolerated,
didn't
tolerate
this
sort
of
thing
from
us,
but
those
aren't
the
kids
that
generally
find
themselves
in
the
juvenile
justice
program.
M
I
mean
they
do,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we're
talking
about
a
more
global
approach,
and
so
I
would
love
to
see
the
studies
that
show
that
early
intervention
is
not
effective,
that
it
it
does
actually
incentivize
or
or
make
it
worse
for
them.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
guess
what
I
still
don't
understand
is
we
go
through
first
and
second
tier.
So
diversion
court
is
after
the
third
tier.
G
Kendrick
burchie
for
the
record.
First,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
my
comments
were
clear.
I
was
not
saying
that
there's
no
intervention
is
appropriate
to
then
stop
that
behavior.
What
I'm
saying
is
the
including
too
much
requirements
and
supervision.
That's
what
the
studies
have
shown
will
then
actually
lead
to
a
potential
increase
in
recidivism,
and
I'm
not
sure
so,
if
you
could
clarify
for
your
your
question
as
to
if
it's
just
when
the
diversionary,
I'm
just
not
sure,
I
understand
correctly.
M
Yeah
well,
it's
because
I
don't
understand
where,
if
this
isn't
replacing
the
diversionary
program,
I
I
don't
see
where
that
comes
in,
because,
as
I
understand
it,
183150
is
post
diversion
and
so
it
it
seems
as
and
again
I'm
looking
specifically
at
section
one
but
section
two
has
similar
language.
M
If,
if
we're
going
straight
from
100
hours
of
counseling
to
a
juvenile
or
a
delinquency
matter
under
193.150,
then
this
is
why
I
was
under
the
impression
we've
skipped
the
diversion
and
without
the
because
we
had
to
do
a
statutory
authorization
for
the
diversion.
I
don't
want
to
undo
that
accidentally.
A
And
I'm
going
to
interject
here,
because
I
have
information
that
you
don't
have,
which
is
that
bridget
duffy
is
also
on
the
phone,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
you
guys
know
so
that
you
can
decide
if
you
want
to
continue
to
engage
in
answering
the
senator's
questions
or
if
you
would
like
to
kick
that
over
to
ms
duffy.
I
know
that
she
would
also
be
happy
to
weigh
in
here.
G
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
I'm
happy
to
answer
that
and
because
we
are
dealing
still
with
the
18
to
20
year
old
section,
and
so
yes,
you
are
corrective
for
the
first
and
second
offense.
They
would
not
be
looking
at
a
diversionary
program
for
the
third
or
subsequent,
then
that
is
where
the
diversionary
program
could
be
utilized.
M
G
Kendrick
burchie
for
the
record.
This
bill
is
specifically
for
alcohol
and
marijuana.
So
if
somebody's
using
a
controlled
substance,
that
is
not
one
of
those,
this
would
not
apply
and
we're
using
those
diversionary
programs
and
their
punishment
for
those
18
and
older
would
be,
according
to
the
other
statutes
for
misdemeanors.
M
All
right-
and
I
I
suppose,
when
miss
duffy
gets
on
I'd
like
to
ask
the
question
of
hers:
do
we
need
language
ultimately
to
preserve
the
authorization
for
diversionary
programs?
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
All
right,
I
think
we
have
a
question
from
senator
settlemeyer
go
ahead.
L
Thank
you
sure.
I
appreciate
that
I
was
just
kind
of
curious.
I
know
that
with
an
alcohol,
sometimes
there's
a
different
level
of
offense
based
upon
the
level
of
alcohol
that's
detected
in
your
body,
I
was
wondering
if
that
would
be
consistent,
because
sometimes
you
know
if
you're
just
slightly
over,
but
if
you
ended
up
being
in
the
hospital
it
may
require
actually
having
to
go
through
a
whole
different
system
of
detox
versus,
whereas
marijuana
doesn't
necessarily
have
the
same
addiction
level
that
sometimes
alcohol
can.
So
I
was
just
kind
of
curious
about
that.
G
Kendra
birchie
for
the
record
for
someone
who
is
just
possessing
alcohol
over
the
age
of
18,
there's
not
a
difference
in
the
treatment.
If
they
are
driving
well
under
the
influence
of
of
alcohol
or
marijuana,
then
there
is
a
difference
in
the
penalties
with
how
we
handle
those
offenses.
But
to
my
knowledge
there
isn't
a
difference.
L
I
appreciate
that
I
thought
there
was
a
difference
if
you
were
found
at
a
party-
and
you
were
underage
drinking-
that
I
thought
there
was
a
also
a
level
attached
to
that
that
the
amount
of
diversion
you
went
to
potentially
changed
based
upon
how
intoxicated
you
were.
If
you
were
found
to
be
per
se
incapacitated
it
was
it
brought
a
different
level
of
offense.
If
it
does
not,
I
apologize.
G
Contributory
for
the
record,
to
my
knowledge,
it
does
not.
I
would
just
note
it
regarding
the
juvenile
offenses,
that's
where
we
can
take
into
consideration
of
whether
or
not
that
person
could
be
remaining
at
liberty
and
just
receive
a
citation
or
whether
or
not.
That
then
leads
to
that
imminent
risk
of
harm
where
the
law
enforcement
does
need
to
take
appropriate
measures.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
mike
kind
of
in
response
to
senator
pickard's
question.
As
I
read
section
2.8
I
I
read
it
that
you
know
if
a
child
does
have,
let's
say
a
first
offense
involving
alcohol
or
marijuana,
they
would
not
be
they
wouldn't
be
in
the
juvenile
delinquency
system.
They'd
be
child
need
of
supervision
referred
to
a
probation
officer
for
informal
supervision
and
there
they,
the
probation
officer.
As
I
understand
this,
could
still
recommend.
Maybe
drug
counseling
or
a
class
about
you
know
the
dangers
of
drug
and
alcohol
abuse.
P
I
see
the
same
thing
with
the
second
offense
and
then,
if
there
is
that
third
offense
involving
marijuana
or
alcohol,
then
if
the
child
is
adjudicated
delinquent
childhood
delinquency
system,
then
I
think
that
the
therapeutic
courts
such
as
the
drug
court
for
juveniles
in
the
delinquency
system-
or
you
know
any
other
diversion
programs
if
the
juvenile
court
feels
they're
appropriate,
would
still
be
applicable.
P
So
I
don't
see
this,
as
you
know,
replacing
the
therapeutic
courts
for
juveniles,
but
providing
more
diversion
before
before
you
get
there
and
if
I'm
wrong,
maybe
miss
duffy
will
correct
me
or
anybody
else,
but
but
I
I
think
this
would
help.
You
know,
divert
kids
but
still
allow
them
to
get.
You
know
drug
drug
treatment
or
therapy
without
having
to
necessarily
quickly
be
fast-tracked
into
the
delinquency
system.
G
Kendrick
for
the
record
just
to
make
sure
that
intention's
clear.
That
is
our
understanding
as
well.
Just
so,
the
committee
is
aware
in
washoe
county
individuals
who
are
under
the
age
of
18,
for
these
offenses
they're
not
being
placed
in
juvenile
delinquency
court
right
now.
They
would
have
that
informal
probation,
which
is
why
that's
really
important
for
us
to
not
be
changing
and
having
for
every
offense
that
they
would
be
subject
to
it
as
a
delinquent
act.
A
Thank
you.
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions
that
are
starting
up
very,
very
broad,
and
this
is
much
more
about
how
we
deal
with
these
cases
and
the
enforcement
mechanisms
than
you're
built
in
specific,
and
I
am
curious
about
the
process
through
which
the
controlled
substances,
whether
it's
alcohol
or
marijuana,
are
confiscated
and
if
they're
impounded.
G
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
I
d
we're
all
looking
back
to
see
if
a
law
enforcement
who
is
in
the
building
has
that
answer.
I
don't
know
to
be
completely
honest.
I've
seen
different
things
just
from
reading
probable
cause
sheets,
so
I
don't
know
if
there
is
a
specific
policy
and
procedure,
but
I
would
just
note
that
that's
not
in
this
bill.
Nord
am
I
aware
of
it
in
the
statutes
that
regarding
these
offenses,
but
that
could
be
something
that's
specific
in
policy
and
procedure.
A
Okay,
so
the
reason
that
I'm
asking
is
that
you
know
like
in
adult
court,
I've
also
seen
these
citations
for
marijuana
or
for
having
alcohol
in
a
public
place,
something
like
that.
I've
never
seen
a
beer
can
impounded,
but
also
it
has
to
go
somewhere
right.
So
the
so
that
got
me
to
thinking,
do
officers
and
again
might
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
bill
or
either
of
your
ex
any
of
your
expertise.
A
But
if
an
officer
is
you
know
approaching
a
group
of
teens
or
19
year
olds,
who
have
a
whole
case
of
beer,
do
they
have
the
discretion
to
say,
hey,
I'm
going
to
issue
you
a
citation
confiscate
the
whole
case
and
throw
it
away
what,
if
it's
three
ounces
of
marijuana
between
four
teenagers?
Can
they
cite
each
one
and
take
it
or
can
they
arrest
one
of
them
for
all
three
ounces?
I
know
there
are
like
possession
issues
there
and
what
not?
A
Clarify
that
this
doesn't
change
my
support
for
the
bill,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
an
understanding
so
that,
as
we
continue
to
move
forward
in
this
session
and
future
sessions,
we
make
good
policy
to
help
out
kids,
and
with
that
I
don't
see
any
other
questions
or
comments.
So
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
support
of
ab158,
and
I
do
see
somebody
present
to
give
testimony
in
the
room
and
I
will
let
you
go
first
and
you'll
have
two
minutes.
P
Hello,
thank
you,
chair,
schaible
and
committee
members.
It's
great
to
be
here
in
person
with
you
all.
I
am
nick
schipak
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
If
we
are
serious
about
broader
criminal
justice
reform
in
creating
a
safer
and
more
just
nevada,
we
must
start
with
how
we
approach
juvenile
justice
leaders
such
as
assemblywoman
manuel
moreno,
understand
this,
and
we
are
lucky
to
have
her
here
in
the
state.
P
After
decades
of
punitive
tough
on
crime
responses
to
youth
crime,
misbehavior
there's
been
a
noticeable
shift
in
recent
years
surrounding
juvenile
justice
issues
in
the
united
states.
Av-158
seeks
to
continue
that
shift.
The
criminalization
of
marijuana
and
alcohol
use
has
not
benefited
nevada's.
Youth,
a
growing
body
of
literature,
shows
that
the
first
arrest
actually
increases
the
likelihood
of
continued
contact
with
the
criminal
justice
system.
The
policy
of
state
should
not
be
to
apply
significant
and
brutal
criminal
penalties
to
age-appropriate
behaviors,
such
as
juvenile
experimentation
with
drugs
and
alcohol.
P
This
is
not
to
say
that
the
state
should
not
address
these
issues
as
early
drug
and
alcohol
use
can
have
significant
negative
effects
on
both
development
and
success.
The
state,
however,
should
address
behavioral
health
issues
as
what
they
are
health
issues
by
ensuring
that
children
are
not
arrested
when
they
are
caught
for
these
things.
Unless
they're
in
immediate
danger,
we
reduce
both
trauma
and
recidivism.
P
While
we
would
like
to
see
all
criminal
penalties
removed
from
activities
related
to
behavioral
health
issues,
this
bill
prioritizes
direct
services
and
small
penalties
for
nevada's
use,
which
is
the
right
way
to
approach
this
issue.
The
war
on
drugs
has
failed
our
communities,
especially
communities
of
color,
and
this
bill
will
have
a
great
impact
on
all
nevada
youth,
but
a
disproportionately
positive
impact
on
nevada's
youth
of
color,
and
we
urge
you
to
support
av158.
A
J
J
C
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
deshawn
jackson
d-a-s-h-u-n-j-c-k-s-o-n
I
serve
as
the
director
of
children's
safety
and
welfare
policy
with
the
children's
advocacy
alliance.
We
stand
in
support
of
assembly
bill
158.
We
believe
this
bill
is
crucial
to
ensuring
that
youth
are
treated
as
youth.
As
assemblywoman
danielle,
moreno
monroe,
mourinho
stated.
We
are
all
once
youth.
We
all
make
mistakes.
This
gives
you
the
opportunity
to
fix
and
mend
those
mistakes
that
they
have.
We
all
are
at
fault
at
some
point,
but
this
bill
is
great.
C
J
C
Good
afternoon
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
quentin
fabwa
q-u-e-n-t-I-n,
last
name
s
like
sam,
a
like
apple,
be
like
victor
w-o-I-r,
I'm
the
deputy
director
with
make
it
work,
nevada.
We
organize
black
women
and
black
families
around
economic
justice,
racial
justice
and
reproductive
justice
issues.
As
such,
we
support
ab158
ab158
is
a
measure
that
meets
the
current
moment,
we're
in
a
reckoning
of
racial
inequity
that
is
seemingly
baked
into
the
fabric
of
our
country.
C
C
This
declaration
brought
our
community
some
assurance
that
our
elected
leaders
understood
the
weight
of
the
moment.
We're
in
this
bill
is
an
opportunity
for
you
all
to
rise.
To
that
moment.
It
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
show
some
compassion
for
our
youth
and
ensure
that
they
have
a
second
chance
before
throwing
them
away
by
way
of
the
justice
system.
C
Ab158
is
community
driven
policy
that
will
keep
our
young
people
from
being
unfairly
targeted
by
a
justice
system
that
is
often
more
harmful
than
helpful
to
the
young
people
who
look
like
me
and
the
families
we
work
alongside.
We
urge
bipartisan
support
for
assembly
bill
158.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
J
K
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jared
luke
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e
government
affairs,
director
of
north
las
vegas,
I'd
like
to
thank
again
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno
for
bringing
another
great
bill
to
the
table.
I
I
can't
really
add
anything
that
you
folks
haven't
already
discussed,
or
that
has
already
been
stated
in
support
testimony,
but
I
want
to
throw
support
behind
158
and
just
say
that
I
have
kids
and
I
talk
to
them
all
the
time
about.
K
I
remember
what
it
was
like
being
a
kid,
but
you've
never
been
an
adult
or
a
parent,
and
I
think
oftentimes
we
as
adults.
We
really
do.
We
forget
what
it
was
like
being
a
kid
we
forget
about
the
social
pressures
we
forget
about
peer
pressure.
We
forget
that
a
lot
of
the
kids
that
we
ran
with
possibly
didn't
have
a
great
family
structure.
Parents
at
home
that
helped
teach
them
that
were
home
during
the
day,
and
maybe
these
kids
don't
have
the
correct
coping
strategies
that
that
are
coping
mechanisms
that
they
need.
J
C
J
F
F
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
that
this,
the
actual
bill
that
is
in
front
of
you
as
the
amended
bill,
really
that
make
statutory
the
process
that's
already
in
place
in
clark
county.
In
fact,
I
got
a
little
ahead
of
myself
and
miss
goings
called
me
and
was
all
excited
about
being
able
to
to
really
put
our
process
in
statute
and
then
remember,
I'm
a
small
part
of
a
much
larger
state.
F
So,
as
as
ms
burchie
had
mentioned,
there
are
a
lack
of
diversionary
programs
in
other
parts
of
our
state
that
we
are
fortunate
enough
in
clark
county
to
have
so.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
also
clarify
and
agree
that
our
number
one
referrals
to
the
juvenile
justice
system
in
clark
county
are
marijuana,
possession
and
battery
number
one
being
battery
number
two
being
marijuana
possession,
but
I
want
to
make
very
clear:
the
da's
office
doesn't
file
those
cases,
those
those
are
referrals
and
referral
of
the
term
of
art
and
juvenile
justice.
F
It
means
that
it
could
mean
a
couple
things
one.
It
could
mean
that
the
child
received
a
citation
or
a
ticket
would
be
a
common
word
or
it
could
mean
an
arrest
as
well.
Of
course,
most
of
those,
if
not
all,
of
those
are,
are
our
citations
and
not
arrest.
The
district
attorney's
office
is
not
in
the
habit
of
filing
first-time
referrals
for
marijuana
and
battery
charges.
In
fact,
those
also
those
two
charges
also
account
for
78
of
all
the
referrals
to
our
harbor
program
in
clark
county
in
the
year
2020..
F
I
also
want
to
make
clear
that
the
portion
about
the
432b
shelters
being
excluded
as
a
possible
placement
is
really
because
I
don't
want
to
start
another
problem
for
the
family,
which
is
opening
up
a
department
of
family
services
or
a
cps
case,
because
anytime,
a
child
is
left
at
the
doorstep
by
law
enforcement
or
any
any
other
party
at
an
abusive
neglect
shelter.
It
mandates
that
child
protective
services
open
up
an
investigation
in
order
to
receive
that
child.
So
we
don't
want
to
stop
one
problem
to
start
another
for
a
family.
F
So
that
is
why
it's
very
important
that
we
exclude
those
shelters
as
a
drop-off
point.
If
a
parent
cannot
be
notified,
I
want
to
address
senator
pickard's
concerns.
I
do
not
see
that
for
the
juvenile
system,
that
this
will
impact
our
use
of
diversionary
programs.
Our
first
offense
chins
would
go
to
a
harbor
program.
F
The
second
offense,
as
senator
orrinshaw
pointed
out.
We
would
still
be
able
to
use
diversionary
programs
specifically
because
we
referenced
chapter
62
c200,
which
allows
for
use
of
cognitive
training
and
human
development
classes
under
62e
220,
which
would
then
be
those
development.
Those
skill
building
classes,
so
all
of
those
things
we
currently
use
are
now
statutorily
required
for
the
for
the
second
offense.
So
I
think
that
addresses
the
questions
that
came
up.
I
think
I
don't
know
share
scheible.
You
want
me
to
stay
on.
F
A
Thank
you
so
much
ms
duffy,
and
I
am
going
to
break
my
own
rule
and
allow
you
to
stay
on
the
phone,
because
you
are
a
subject
matter
expert
in
this
area
and
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
is
not
looking
like
she's
going
to
jump
up
and
tell
me
to
stop.
So.
If
there
are
any
questions,
I
will
allow
them
go
ahead.
Senator
pickard.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you.
Miss
duffy,
as
I
expressed
before
my
concern
is
just
I
don't
want
to
hamper
the
ability
to
do
the
diversion
program,
since
they
have
proven
to
be
really
successful.
Up
to
this
point,
and
I
was
under
the
impression
that
that
was
occurring
around
the
state
so
apparently
not,
but
so,
at
least
in
clark
county.
It's
my
understanding,
then
from
what
you
just
said,
that
because
of
the
reference
to
62c
and
because
the
second
tier
allows
us
to.
M
F
Bridget
duffy
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
pickard,
for
the
question.
Yes,
that
is
correct.
The
it
would
be.
This
is
business
as
usual
in
clark
county,
and
it
actually
will
now
mandate
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
that
business
as
usual
maintains
after
jack,
martin
and
I
are
gone,
and
the
diversionary
programs
could
be
used
by
the
probation
department.
A
J
C
C
I
myself
have
a
14
year
old
that
just
got
in
trouble
for
having
a
vape
pen
in
wisconsin
last
week
and
they
gave
him
a
125
dollar.
Fine
and
it'll
be
on
his
record
till
he's
18.,
I'm
glad
that
in
the
state
of
nevada,
people
are
making
efforts
to
make
adjustments
so
that
our
youth
won't
be
penalized
and
have
their
life
ruined
and
on
their
record
moving
forward.
C
J
J
C
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
tamara
favors,
it
is
the
t-a-m-a-r-a
favors
f-a-v-o-r
and
I'm,
let's
make
it
work
nevada.
I
am
the
ambassador
coordinator
and
we
stand
in
support
of
ab158.
This
bill
will
remove
any
chances
for
our
youth
to
have
a
misdemeanor
related
to
marijuana
having
marijuana
or
alcohol
possession.
When
you
throw
young
people
in
jail,
they
are
there
all
they're
doing
is
sitting
in
a
4x4,
so
they'll
learn
nothing
productive.
Their
time
is
not
being
useful.
This
will
this.
C
This
will
give
the
ability
for
youth
to
have
to
not
have
a
record,
for
instance,
the
youth.
These
will
either
the
for
instance.
If
the
youth
is
either
black
or
brown,
having
a
record
has
different
consequences
than
someone
who
is
not
black
or
brown.
This
legislation
legislation
will
require
juveniles
to
perform
community
service
and
allow
them
to
be
productive
engaged
in
their
communities.
This
bill
will
not
be
a
good
use
of
the
state's
money.
We
urge
bipartisan
bipartis
bipartisan
support
in
ab158.
J
C
C
A
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
hello
and
good
afternoon.
Everyone,
members
of
the
senate
and
committee,
my
name
is
ashley
dodson
spelled
a-s-h-l-e-y-d-o-d-s-o-n
for
the
record.
I
am
in
support
of
ab-158.
I
am
the
co-founder
and
president
of
the
cannabis
equity
and
inclusion
community.
I
am
also
a
licensed
social
worker
and
mental
health
specialist
with
a
master's
degree
in
social
work
from
university
of
southern
california,
with
an
emphasis
in
children,
youth
and
families.
Q
Statistics
from
the
juvenile
justice
report
in
nevada
are
as
follows:
since
2017
these
statistics,
of
course
in
regards
to
possession
of
marijuana,
which
are
always
number
two
after
battery
since
2016,
there
was
952
referrals
and
has
gone
up,
2017
984,
2018,
993
and
2019
1009,
which
was
the
highest
ever.
I
strongly
believe
that
nevada
has
alternative
resources,
advocates
and
programs
available
to
prevent
the
school-to-prison
pipeline
and
decrease
the
recidivism
on
juveniles
by
providing
rehabilitation
and
education,
especially
for
black
and
brownies,
who
have
been
disenfranchised
by
the
war
on
drugs.
Q
Q
According
to
the
recent
literature
found
in
the
justice
policy
institute,
report
of
youth
corrections
shows
that
detention
has
profoundly
negative
impact
on
youth
people
on
young
people,
mental
and
physical
well-being,
their
education
and
their
employment.
One
psychologist
found
that
one-third
of
incarcerated
diagnosed
with
depression,
the
onset
of
depression,
occurred
after
they
began
their
incarceration.
Q
The
negative
impacts
of
detained
children
who
are
still
in
their
developmental
stages,
education,
is
key
by
giving
our
youth
another
chance
to
improve
behavior
be
properly
assessed
for
mental
health
conditions
and
be
appropriately
assigned
to
community
service
will
decrease
the
likelihood
of
juvenile
possession
convictions
according
to
the
office
of
the
district
of
the
attorney
of
nevada,
african-americans
and
hispanics
make
up
77
percent
of
the
referrals
by
the
dea
to
adult
court.
Since
2019,
possession
of
cannabis
charges
has
increased,
amongst
argued
since
legalization,
there
will
still
be
over
one
thousand
cannabis.
Q
Possession
charges
referred
to
juvenile
court
since
that
time,
and
the
numbers
continue
to
increase
research
from
the
office
of
just
juvenile
justice
and
delinquency.
Provision
provides
evidence-based
programs
and
models
that
promote,
promote
prevention,
interventions
and
re-entry
research
shows
that
use
cognition
and
participation
and
risky
behavior
is
associated
with
biological
immaturity
of
the
brain
and
with
an
imbalance
among
developing
brain
systems.
Hence
they
are
not
operating
at
capacities
of
an
adult
which,
in
turn
they
should
not
be
charged
criminally
in
the
first
offense.
Q
Not
only
is
this
costly,
it
is
traumatic
for
the
youth
being
charged
and
often
detained
restorative
justice
will
decrease
these
alarming
disproportionate
numbers
representing
black
and
brown
youth,
public
safety
will
be
maintained.
Job
and
vocational
skills
will
be
developed,
rehabilitation
and
addressing
treatment
needs
will
promote
mental
wellness
all
leading
to
successful
reintegration
of
our
youth
into
the
community.
Economic
relief
will
also
be
brought
to
taxpayers
with
restorative
justice.
Added
is,
as
it
is,
more
costly
to
house
youth
in
detention,
centers
and
facilities.
Q
Research
done
by
the
university
of
southern
california
suggests
that
youth
programs
in
california
showed
exponential
drops
of
recidivism
at
the
time
when
this
was
written
10
compared
to
the
60
to
70
percent
nationwide
and
high
participants.
Satisfaction
due
to
this
process,
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
per
each
case
are
saved
and
preventing
recommendation
to
detention
centers.
The
federal
government
provides
grant
funds
and
programs
which
advocate
for
restorative
justice
models
instead
of
trust
traditional
punitive
systems.
Q
Such
funds
can
be
awarded
to
nevada,
with
program
models
seeking
to
train
and
educate
the
youth
to
become
thriving,
law-abiding
citizens
and
refrain
from
re-entering
into
the
correctional
system.
Now
is
the
time
for
nevada
to
support
our
youth
by
providing
the
resources
they
need
and
acknowledging
cannabis
offenses
as
an
opportunity
to
provide
education
and
empathy
as
well
as
rehabilitate
them
to
a
higher
and
brighter
future.
Q
It
is
socially
unjust
to
continue
to
see
these
children
and
youth
disproportionately
affected
by
the
war
on
drugs
impacted
negatively
due
to
the
lack
of
empathy,
cultural,
cultural,
competency,
diversity
and
inclusion
communities.
Progress
for
forward
when
justice
is
distinguished
as
a
basic
right,
and
this
legislation
provides
an
opportunity
for
nevada
to
save
our
youth.
I
respectfully
urge
you
to
support
in
ab158
as
amended.
Thank
you.
Everyone
who
has
worked
on
this
legislation.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
comments.
Thank
you
so
much
ms
dobson,
and
if
you
wouldn't
mind
it
looks
like
you
had
prepared
those
in
advance.
If
you
could
send
those
to
our
secretary
to
make
the
creation
of
the
record
easier,
we
would
appreciate
it.
The
email
is
on
our
website
or
you
can
always
contact
me
to
to
get
it
for
you,
and
I
believe
that
concludes
testimony
in
support
of
ab158.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
That
concludes
testimony
on
ab158.
What
the
presenters
like
to
make
any
closing
comments
come
on
up.
M
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
apologize
thank
you
for
the
second
bite.
I
just
something
that
just
came
to
mind
as
I'm
reviewing
my
notes,
I'm
in
section
four
sub
five,
a
person
under
the
age
of
21
fulfills,
the
terms
and
conditions
opposed
for
a
violation
of
subsection
four,
which
would
include
the
first
offense,
the
courtship.
Without
a
hearing
order,
sealed
all
documents
and
on
my
concern
is
this:
how
do
we
get
to
a
second
offense?
M
G
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
and
if
I,
madam
chair
or
church,
I
both
senator
pickard.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
think
that
I'm
happy
to
have
this
discussion
with
you
offline
in
further
details.
I
do
think
that
this
was
just
so
you
know
this
was
something
that
we
had
discussed
at
grant
length
with
the
district
attorney's
office,
and
this
was
agreed
upon
information.
It's
my
understanding
that
they
would
be
able
to
still
have
that.
So
I'm
happy
to
speak
with
you
with
them
as
well.
M
And
that's
fine,
I
just
it
popped
into
my
mind,
and
and
so
we
can
do
that
offline
and
and
maybe
I'll
ask
the
das
as
well,
but
I
think
it's
important.
I
think
that
may
be
something
that
we
might
want
to
look
carefully
at
before.
We
move
this
bill
because
I
think
that
the
intention
and-
and
I
I
agree
with
the
intention
here
right-
it's
to
get
the
kids
the
help
they
need,
particularly
if,
if
we
can
get
them
into
harbor
programs
all
over
the
state,
I
think
that's
really
important.
M
But
if
we
can't
see
you
know-
and
I
don't
know
how
the
system
works,
but
if
we
can't
see
that
first
offense,
the
first
time
it
comes
up,
it's
going
to
be
groundhog
day
we're
going
to
have
multiple,
first
offenses
and
they're
not
going
to
get
the
help
they
need
is
my
fear.
So
anyway,
we
can
take
that
offline.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
do
appreciate
it.
A
Sure
and
I'll
also
just
chime
in
here
that
that
also
assumes
that
the
second
offense
is
occurring
after
all,
of
the
conditions
have
been
met
for
the
first
offense
and
in
my
practice,
what
I
often
see
is
that
it's,
while
the
first
offense
is
still
pending,
that
the
second
offense
or
the
second
arrest
occurs.
And
so
then
those
individuals
would
be
treated
under
subsection
b,
with
those
requirements
and
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
Now,
if
you'd
like
to
provide
any
closing
comments
and
answers
to
senator's
questions,.
G
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record,
if
I
can't
I
just
I
did
receive
a
text
message
from
the
nevada
association
for
criminal
justice.
Ask:
are
they
nacj
asking
me
to
put
their
testimony
of
support
on
the
record.
E
Assemblywoman
danielle
monroe
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
allowing
us
to
present
today,
but
you
had
to
ask
a
question
about
what
happens
with
the
items
and
speaking
to
one
of
my
law
enforcement
colleagues.
It
is
different
with
each
department.
However,
with
liquids
you
can't
always
impound
those,
so
those
are
disposed
of
with
the
other
items.
They
would
be
impounded.
A
Thank
you
that's
good
to
know,
and
with
that
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
ab158
again.
We
appreciate
all
of
you
being
here
to
testify
and
answer
our
questions
at
this
time.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
ab33
and
I
understand
our
presenters
are
here
via
zoom
in
this,
for
this
bill.
D
Hi
good
afternoon,
cher,
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
today.
My
name
is
dagny
stapleton
d-a-g-n-y
s-t-a-p.
D
I
am
the
executive
director
of
naco.
The
nevada
association
of
counties
with
me
today
are
three
percent
presenters
who
will
go
through
this
bill
and
provide
testimony
for
the
committee
and
I'd
like
to
introduce
them
first.
Amber
howell
is
the
director
of
washoe
county's
human
services
agency
that
agency
oversees
the
child
welfare
system
in
washoe
county
because
of
her
role.
D
Director
hal
is
very
familiar
with
child
welfare
and
dependency
cases
and
the
process
for
determining
paternity,
which
our
bill
today
addresses
also
to
help
us
answer
any
technical
or
legal
questions
representing
washoe
county
is
megan
lucy.
She
will
walk
us
through
the
bill
when
we
get
to
that
point
and
finally,
we
are
honored
to
have
retired
supreme
court
justice
nancy
sato
with
us.
She
will
also
share
her
perspective
on
this
issue
with
the
committee
with
that
cherish,
I
will
I'd
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
director
howell.
R
I
wanted
to
just
mention
that
the
start
off
by
saying
really
the
greatest
gift
that
we
can
give
a
child
is
closure
for,
through
a
forever
home
after
they've,
been
abused
and
neglected
or
experiencing
things
that
we
wish
that
they
had
not
no
child
or
parent
should
have
to
mourn
the
loss
of
each
other.
But
when
it
does
occur,
we
need
to
not
prolong
those
steps.
R
The
quicker
we
can
remove
the
anxiety
from
a
child
that
is
worrying
about
where
they
will
be
placed
for
the
last
time
and
free
from
the
instability,
the
quicker
that
the
child
can
close.
That
chapter
and
begin
anew,
children
in
the
foster
care
system
endure
unanticipated
trauma
from
the
unknown
and
not
having
a
secure
placement
or
confidence
that
the
adults
in
their
life
will
stay
there
and
be
there
forever
impacts.
All
of
the
facets
of
a
child's
life.
R
Children
should
not
grow
up
in
our
system
and
the
second.
We
realize
that
that
is
not
an
option
for
reunification
with
the
parents
quickly
and
have
a
seamless
process
to
find
the
next
best
option,
federal
time
frames
and
court
processes
and
establishment
of
paternity
all
take
several
months,
and
we
want
to
have
it
as
seamless
as
possible
so
that
we
can
shorten
those
those
experiences
for
a
child.
R
I
want
us
just
to
think
about
a
child's
clock
for
most
of
us,
we
think
of
a
lifetime
as
70
to
80
years,
but
for
a
child
they
spend
a
very
little
amount
of
time
being
a
child
and
when
you
think
about
a
child
in
the
foster
care
system
who
it
may
take
four
to
five
years
to
get
adopted,
that
becomes
a
fourth
of
their
childhood.
That's
spent
in
the
foster
care
system,
and
they
they
really
can't
get
those
years
back,
and
so
we
need
to
preserve
as
many
as
we
can.
R
R
The
bill
this
bill
ensures
that
this
process
is
uniform
and
efficient
across
the
state
by
making
sure
that
the
existing
process
is
in
law
in
chapter
126,
where
the
adoption
proceedings
are
are
also
used
in
the
child
welfare
cases
as
well.
In
summary,
I
will
end
by
saying
that
we
don't
believe
that
any
parent
wakes
up
one
day
and
decides
to
be
absent
or
not
provide
for
their
children,
but
in
various
instances
this
does
occur
and
we
need
to
be
there
for
the
child
to
provide
an
alternative
plan
that
is
safe,
loving
and
secure.
R
Everybody
longs
for
a
parent
to
guide
them
and
to
teach
them
and
love
them
unconditionally,
and
when
biological
parents
cannot
meet
these
tasks,
we
need
to
have
processes
that
streamline
the
myriad
of
events
need
to
occur
in
the
child
welfare
system.
This
legislation
is
being
proposed
to
provide
clarification
to
give
child
children
as
much
time
on
their
clock
as
possible.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
today,
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
justice.
Nancy
sada.
C
C
This
means
that
we
are
taking
from
one
section
of
our
statutory
scheme
moving
into
another,
an
expedited,
if
you
will
a
more
efficient
way
to
free
our
children
for
a
final
permanent
home.
It
is
perhaps
of
little
note
to
today's
hearing,
but
it
means
the
world
to
me
today
happens
to
be
my
birthday
and,
although
the
decades
don't
matter,
there's
not
a
birthday.
That
goes
by
that.
C
I
don't
thank
the
people
who
gave
me
the
privilege
of
being
adopted
into
the
home
where
I
landed,
and
the
process
that
we
put
before
you
today
in
ab33
simply
allows
for
that
window
of
time.
That
short
window
of
time
for
our
young
kids
to
get
into
that
permanent
home.
That
my
perspective
and
from
the
years
that
I've
worked
in
this
area
will
make
all
the
difference
in
their
lives.
We
are
not
eliminating
the
right
to
contact
to
identify
and
to
have
present
on
all
parents.
C
I
can't
thank
you
enough
for
considering
this
because,
as
I
said
it,
it
surely
makes
a
difference
in
so
many
lives
for
myself,
certainly
my
parents,
my
adoption,
meant
all
the
world
to
me.
So
thank
you
for
your
time
and
your.
S
We
are
simply,
as
already
discussed
with
you
here
today,
trying
to
streamline
the
process
to
establish
paternity
in
these
particular
hard
cases
in
the
dependency
community
and
simply
allow
these
processes
to
provide
more
streamless
process
for
these
youth.
So,
as
you
turn
to
section
one
or
I'm
sorry,
section
12
of
that
proposed
amendment,
we're
simply
adding
additional
language
to
allow
paternity
to
be
established
for
the
mothers
in
sub
1
and
the
fathers
in
sub
2
under
432
b
dependency
statutes.
S
If
you
scroll
down
to
section
12.3,
you'll,
see
additional
proposed
language
again,
all
it
does
is
simply
allow
the
jurisdiction
of
the
district
court
to
attach
paternity
establishments
to
the
dependency
or
32b
cases.
Again.
This
is
a
process
that
can
be
done
already
through
the
district
courts,
but
this
streamlines
it,
so
it
can
be
done
in
one
action
with
one
judge
and
not
take
up
additional
judicial
resources
and
additional
time
with
the
children
in
their
youth,
particularly
in
foster
care
or
in
their
guardianship
placements.
S
If
you
scroll
down
to
sub
6
of
12.3,
we
are
simply
allowing
the
432b
dependency
actions
to
become
final
orders
of
the
court,
which
allows
them
to
be
appealed
which
is
necessary
for
the
judicial
rights
of
these
parents
and
additionally,
allowing
that
these
orders,
these
paternity
statute,
orders
once
entered
into
by
the
district
court,
be
allowed
to
be
published
and
not
subject
to
the
confidentially
profound
provisions
of
432-b
actions.
S
This
is
important
because
all
of
the
orders
and
all
of
the
proceedings
within
432b
dependency
actions
are
subject
to
confidentiality
provisions
given
the
sensitive
nature
and
the
impact
that
they
have
on
minor
children
throughout
the
state.
We
are
simply
allowing
these
orders
that
establish
fraternity
to
be
deemed
unconfidential
for
the
purposes
of
changing
birth
certificates
or
other
various
uses
of
these
orders,
so
they
are
not
then,
in
violation
of
the
already
established
confidentiality
provisions
required
with
these
particular
cases.
D
Stapleton,
yes,
it
does
cheryshev
and
we'd
be
happy
to
take
any
questions.
A
Well,
I'm
sure
we
will
have
some
for
you,
senator
pickard.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
guess
I'm
going
to
address
justice
sata.
M
If
I
may
in
this
question,
because
as
a
former
justice
of
the
supreme
court,
you
will
have
dealt
with
jurisdictional
questions
on
a
regular
basis
and
I
I
I
am
under
the
impression
that
these
determinations
are
made
in
at
least
in
the
eighth
judicial
district.
All
the
time
under
the
idea
that
the
family
court,
of
which
dependency
is
division,
has
plenary
power.
M
In
fact,
their
jurisdictional
limits
are
greater
than
the
other
district
courts
in
that
they
can
hear
these
family
matters
where
the
other
district
courts
cannot,
and
so
do
they
not
already
possess
the
authority
under
126
to
establish
paternity
in
order
to
deter,
make
the
determinations
necessary
under
432
b,
because
I
don't
believe
they're
currently
doing
that
in
a
separate
action.
I
think
they're
doing
it
as
a
matter
of
course,
maybe
they're
doing
it
out
of
necessity,
as
opposed
to
statutory
authorization.
C
Senator
to
you,
through
the
chair,
all
this
bill
does
is
to
make
that
process
that
you
describe
clearer
and
simpler.
Yes,
the
jurisdiction
attaches
to
the
individual
family
division
of
the
court,
but
all
we're
doing
is
taking
it
from
one
section
and
putting
it
into
the
other
so
that
it
is
very
clear
for
all
of
our
judicial
officers
to
know
that
they
can
put
the
paternity
action
within
the
432
b
action.
That's
all
we're
doing.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
establishing
or
enlarging
jurisdiction.
C
Obviously
our
judges
are
doing
it
right,
they're,
just
doing
it
in
a
truncated
process,
and
this
will
simply
make
it
easier.
That's
all
the
request
is
in
this
provision.
M
All
right
and-
and
I
appreciate
that-
thank
you
very
much
and
by
the
way
it's
great
to
see,
you
haven't
seen
you
since
a
children's
commission
meeting,
so
look
forward
to
those
kicking
back
in,
but
in
my
discussions
with
miss
stapleton
and
others
prior
to
this,
it's
my
understanding.
M
This
is
not
occurring,
or
at
least
the
districts
outside
of
the
8th
judicial
district
are
not
currently
interpreting
this
this
way,
so
do
I
understand
correctly
that
what
this
is
going
to
do
then,
is
it's
going
to
standardize
the
practice
everywhere
so
that
we
do
I'm
assuming,
then
we
have
separate
actions
in
these
cases
and
in
the
other
jurisdictions,
particularly
where
we
don't
have
a
family
court.
So
is
this
going
to
then
standardize
for
everyone?
What
the
eighth
judicial
district
has
been
doing
for
some
time.
C
Again,
senator
to
you
through
the
chair,
the
answer,
simple
answer
to
that
question
is
yes
and
absolutely
it
will
establish
a
clear
line
if
you
will
a
clear
pathway
to
creating
again
a
quicker
permanency
process
is
already
in
place.
It
just
makes
it
easier
more
streamlined.
I
guess
we
keep
using
that
term.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
yes.
We
will
continue
to
do
what
we've
been
doing
just
in
a
simpler
form.
A
Absolutely
senator
orange
hall.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair
scheibel
and
it's
great
to
see
justice
zeta,
and
you
know
this
session.
Just
as
a
an
aside,
we've
been
working
on
a
lot
of
legislation
with
the
statewide
commission
on
juvenile
justice
reform
and
certainly
your
hard
work
along
with
first
lady
sandoval
during
the
2017
session
on
assembly.
P
Bill
472
has
really,
I
believe,
improved
outcomes
for
children
in
our
state
in
the
juvenile
justice
system,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
work
in
progress
and
it's
still
it's
still
moving
forward,
and
I
think
you
have
a
lot
of
of
of
thanks
to
be
given
for
that.
P
My
question
on
the
bill
for
whoever
would
like
to
answer.
Maybe
someone
from
washoe
county
might
have
more
information,
and
I
apologize
for
my
ignorance
because
I
don't
practice
in
this
area.
But
if
this
passes
and
with
this
streamlining,
if
there
is
a
a
putative
father
who
was
not
listed
on
the
birth
certificate,
perhaps
who
was
not
aware
of
of
the
child?
S
I
can
take
this
through
the
senator,
I'm
sorry
through
the
chair
to
the
senator
megan
lucy
on
behalf
of
washoe
county
health
and
human
services
agency.
S
No,
this
would
not
reduce
the
opportunity
for
any
punitive
fathers
to
step
in
to
establish
any
rights
or
responsibilities
that
they
may
wish
or
may
they
may
have
with
any
particular
child.
This
just
streams
like
the
process
for
establishing
fraternities
with
those
families
and
with
those
cases
that
paternity
is
at
issue
and
unknown.
S
This
is
established
through
the
126
maternity
statute,
as
stated
so,
dna
testing
can
be
utilized
to
conclusively
establish
a
punitive
father
or
mother
in
this
particular
case,
and
streamline
the
process
for
that
child
to
continue
down
the
path
of
forever
homes
through
the
termination
process
as
deemed
necessary.
A
All
right
any
other
questions.
Well,
I
would
like
to
wish
you
a
very
happy
birthday
justice,
sata
and
I'm
so
honored.
You
chose
to
spend
it
with
us.
We
very
much
appreciate
it
and
all
of
your
service
to
the
state
of
nevada
and
we
will
now
move
to
testimony
in
support
of
ab33.
A
I
do
see
somebody
here
live
and
in
flesh
to
give
some
testimony,
so
we
will
start
with
you
and
you
will
have
two
minutes.
G
G
We
did
work
with
the
sponsors
on
this
bill
and
I
do
really
appreciate
the
additional
protections
that
they
put
in
place
to
ensure
that
the
due
process
rights
that
there
are
appellate
rights
and
that
those
are
maintained
with
this
revised
version
that
you
see
as
to
senator
orange
shaw's
question,
I
would
just
say
that
I
do
believe
that
this
bill
does
improve
the
timing.
G
A
J
J
C
C
As
you
all
know,
parentage
is
often
the
focus
of
my
testimony
at
the
legislature.
This
bill
is
a
good
example
of
minor
changes
that
can
be
made
to
give
nevada
children
consistency
in
our
state.
Our
children
deserve
consistency
and
they
deserve
judicial
efficiency
within
the
family
law
arena.
Yet
we
often
fail
to
do
that
because
we
often
fail
to
make
minor
changes
to
make
that
happen.
This
is
a
minor
change
with
a
big
impact.
C
There
was
a
quick
comment
in
the
testimony
about
chapter
126
and
adoption.
Chapter
126
is
parentage,
has
nothing
to
do
with
adoption.
I
think
it
was
just
a
slip
up
and
the
comment,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
the
records
was
clear.
We
thank
nako
and
miss
lucy
for
bringing
being
resilient
and
bringing
this
bill.
R
C
J
C
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
tara,
scheibel
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jillian
block.
That's
g-I-l-l-I-a-n
b-l-o-c-k,
representing
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers.
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
say
that
we
are
also
in
support
of
ab33
because,
as
the
presenters
today
noted,
this
bill
will
bring
statewide
uniformity
and
consistency
to
our
statutes.
A
J
A
All
right,
then,
I
will
move
to
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
ab33.
There
is
nobody
present
in
the
room
to
give
such
testimony,
so
we
will
go
directly
to
the
phones.
Please.
A
A
Bill
today
well,
thank
you
for
being
here
to
present
it,
and
I
hope
that
justice
sata
will
go,
do
something
more
fun
to
celebrate
her
birthday
and
that
all
of
you
have
a
wonderful
afternoon
and
weekend
with
that
we
will.
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
ab33.
A
H
Good
afternoon,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman
elaine
marzola,
representing
assembly
district
21
in
clark
county.
Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
present
bill
assembly
bill
112,
which
revises
provisions
related
to
compromise
of
a
claim
of
a
minor
to
start
with
some
context.
H
A
compromise
of
a
minor's
claim
refers
to
a
settlement
of
a
disputed
claim
for
money
damages
in
a
personal
injury
claim,
on
behalf
of
a
minor
under
the
age
of
18.,
in
nevada.
If
a
minor
is
injured
in
an
accident
caused
by
the
negligence
of
another
person.
Just
like
an
adult,
the
miner
is
entitled
to
seek
recovery
from
the
negligent
party.
H
Existing
law
states
that,
if
in
a
minor,
has
a
disputed
claim
against
a
third
party,
the
parent
or
guardian
of
that
minor,
has
the
right
to
compromise
the
claim
by
filing
a
verified
petition
with
the
court.
If
the
court
approves
the
compromise
of
the
claim,
the
guardian
or
the
parents
must
establish
a
saving,
a
blocked
savings
account.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
back
in
front
of
you
and
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
marzola
for
bringing
and
sponsoring
this
bill.
While
it's
a
minor
change
to
minor's
comp
statutes,
I
think
it's
it's
an
important
policy
change
to
make.
So,
as
the
assemblywoman
stated,
the
current
process
is
no
matter
what
value,
how
big
or
small
a
case
is
in
results
of
a
personal
injury,
whether
it's
a
car
accident,
a
slip
and
fall
a
fight
out
of
school.
What
have
you?
I
The
parent,
can't
do
anything
with
that
money
can't
even
settle
the
claim
without
the
court's
approval
of
that,
and
once
the
approval
occurs,
then
there
that
has
to
be
done
through
a
petition
with
the
court
and
there
is.
There
can
be
some
strings
attached
to
that,
such
as
yearly
accounting
for
the
funds,
what
bank
you
deposit
them
in
and
then
some
other
filings
when
the
child
turns
18
and
becomes
the
age
of
majority.
I
The
first
part
of
this
bill
seeks
to
just
update
the
language
associated
with
it.
The
language
says
a
depository
account
and
while
the
courts
have
interpreted
that
I
think
reasonably
in
recent
sessions,
the
idea
is
that
we
want
to
give
as
much
flexibility
to
the
courts
as
possible
to
allow
that
that
money
to
be
put
into
a
financial
institution,
an
investment
account,
especially
in
today's
day
and
age,
where
savings
accounts
are
earning.
You
know
less
than
a
single
percent
to
try
to
grow
the
money
in
a
more
favorable
way
for
the
miner.
I
The
second
change
is
a
little
bit
more
substantive
and
that
is
to
say
that
it
is
a
discretionary
tool
that
we
are
providing
to
the
courts
that,
when
the
amount
of
the
compromise
the
settlement
is
smaller
and
the
threshold
we've
chosen
in
this
bill
is
2500,
that
the
court,
in
its
discretion,
can
award
that
money
directly
to
the
parent
for
the
use
and
benefit
of
the
child
without
any
further
reporting
required
or
depository
into
a
blocked.
Trust
account.
It's
not
something.
The
court
has
to
do.
I
It's
just
another
tool
in
the
in
the
in
the
toolbox
for
the
courts
to
do,
and
the
reason
why
we
tried
to
address
this
issue
is
because,
in
practice,
what
I
see
is
when
we
have
low
dollar
value
cases
and
I'm
just
going
to
use
a
simple
example
you're
in
a
car
accident.
You
know
you're
hurt
as
the
adult,
but
the
child
seems
fine.
Most
parents
reasonably
so
are
going
to
go,
take
their
child
to
go,
get
checked
out.
They
may
go
to
the
emergency
room
with
the
adult
and
get
checked
out
there.
I
Their
bills
may
be
four
or
five
hundred
dollars
and
an
ultimate
resolution
of
that
claim
may
be
about
you
know
a
thousand
dollars
and
the
money
going
to
the
minor
after
all,
the
medical
bills
are
paid,
are
a
couple
hundred
dollars
and
in
that
situation,
because
of
all
the
hoops
that
have
to
get
that
have
to
are
the
the
hurdles
that
must
be
cleared
by
the
parent
and
the
lawyer.
M
Thank
you
man
of
chair,
and
it's
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
it's
great
to
see
you
assemblyman
watkins
enjoyed
working
with
you
a
couple
sessions
ago.
My
first
reaction
to
this
was,
of
course
you
know
this
makes
sense.
M
I
I've
experienced
these
both
as
a
pi
lawyer
in
the
past
and
and
as
a
family
lawyer,
but
it's
that
experience
that
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
the
record,
because
often
what
will
happen
is
the
parents
will
be
entrusted
with
the
account
or
with
the
money
they
have
to
set
up
the
account?
It's
a
block
account,
which
means
the
parents
can't
just
go
pill
for
the
money
and
in
my
latter,
in
the
the
second
instance
I'm
talking
about.
M
We
often
see
these
things
abused
if
they're
not
in
a
blocked
account
where
one
parent
will
take
the
entirety
of
the
account
and
now
that's
an
issue
in
family
court,
whether
it
be
a
divorce
action
or
a
custody
action.
So
it
is
there
it.
As
I
read
this,
it
says
in
compliance
with
any
terms
and
conditions
ordered
by
the
court.
M
So
what
I'm
envisioning
is
a
situation
where
the
parents
are
together,
they're
getting
along
everything's
fine,
they
put
it
in
an
account
in
whatever
type
of
account
they
put
it
in
and
then
the
split
happens,
whether
it's
a
custody
issue
or
a
divorce
issue.
Now
they're
going
to
be
it's
not
much
money
but
they're
going
to
be
fighting
over
it,
they
always
do
if
we're
in
litigation.
So
how
does
a
court
does?
Does
the
because,
typically
it's
the
civil
court
that
will
retain
jurisdiction
to
oversee
the
account?
M
I
For
the
record,
justin
watkins,
thank
you
senator
picker,
for
the
question,
so
I
I'm
assuming
from
your
question
that
we're
taking
into
account
that
this
is
a
settlement
amount
of
under
2
500.
I
I
Current
law
is
that
it
has
to
go
into
a
blocked,
trust
account
which
must
be
maintained
and
accounted
for
with
the
court
until
such
time
as
a
court
order's
release.
If
they
were
to
use
this
portion
of
the
bill
that
were,
we
are
giving
them
as
a
tool.
Then
then
their
jurisdiction
would
end
there.
If,
then,
there
is
a
split
and
we're
in
family
court
and
they
bring
forward
those
funds
as
part
of
assets
that
need
to
be
divided,
then
I
believe
there
would
be
the
family
court's
jurisdiction
to
do
so.
I
However,
I
I
wouldn't
anticipate
that
to
be
something
that
would
actually
be
accounted
for,
because
I
would
imagine
in
in
my
practice,
if
I
were
going
to
try
to
utilize
this
provision,
that
the
court
would
want
to
see
in
my
petition
what
the
parents
plan
to
do
with
the
money.
Whatever
small
dollar
amount.
It
was
whether
it's
you
know
the
settlement
amount
is
to
go
to.
The
miner
is
200
and
the
miner
wants.
I
You
know
I,
I
don't
even
know
a
a
a
trip
to
disneyland
or
or
use
it
towards
something
that
the
miner
wants,
that
maybe
they,
the
the
family
wouldn't
otherwise
have
been
able
to
afford.
Then
that
money
would
have
been
spent
and
there's
nothing
there
for
the
family
court
to
divide.
But
assuming
that
there
is
still
an
accounting
of
those
funds,
then
it
would
go
to
the
family
court
to
divide
unless
the
civil
court
retained
jurisdiction
by
requiring
accounting
until
the
age
of
majority.
M
All
right
and
and
so
you've
assumed
the
curt.
M
I
don't
want
to
say
correct,
but
the
facts
I
had
in
my
head
and
I
had
actually
envisioned
where
we
would
have
a
multi-party
situation
where
maybe
the
kids
and
the
parents
were
involved
in
an
automobile
accident,
and
this
would
be
a
compromise
for
the
child
that
you
know,
but
it's
part
of
a
bigger
settlement
issue,
and
so
maybe
they
have-
and
I
had
a
situation,
although
it
was
a
blocked
account,
so
they
didn't
abscond
with
the
money
one
of
the
parents
tried,
and
so
that's
why
this
is
fresh
in
my
head
and
I
guess
the
my
hiccup
was
over
when
it
says
the
court
may
had
its
discretion
closed
the
case.
M
But
just
because
it's
closed
the
case
doesn't
mean
it's
necessarily
lost
jurisdiction.
That's
why
I
wanted
to
have
the
the
the
discussion
on
it,
but
it's
what
you're
describing
sounds
reasonable.
If
the
court
has
divested
itself
of
jurisdiction
and
closed
the
case,
then
it
would
be
an
asset
divided
by
the
family
court.
M
If
the
the
civil
court
did
not
say
they
did
decide,
and-
and
maybe
the
divorce
was
imminent
or
or
the
disagreement
between
the
parents
was
obvious-
and
the
court
decided
to
put
that
in
a
blocked
account
so
that
it
could
account
for
that
money.
Then
the
court
would
that
court
that
civil
court
would
retain
jurisdiction
and
then
it
would
probably
end
up
being
something
that
would
be
brought
up
in
the
family
court
case,
but
the
civil
court
would
end
up
having
to
dispose
of
that
money.
M
I
A
J
J
C
J
A
J
A
J
A
All
right,
then.
That
concludes
all
the
testimony
for
ab112.
Unless
the
presenters
have
any
closing
remarks,
go
ahead.
H
A
I'm
going
to
pause
you
for
one
moment
and
allow
assemblywoman
marzola
to
start
the
presentation
and.
H
I
promise
it
will
be
quick.
Thank
you
again,
madam
chairs,
and
member
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman
elaine
marzola
from
assembly
district
21
in
clark
county,
I'm
here
today
to
present
assembly
bill
318
for
your
consideration
with
me
today
are
co-chairs
of
the
legislative
committee
for
the
probate
and
trust
section
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada.
H
H
Nevada
is
at
the
forefront
of
the
estate
and
trust
law
to
a
large
extent.
This
is
because,
because
the
legislature
has
consistently
enacted
cutting
edge
provisions
and
updates
the
bill
before
you
today
also
updates
our
law
and
is
a
result
of
the
collaborative
work
with
the
legislative
committee
of
the
probate
and
trust
section
of
the
nevada
state
bar
assembly.
Bill
318
primarily
amends
title
12,
wilson
estates,
this
of
a
deceased
person
and
title
13,
guardianship,
conservatorship
and
trusts.
B
Before
I
turn
it
over
to
mr
noble
and
mr
freer
to
walk
you
through
the
bill,
I
wanted
to
provide
you
with
a
little
bit
of
background
on
the
process
of
the
legislative
committee
of
the
probate
and
trust
section.
The
committee
works
internally
to
develop
the
proposed
language
based
on
case
law,
changes
and
other
necessary
updates.
Once
the
probate
interests
section
has
vetted
the
proposed
language,
it
is
then
circulated
to
the
other
sections
of
the
state
bar
for
their
review
and
comment
on
potential
impacts
to
other
areas
of
the
law.
B
Once
each
section
has
vetted,
the
language
is
then
sent
to
the
state
bar
board
of
governors
for
their
approval
to
be
submitted
as
a
state
bar
probate
and
trust
section
bill.
The
language
submitted
by
the
section
to
by
this
by
the
section
two
lcb
for
this
bill
had
no
objections
by
the
other
sections
and
was
unanimously
approved
by
the
board
of
governors
to
be
submitted
by
the
section.
B
The
importance
of
sharing
this
process
with
you
today
is
to
highlight
the
level
of
vetting
that
the
language
before
you
today
has
gone
through
because
of
the
updates.
The
section
proposes
each
session
nevada
is
one
of
the
top
three
jurisdictions
in
the
united
states
in
the
area
of
trust
and
estate
law,
and
in
the
past
several
years,
nevada
has
also
taken
on
an
international
prominence
as
a
desirable
jurisdiction
for
establishing
and
administering
trusts.
T
T
Section
three
of
the
bill
is
a
exemption
for
fiduciaries
who
take
temporary
possession
of
real
property
for
making
real
property
disclosures
sections
4
through
16
and
34,
relate
to
electronic
wells
and
simplify
and
clarify
the
electronic
will
statutes
provide
for
remote
execution
of
trust
and
wills
and
provide
a
clear
procedure
where
a
electronic
will
can
be
made
into
a
certified
paper.
T
Copy
section
15
of
the
bill
was
a
specific
request
by
the
clark
county
public
administrator
to
enable
its
office
to
verify
facts
when
potential
abuse
is
suspected
and
section
16
of
the
bill
provides
a
essentially
a
privacy
for
individuals
who
are
attorneys
or
accountants
serving
as
a
fiduciary
that
they
could
use
their
business
address
rather
than
their
residential
address.
T
820
of
the
bill
provides
a
disinterested,
co-fiduciary,
conserve
and
sections
21
and
26
amend
the
administrative
power
provisions
to
streamline
and
not
that
update
nevada
law
to
when
a
personal
representative
may
act
on
behalf
of
a
business
which
obviously
is
happening
more
and
more
frequently
and
with
the
different
types
of
business
entities.
Our
laws
haven't
addressed
it
in
quite
some
time.
I'm
going
to
turn
the
rest
this
time
over
to
alan
freyr,
the
co-chair
of
the
legislative
committee,
the
probate
and
trust
section.
N
Thank
you
mark
alan
freer
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
in
line
with
the
object
objectives
of
the
bill
addressed
by
assemblywoman
marzola
I'll
briefly
address
the
latter
half
of
the
bill
with
respect
to
the
concept
of
streamlined
administration.
N
The
streamlining
continues
to
be
a
mandate
for
the
probate
and
trust
section
as
it
seeks
to
follow
the
mandate
provided
by
this
legislature
in
ensure
speedy
and
efficient
administration
of
estates
with
the
least
cost
to
the
parties.
In
line
with
that
section,
27
permits
the
court
discretion
to
set
aside
an
estate
from
a
probate
proceeding
where
a
poor
overwhelmed
situation
has
occurred,
thereby
reducing
the
costs
to
the
parties
to
administer
the
estate.
N
Likewise,
changes
in
sections
40
set
forth
in
sections
40
and
41
of
the
bill
regarding
notice
to
creditors
and
trust
proceedings,
bring
procedure
in
line
with
the
state
proceedings,
thereby
eliminating
confusion
and
the
dichotomy
between
an
estate
and
trust.
Proceeding
with
respect
to
clarifications
and
in
line
with
clarifications
relating
to
the
laws
of
trust
and
estates,
the
committee
did
clarify
a
number
of
statutes
and
I
would
like
to
take
a
moment
to
build
on
assemblywoman
marzola's
comments
with
nevada
being
a
national
top
three
jurisdiction.
N
It
does
become
a
topic
of
national
discussion
among
practitioners
in
the
area
due
to
that
many
times,
areas
that
are
needing
potential
clarifications
are
brought
to
light
from
those
national
discussions
regarding
nevada
law.
So,
in
this
session
we
have
sections
28
and
29
clarifying
statutory
fees
and
circumstances
when
an
attorney
is
an
independent
attorney
for
the
statutory
presumption
of
undue
influence.
Additionally,
an
example
of
this
clarification
process
appears
in
section
30,
which
amends
the
nomination
of
guardianship
statutes.
N
Currently,
there
are
multiple
laws
that
permit
the
nomination
of
a
guardian
in
various
documents,
but
the
guardianship
statutes
don't
reference
these
various
ways
of
nominating
a
guardian.
This
amendment
recognizes
all
of
the
current
statutory
methods
of
nomination
and
harmonizes
those
to
avoid
potential
conflicts
of
interest
among
the
statutes.
N
N
Section
31
proposes
a
new
statute
to
a
statutory
amendment
to
nrs
163
and
is
based
on
an
irs
revenue
ruling
that
permitted
trust
to
include
a
power
for
by
the
trustee
to
reimburse
the
settler
for
tax
payments
without
triggering
any
onerous
tax
liability,
federal
tax
liability
provisions,
and
so
this
statute
incorporates
that
power
consistent
with
the
irs
ruling.
N
Lastly,
with
respect
to
streamlining
administration
and
protections,
there
also
needs
to
be
protections
as
assemblywoman
marzola
addressed
section.
35
is
one
example
for
that
protection
for
beneficiaries.
It
requires
a
court
order
to
divide
or
combine
a
trust
if
such
power
was
not
expressly
granted
by
the
original
set
lore
of
the
trust,
and
likewise
mr
noble
did
mention
that
we
had
worked
with
the
public
administrator
clark
county
public
administrator
regarding
some
concerns
he's
seen
in
his
practice.
N
In
that
regard,
we've
included
an
additional
group
of
amendments
drafted
in
conjunction
with
the
clark
county,
public
administrator,
rob
telus
to
occur,
potential
abuse
examples
of
those
occur
in
sections
44
through
46,
and
they
likewise
afford
various
notice,
standing
and
informational
amendments
to
permit
the
clark
county
public
to
prevent
county
public
administrators
to
protect
estates,
especially
in
instances
where
there's
an
in-test
data
state
that
is
being
administered
by
a
non-spouse,
non-air
or
non-next
of
kin.
N
N
Section
47
retroactively
applies
the
changes
in
section
4,
or
the
clarification
in
section
4
to
ensure
that
wills
and
trusts
that
were
executed
electronically
during
the
pandemic
in
conformity
with
what's
occurring
in
sections
4
through
16
will
also
have
the
same
force
in
effect
as
if
they
were
executed
after
the
normal
october
1
effective
date.
A
All
right,
thank
you
and
I
think,
that's
all
of
our
presenters,
so
we
will
get
head
into
questions
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
I
see
senator
pickard
go
ahead.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
if
you
all
listen
to
the
last
presentation,
you'll
understand
where
I'm
coming
from
it's
when
things
go
sideways
with
families
that
I
get
involved
outside
of
a
death,
of
course,
that
would
probably
qualify
as
going
sideways
as
well,
but
I
don't
deal
with
this
part
of
family
law.
M
My
concern
is:
how
do
we
make
sure
that
this
doesn't
come
from
someone
who
has
a
motive
to
maybe
change
the
terms
a
little
bit
to
their
favor?
How
is
it
that
we
can
revoke
something?
You
know,
theoretically,
I
know
blockchain
supposedly
you
can't.
If
one
node
makes
a
change,
the
rest
don't
see
it,
it's
not
accepted.
N
Thank
you,
senator
pickard.
I
all
addressed
the
two
questions
you
answered.
You
asked
first
with
respect
to
a
revocation
of
the
document.
If
you
look
at
subsection,
9
subsection
2
provides
for
the
three
ways
that
an
electronic
will
can
be
revoked
first,
either
by
executing
a
new
will,
be
it
electronic
or
paper
that
revokes
prior
wills.
N
Second,
by
having
it
printed
out
as
a
certified
copy
and
then
doing
the
physical
revocation
similar
as
you
would
do,
with
an
everyday
printed
will
or
third,
there
is
a
method
to
do
an
electronic
revocation
whereby
you
contact
the
qualified,
custodian
and
direct
that
the
revocation
occur.
N
Moreover,
you
do
have
subsection
three
of
section:
nine!
That's,
and
this
is
existing
law
that
also
allows
any
other,
revocation
implied
by
law,
can
go
ahead
and
and
revoke
those.
So
that
answers
the
revocation.
I
think
the
more
important
question
you
asked,
though,
is:
how
do
we
prevent
fraud
with
respect
to
electronic
wills
and
trusts,
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
share
my
screen
real
quick.
So
if
I
get
this
wrong,
I
do
apologize.
N
But
if
you
look
on
the
shared
screen,
you
should
see
two
examples
of
a
doc
verify
document,
and
this
first
one
on
the
left
is
an
electronic
will
and
testament
and
you'll
see
the
bar
codes
and
the
q
codes
down
here.
This
is
how
electronic
wills
and
trusts
are
held
and
identified.
So
you
cannot
go
in
and
change
those
while
they're
in
the
electronic
format.
You'll
see
that
each
page
has
the
bar
codes
down
at
the
bottom
and
source
code.
Information
down
in
the
bottom
left
hand
corner,
and
that's
the
same.
N
So
this
first
document
is
a
is
a
will
that
my
office
has
done
electronic
will.
The
second
document
is
a
is
an
electronic
trust
that
mr
noble's
office
at
mcdonald
carano
has
done
and
it
is
similar.
It
also
has
the
same
barcodes
you'll
see
down
at
the
bottom,
the
same
trust,
signatures
or
trust
codes,
and
when
these
are
converted
to
a
certified
paper
original,
they
will
continue
to
bear
those
electronic
codes.
So
that's
the
first
avenue
to
prevent
fraud
with
respect
to
the
electronic
wills
and
trusts.
N
The
second
avenue
would
be
found
in
section
12
of
the
bill
and
its
existing
law
under
nrs,
133
320
and
a
qualified
custodian
cannot
be
an
heir
beneficiary
or
deficient
of
an
electronic
will,
and
so,
if
it's
it's
similar
to
the
requirements
of
having
a
a
witness
to
a
will,
that
can
that
neither
that
cannot
be
a
an
air
beneficiary
of
the
will
either
it's
the
same
concept
for
the
qualified
custodian
is
the
person
that
is
going
to
be
tasked
with
holding
the
electronic
document.
N
T
I
would
just
like
to
add
that,
as
far
as
revocation
it's
the
same
as
with
a
written
will
with
the
wet
signature
destruction,
you
can
do
another
will
electronically
or
hard
copy.
So
it's
the
same
same
same
circumstances
with
the
electronic
versus
the
paper
copy.
M
All
right,
thank
you
that
gives
me
some
peace
of
mind,
I
suppose,
and
then
in
terms
of
qualifications
of
the
qualified
custodian
that
hasn't
significantly
changed.
I
assume
I
don't
see
any
changes
to
the
qualifications,
but
that
custodian
is
is
all
important,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
that.
Have
we
changed
that
anywhere.
N
In
practice,
you
will
discover
that
most
qualified
custodians
are
law
firms
and
they're
done
in
connection
with
electronic
notaries
that
provide
additional
protections
and
electronic
notaries
are
required
to
maintain
additional
records
in.
In
addition
to
that,
but
that's
that's
the
practice,
but
in
terms
of
this
bill,
no
new
changes
to
the
qualified
custodian
that
occurred.
A
J
K
K
We
have
seen
serious
concerns
with
certain
transactions
and
cases
in
in
the
probate
court,
where
we
see
equity
that
might
have
gone
to
family
members
and
others
ends
up
through
a
process
instead
being
washed
away
and
being
done
by
by
third
parties.
White
way
may
not
be
illegal.
K
It's
certainly
a
concern
when
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
families
are
protected.
So
I
am
grateful
to
everyone.
Who's
been
involved
in
this
process
and
I
would
appreciate
the
consideration
you
give
to
this
bill.
Thank
you
very.
A
All
right
there
are
nobody.
There
is
no
one
here
to
give
opposition
testimony
in
person,
so
we
will
go
to
the
phone.
Please.
A
All
right
there
are
also
no
is
here
in
the
neutral
position,
so
we
will
go
to
the
phone
lines.
Is
there
anybody
to
testify
in
neutral
on
ab318.
J
A
T
I
just
want
to
thank
you
assemblywoman
marzola,
for
sponsoring
this
bill
and,
and
I
respectfully
urge
the
committee
to
vote
yes
on
ab318.
Thank
you
for
your.