►
From YouTube: 5/7/2021 - 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.
C
A
Here,
thank
you.
We
have
everybody
present.
We
have
five
of
us
here
in
the
room
and
two
via
video.
We
have
a
couple
of
or
no
we
have
one
bill
on
for
a
hearing
today
and
a
couple
bills
on
for
work
session.
Today
you
may
have
seen
on
nellis
that
they
were
originally
containing
consent
agenda.
We
are
going
to
pull
two
of
them
out
to
discuss
separately.
Those
are
ab30
and
ab60,
or
did
I
say
that
wrong,
ab27
and
ab60?
A
D
Thanks,
madam
chair
patrick
garnon
committee
policy,
analyst
for
the
record
so
as
the
chair
mentioned,
we're
using
a
consent
calendar
and
so
with
the
chair's
approval.
I
would
just
read
the
lead
lines
to
the
bills,
to
remind
everybody
what
they
are,
rather
than
go
through
the
summaries
which
are
attached.
D
So
if
that's
all
right
with
you
I'll,
just
read
them
off
assembly
bill
30
in
its
first
reprint
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
assembly
bill
33
in
its
first
reprint
authorizes
the
establishment
of
paternity
and
proceedings
concerning
the
protection
of
children
assembly
bill
43
in
its
first
reprint
request
of
the
nevada
supreme
court
study.
Certain
issues
relating
to
the
commission
on
judicial
discipline
and
assembly
bill
64
in
its
first
reprint
revises
provisions
relating
to
certain
crimes
and
as
the
consent
calendar
indicates,
chair
scheible.
A
All
right,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
do
pass
the
bills.
Second,
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
harris.
I
think
that
was
a
second
from
senator
orenshall.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion
not
seeing
any.
We
are
going
to
go
back
to
roll
call
vote
because
we
have
just
just
to
make
things
clear
on
the
record.
So
if
the
secretary
would
please
take
a
roll
call
vote
on
the
motion
to
do
past
the
consent
agenda,
minus
abs,
dang
it
27
and
60.
E
G
A
Yes,
all
right
so
that
motion
passes
to
do
pass
those
bills
or
get
those
bills,
and
I'm
going
to
assign
the
floor
statements
now.
Do
we
have
a
volunteer
for
ab30?
A
If
not,
I
will
just
go
down
the
row,
starting
with
senator
pickard,
who
would
normally
be
at
the
end,
how
about
eb,
33
any
volunteers,
senator
hansen,
ab-43,
any
volunteers,
all
right,
senator
orrinshaw,
ab-64,
senator
settlemyre,
and
with
that
I
will
open
up
the
work
session
on
ab27
I'll.
Let
mr
guyana
go
through
the
work,
doc
work
session
document
first
and
then
I
understand
we
do
have
some
questions
and
our
discussion
on
this
one.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
not
so
much
of
a
question
as
a
statement
I
was
looking.
I
I
dove
in
after
the
hearing
into
the
change
in
section
one
where
it
allows
the
support
enforcement
agency
to
issue
a
request
for
an
order.
They
said
they
do
that.
I
I
checked
with
the
judicial
officers
and
and
others,
and
they
all
said
that
the
most
they
can
do
currently
is
to
make
recommendations.
G
So
with
that
representation,
it
makes
me
nervous
so
I'll
be
in
no
with
the
reservation.
I
want
to
do
a
little
bit
more
digging,
but
it
sounds
to
me
like
this
wouldn't
be
a
good
way
to
go.
Thank
you.
A
E
A
Yes,
all
right
with
that.
The
motion
to
do
past
ab27
passes
and
I,
unless
there's
a
volunteer
for
the
floor
statement,
it
will
be
senator
harris
and
that
takes
us
to
ab60.
I
will
ask
mr
gunning
to
go
through
the
work
session
document
and
then
we
can
go
to
questions
and
discussion.
D
D
A
G
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
to
do
pass
a
b
60
passes
unanimously.
Is
there
a
volunteer
to
take
the
floor
statement?
Otherwise,
okay,
I
will
assign
it
to
senator
settlemyre,
and
that
concludes
our
work
session
for
today,
which
means
we
can
get
on
to
our
hearing
for
today
on
ab58
a
bill
from
our
esteemed
attorney
general.
I
will
allow
you
guys
to
go
ahead
and
get
started
whenever
you're,
ready
and
I'll.
Let
you
tell
us
what
order
the
presentation
will
go
in.
G
H
H
Okay,
I'm
gonna
leave
it
on
executive
decision
here.
I
will
leave
it
on
very
good.
Thank
you.
So
much
sorry
for
the
initial
drama
on
that
I
am
aaron
ford.
Your
attorney
general
delighted
to
be
back
in
this
house,
I'm
gonna
say
and
I'm
not
trying
to
butter
you
up,
but
I
miss
you
y'all.
It's
great
to
see
some
good
friends
in
this
in
this
building
here
walked
in
seeing
bow
ties,
and
I
was
like
that
looks
so
familiar,
and
so
thank
you
so
much
for
welcoming
me
back.
H
H
Second
assistant,
christine
jones
brady
in
the
audience
with
me,
and
second
I'm
sorry,
pardon
me
special
assistant,
teresa
har,
who
I
believe
is
either
on
the
screen
or
on
the
phone.
H
H
H
These
investigations
allow
an
agency
to
remedy
identified
problems,
rebuild
trust
between
the
police
and
the
communities
that
we
serve
and
strengthen
lawful
and
effective
police
and
practices.
It
also
allows
officers
to
ensure
that
they
have
the
training
and
the
policies
they
need
to
be
the
best
law
enforcement
officers
in
their
communities.
H
H
In
january
2017,
then
attorney
general
jeff
sessions
announced
that
the
u.s
department
of
justice
believed
that
these
investigations
should
be
conducted
at
the
state
level.
He
also
said
that
the
doj
would
no
longer
conduct
them
and,
as
a
part
of
this
new
posture,
the
doj
issued
new
guidance
that
limited
the
scope
and
usefulness
of
future
consent.
Decrees.
H
as
administrations
change
so
may
policies,
but
even
though
attorney
general
merrick
garland
has
indicated
that
the
doj
will
resume
and,
in
fact
is
resuming
exercising
its
pattern
and
practice
authority.
There
are
other
reasons
to
pass
this
bill
at
the
state
level.
First
and
obviously,
this
tool
should
not
depend
on
the
whim
of
a
particular
administration.
H
H
Another
reason
to
extend
this
authority
to
the
state
level
is
that
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office
is
obviously
more
familiar
with
the
people
and
agencies
of
our
state
than
is
the
federal
government
to
our
office.
Home
means
nevada
and
we
have
a
vested
interest
in
ensuring
nevadans
are
safe
and
that
their
constitutional
rights
are
protected.
H
I
was
before
you
on
another
bill
that
just
passed
that
was
just
heard
in
the
assembly
the
other
day
it
was
abe.
It
was
sb
50.
and,
as
you
recall,
I
worked
with
all
of
these
these
entities
to
ensure
that
we
would
present
you
a
bill
that
was
well
thought
out
and
that
would
move
the
ball
forward.
I'm
proud
to
say
we
did
the
exact
same
work
with
this
bill
right
here
and
so
what's
before.
H
I'd
like
to
now
turn
to
the
first
reprint
of
the
bill
to
aid
in
the
presentation.
I
have
prepared
a
powerpoint
presentation,
it's
a
short
one.
It's
short.
I
know
the
time
is
of
the
essence,
and
so
with
me
is
jessica
adair
who
will
help
us
with
that
I'll
begin
with
section
one
subsection,
one
of
the
bill,
which
provides
that
no
law
enforcement
agency
or
agency
responsible
for
juvenile
justice
shall
engage
in
a
pattern
of
practice
that
deprives
people
of
their
rights
on
the
u.s
or
nevada
constitution
or
any
other
law.
H
Subsection
2
provides
that
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office
may
investigate
claims
that
an
agency
covered
by
this
bill
has
a
pattern
or
practice
of
violating
people's
rights.
This
investigatory
power
is
discretionary
and
that
the
attorney
general's
office
is
not
required
to
investigate
every
complaint,
but
before
an
attorney
general
can
take
any
action
against
an
agency.
H
H
For
this
reason,
subsection
5
grants
the
attorney
general's
office,
the
power
to
subpoena
witnesses,
documents
and
other
information
held
by
the
agency
authorities,
similarly
granted
to
several
other
units
within
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
This
subsection
also
provides
for
judicial
oversight
over
the
use
of
the
subpoenas
and
exercising
powers.
Pursuant
to
the
bill.
H
H
Secondly,
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
this
subpoena
power
does
not
displace
long-standing
constitutional
considerations
against
self-incrimination,
such
as
the
fifth
amendment
and
guarantee
subsection.
Eight
makes
explicit
that
nevada's
whistleblower
statutes
are
applicable
to
this
bill
and
it
prohibits
retaliation
against
a
state
or
local
employee
who
discloses
evidence
of
an
unlawful
pattern
of
practice
if,
after
an
investigation
has
been
conducted,
the
attorney
general
has
a
reasonable
cause
to
believe
there
is
a
pattern
or
practice
of
unlawful
policing
at
the
agency.
H
H
The
agency
will
then
have
60
days
to
make
a
good
faith
effort
to
change
the
identified
deficiencies
in
the
event
that
the
attorney
general's
office
and
the
agency
are
unable
to
agree
on
a
plan
to
reform
or
to
reform
the
problematic
activity.
The
attorney
general
has
the
authority
to
initiate
a
civil
lawsuit
against
the
agency.
H
H
H
H
For
example,
investigative
material
could
identify
the
personnel
the
personal
details
of
not
just
individual
officers,
but
also
of
civilians
who
have
interacted
with
the
police.
A
lack
of
confidentiality
would
undoubtedly
lead
to
a
chilling
effect
on
people
being
willing
to
come
forward
to
disclose
information
about
unlawful
policing.
H
H
This
bill
is
a
direct
result
of
that
recommitment,
we're
not
afraid
of
high
standards
of
excellence,
we're
not
afraid
of
public
scrutiny,
of
our
methods
or
actions
and
we're
not
afraid
of
examining
those
parts
patterns
or
practices
of
our
agencies.
That
can
and
should
be
better
to
protect
and
serve
all
communities
in
nevada,
and
with
that,
madam
chairwoman,
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
entertaining
this
bill
and
I
look
forward
to
entertaining
any
of
your
questions.
Thank
you.
So
much.
E
Thank
you
so
much
a.g
ford
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I'd
like
if
you
could
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
where
you
see
the
level
of
activity
rising
to
your
office's
intervention.
So
is
it
you
hear
one
use
of
force
complaint
right
when
do
you?
When
do
you
estimate
that
it's
time
that
you
jump
in
and
look
at
whether
there's
a
pattern
or
practice
right,
I
imagine
that's
a
thin
line,
a
thin
line
to
walk.
H
Thank
you
senator
harris,
my
senator,
thank
you
so
much
for
asking
me
that
question.
In
particular,
it's
unfortunately
going
to
be
case
specific
it's
going
to
be
entirely
dependent
upon,
for
example,
the
volume
of
complaints.
We
get
the
types
of
complaints
we
give
if
they
reiterate
some
comparable
and
common
themes
that
we
can
glean
from
those
complaints.
H
One
complaint
may
not
be
enough,
but
in
the
context
of
the
law
we
know.
Sometimes
one
complaint
is
more
than
enough,
and
so
what
we
will
have
to
do
is
take
a
look
at
the
facts
and
circumstances
that
arise
during
the
complaint
process
and
make
that
determination
individually.
That's
why
it's
a
discretionary
act
that
your
attorneys,
you
don't
be
able
to
utilize
and
effectuate
in
this
bill,
but
that's,
unfortunately,
the
best
asset
we
can
provide
right
now.
E
And
no,
I
think,
that's
a
great
answer.
These
areas
are
nuanced,
and
so
I
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
the
analysis
and
be
nuanced
as
well,
so
thank
you.
E
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
general
ford,
for
bringing
this
bill,
and
one
question
I
have
is:
let's
say
you
see
a
pattern
of
practice
of
a
law
enforcement
agency,
maybe
not
not
requiring
officers
to
keep
the
body
cameras
on
or
maybe
not
not
archiving,
that
body
camera
footage
and
then,
when
a
constituent,
a
citizen
complains
about
something
that
may
have
happened.
There's
the
footage
is
not
available.
H
Senator
orrinshaw
thanks
so
much
for
the
question.
The
short
answer
is
no
monetary
penalties
will
not
be
afforded
under
the
bill.
It's
purely
injunctive
relief
that
can
be
awarded
by
a
court.
I
will
say
this,
though
I
would
highly
doubt
a
law
enforcement
agency
would
disregard
a
court
order
after
court
order
enjoying
someone
from
turning
off
body
cameras
or
requires
an
entity
to
retain
footage,
and
they
violate
that.
H
There
are
judicial
remedies
associated
with
violating
court
orders,
as
I'm
sure
you're
well
aware
of
that
will
certainly
that
could
certainly
be
employed
under
those
circumstances.
But
but
no,
we
do
not
seek
monetary
damages
under
this
particular
pattern
and
practice
authority
bill.
E
F
Thanks,
madam
chair,
actually,
the
rules,
but
when
you're
speaking,
you
are
allowed
to
take
off
your
mask
on
the
floor,
at
least
so
I
I
like
your
voice,
it's
not
quite
as
muffled.
For
starters,
I
want
to
thank
kyle
george,
you
for
you
actually
to
thank
you
for
having
him
help
me
with
so
many
things.
Thank
you,
mr
george.
I
finally
get
to
say
hi
to
you
and
all
sincerity.
I
very
much
appreciate
it
question
on
the
bill,
though.
Several
agencies
in
nevada
that
have
police
powers
are
also
represented
by
dags.
F
All
right,
your
own,
your
own
deputy
attorney
generals
are
like
no,
no,
like
department
of
ag
have
cops
and
endo
has
cops,
and
so
I'm
kind
of
wondering
those
types
of
police
agencies,
or
at
least
they
have
police
powers,
is
not
obviously
their
main
focus,
but
when
those
when
those
cases
occur-
and
you
have
a
dag
that
represents
that
agency,
are
you
guys
going
to
recuse?
I
mean
how
does
that
work.
I
I
However,
in
our
office
we
frequently
deal
with
conflicts
of
interest
between
state
agencies
and
with
the
ag's
office
and
other
agencies,
and
we
have
protocols
in
place
to
ensure
that
those
who
are
representing
an
agency
never
have
access
to
information
or
even
are
are
even
supervised
by
the
same
people
by
people
who
are
conducting
other
other
activities
against
that
agency,
and
so
here's
a
perfect
example.
I
We
have
jurisdiction
to
pros
criminally
prosecute
state
employees
for
crimes
that
occur
within
the
scope
of
their
work,
but
we
also
then
represent
those
agencies
themselves,
so
the
dags
who
represent
the
agencies,
are
supervised
by
first
assistant,
kyle
george
and
the
prosecutors
who
investigators
and
prosecutors
who
are
involved
in
the
criminal
activity
are
supervised
by
second
assistant,
christine
jones
brady.
I
We
will
also
set
up
internal
protocols,
so
they
won't
even
be
able
to
access
files
that
are
that
are
in
regards
to
those
matters,
and
those
conflicts
of
interest
are
overseen
by
a
separate
independent
person.
Our
general
counsel,
leslie
ninopiro,
so
you're
absolutely
correct
that
those
conflicts
of
interest
could
arise,
but
we
do
have
internal
protocols
currently
to
to
address
those.
F
Okay,
well,
you
know
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
brittany,
miller's
idea
of
and
having
an
inspector
general
position
that
would
help
eliminate
these
sorts
of
situations.
I
know
you
guys
aren't
big
on
that,
but
down
the
road.
I
think
that's
something
the
state
should
reasonably
look
into
for
these
exact
kind
of
situations.
F
I
know
I
you
have
confidence
that
you
know
you
can
separate
everything
inside,
but
for
anybody
looking
at
what
the
attorney
general's
office
is
investigating
the
attorney
or
defending
the
one
agency's
defending
and
the
other
part
of
the
attorney
general's
office
is,
is
potentially
you
know
filing
a
civil
action
against
the
one
and
the
you
know
just
looks,
looks
really
funny
so
anyway,
I
would
suggest
hopefully
way
down
the
road
that
we
get
an
inspector
general
position
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
so
we
can
have
have
a
outside
agency
that
can
can
the
people
we
feel
comfortable
coming
to
when
they
in
fact
have
issues
involving
a
government
agency
that
currently
has
almost
always
a
deputy
attorney
general
defending
them.
I
Thank
you
senator,
and
I
I
just
also
wanted
to
to
add
for
the
record
that
in
the
case
that
we
cannot
resolve
a
conflict
of
interest,
we
do
have
the
statutory
authority
to
to
engage
outside
counsel,
so
they
are
completely
separate
from
our
office
entirely.
But
I
just
wanted
to
supplement
the
record
with
that.
In
case,
it
ever
comes
up.
G
Hey
madam
chair
and
thank
you
attorney
general
ford
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
I
just
after
reading
it,
and
particularly
after
the
presentation,
I
must
say
that
this
is
the
most
reasonable
approach
to
police
reform.
I've
seen
and
I'm
I'm
tracking
right
along
with
you.
I
just
have
one
question
and
that
has
to
do
with
sub
5c,
well,
sub5
and
and
how
we're
dealing
with
I'm
sorry,
that's
section
1
sub5
and
how
we're
dealing
with
the
subpoenas
and
then
particularly
undersea.
G
If
the
witness
fails
to
cooperate,
you
can
seek
a
an
order
compelling
that
witness
to
attend
and
to
testify.
My
concern
has
to
do
with
the
fifth
amendment
rights.
Typically
at
least
my
experience
has
been
the
the
individual
has
a
fifth
amendment
right
and
the
agency
does
not.
G
So
where
do
we
draw
the
line
for
purposes
of
compelling
a
witness
when
that
witness
may
ultimately
end
up
being
part
of
the
agency
with
a
responsibility,
a
certain
level
of
authority
they
would
be
designated
since
this
is
a
civil
suit
as
a
30b6
witness
and
now
they
could
potentially
open
themselves
to
personal
liability.
Even
though
the
agency
doesn't
have
a
fifth
amendment
protection,
can
you
explain
how
that
would
work.
H
Yeah,
thank
you.
Senator
picker
aaron
ford
for
the
record
I'll
try
to
begin
by
reiterating
the
point
that
you've
made,
which
is
under
no
circumstance,
says
this
bill
displays
long-standing
constitutional
considerations
against
self-recrimination
such
as
the
fifth
amendment
and
garrity.
I
mentioned
that
in
my
opening
testimony.
H
You've
reiterated
it
now
and
I'm
reiterating
it
for
a
third
time
to
the
extent
there
are
circumstances
that
arise
where
the
fifth
amendment
needs
to
be
asserted.
To
be
sure,
that's
going
to
take
precedent
over
any
request
that
contravenes
that,
but
I
do
want
to
offer
kyle
george
or
jessica
or
someone
else
if
they
want
to
speak
on
this
as
well.
G
Thank
you,
kyle
george,
for
the
record,
as
senator
as
you
indicated,
the.
C
C
I
said
fifth
amendment.
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
the
fifth
amendment
doesn't
extend
to
documents,
for
example,
that
that
may
be
held
in
in
possession.
H
G
And
you,
you
kind
of
hit
the
nail
in
that
you
can
always
get
the
documents
you
can
always
subpoena
the
public
records
and
the
documents
in
there.
There
probably
would
be
an
in-camera
exception
for
any
ongoing
investigations.
G
But
my
concern
is
this,
particularly
as
we're
dealing
with
small
agencies
where
there
may
only
be
one
appropriate,
30b6
witness
and
if
they
are
concerned
that
they
might
get
roped
in
because
they're
the
supervising
authority
within
the
agency
and
they
may
get
roped
into
both
a
criminal
and
a
subsequent
civil
action
they're
going
to
claim
their
right
under
the
fifth
amendment,
and
now
we
lose
the
ability
to
obtain
a
30b6
witness.
How
do
how
does
that
work?
G
How
can
we
because
the
court's
going
to
want
to
compel
a
30
c
30
v6
witness
to
actually
provide
the
testimony
that's
being
requested,
but
in
small
agencies
that
may
preclude?
So
how
do
you
anticipate
working
in
in
that
kind
of
environment.
H
H
The
one
that
you've
outlined
would
be
one
that
would
require
our
office
and
our
folks,
who
are
responsible
for
implementing
this,
to
figure
out
strategies
to
address
the
issues
that
you've
that
you've
talked
about
and
to
try
to
get
information
in
a
way
that
can
still
allow
us
to
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
there's
been
a
pattern
of
practice
that
unconstitutionally
infringes
upon
the
residence
of
a
particular
jurisdiction.
G
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
solid,
that
that
individual
would
retain
his
fifth
amendment
right,
which
of
course,
is
sacrosanct,
so
I
can't
imagine
the
court
would
agree
with
with
the
compulsion
of
testimony
in
spite
of
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
was
clear
on
that.
That
was
really
the
only
question
I
have.
I
think
this
is
well
drafted.
It's
it's
narrow
and
and
appropriate,
and
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
measure.
Thank
you.
A
All
right
majority
leader,
cannizzaro.
C
Thank
you
cherish
rival,
and
I
probably
more
more
than
anything
just
wanted
to
make
a
make
a
comment
and
and
thank
the
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
bill
and
to
commend
you
general
ford.
I
first
of
all
I'm
very,
very
excited
that
we're
all
wearing
bow
ties
in
your
honor,
because
we
do
miss
you
here
in
the
senate
and
wanted
to
just
one
thank
you
for
your
hard
work
on
this
bill
to
command
both
you
and
all
of
your
deputies
and
staff.
Who've
worked
on.
C
I
think
a
number
of
bills,
this
legislative
session
to
not
only
find
the
right
balance
from
a
policy
perspective,
but
to
really
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
do
exist
in
a
way
that
I
I
think
is
going
to
bring
some
real
clarity.
And
I,
I
am
just
very
appreciative
of
all
of
your
hard
work,
and
I
know
you
mentioned
earlier
that
a
lot
of
this
came
as
a
result
of
your
justice
town
halls,
which
I
am
grateful
for
you
to
have
to
have
done.
C
And
I
think
is
the
right
way
to
go
about
crafting
smart
policy
that
is
going
to
allow
your
office
and
and
for
the
public
to
have
a
lot
of
faith
in
what
it
is
that
that
you're
doing
and
and
the
folks
who
work
with
you
and
so
just
wanted
to
commend
you
for
having
really
wonderful
people
who
are
working
hard
to
do.
The
right
work
and,
of
course,
always
great
to
see
you
here
in
senate,
judiciary.
H
Well,
madame
majority
leader
aaron,
for
the
record
great
to
see
you
as
well.
I
love
the
bow
tie.
Y'all
got
me
smiling
up
under
this
mask
everybody
on
the
bow
tie.
Thank
you
for
participating
in
the
justice
and
injustice
forums.
By
the
way.
H
Some
of
this
conversation
came
out
of
the
legislative
panel
that
we
had
about
ways
that
were
that
we
can
tangibly
enact
laws
that
were
responsive
to
what
the
community
was
demanding,
but
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
talking
about
who
I'm
surrounded
by
to
my
left
is
my
chief
of
staff
on
the
screen
is
my
first
assistant
behind
me
is
my
second
assistant.
I
have
a
general
counsel.
I
have
a.
I
have
a
solicitor
general.
H
I
got
an
entire
team
of
400
folks
they're,
all
my
bosses,
I
just
work
there
and
they
are
fantastic.
They've,
been
able
to
convene
the
working
group
to
ensure
that
we
get
this
done.
I
have
a
vision
of
what
justice
looks
like
I've,
communicated
it
to
my
people
so
to
speak,
and
I'm
proud
of
this
work.
I
really
am
to
be
able
to
get
law
enforcement
and
public
defenders
and
da's
and
everybody
on
the
on
the
same
page
to
work.
H
This
out,
I
think,
is
an
important
component
and
my
closing
salvo
about
justice
and
injustice.
It
is
now
on
cox,
on
demand,
so
get
your
cox
remote,
hit
the
microphone
button
and
say
justice
and
injustice,
and
you
can
see
the
entire
series
of
panels
pounds
that
we
did
in
the
aftermath
of
george
floyd.
So
thank
you
so
much
again,
senator.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
I
also
have
just
a
couple
of
quick
questions
and
I
agree
your
staff
is
fantastic
and
that
is
why
they
deserve
such
a
great
leader
in
you.
So
we
are
all
very
thankful
to
have
you
and
your
staff
here
working
hard
to
make
justice
more
accessible
in
nevada,
and
I
think
this
bill
is
a
good
good
step
in
that
direction.
I
think
it's
an
important
part
of
that
and
my
questions
are
actually
just
pretty
specific.
You
did
a
great
job
explaining
how
it
could
be
an
agency.
A
It
could
be
a
community
member
who
brings
the
possible
pattern
of
practice
violations
to
your
attention
and
then
the
attorney
general
does
that
initial
review
or
the
attorney
general's
office
does
the
initial
review
of
whether
or
not
an
investigation
has
to
be
done.
If,
in
that
initial
review,
the
reviewer
determines
that
there
isn't
even
enough
there
for
an
investigation.
What
happens
to
that?
I
All
right,
thank
you,
chair
jessica,
dare
for
the
record,
so
I
I
imagine
we'll
be
treated
like
our
complaints
are
treated
now,
probably,
and
I,
with
all
due
respect
to
all
of
our
divisions
in
in
the
attorney
general's
office,
I
will
say
one
of
the
most
important
ones
is
our
constituent
services
unit.
They
receive
thousands
tens
of
thousands
of
complaints
every
year.
We
anticipate
that
this.
I
This
will
add
to
that
workload
and
we
routinely
our
process
is
to
receive
the
complaint
process
that
complaint
in
that
it
goes
into
a
database
in
our
system,
so
it's
readily
accessible
to
us,
and
so
then
we
can
use
data
to
look
at
where
we
see
patterns
for
a
lack
of
a
better
word
and
then,
as
that
complaint
is
processed
and
reviewed,
and
if
it's
investigated
by
our
criminal
investigators
now
people
receive
periodic
updates
as
to
how
their
com
the
status
of
their
complaint.
I
Of
course
they
can
call
our
office
anytime
and
ask
about
the
status,
but
they
will
receive
an
acknowledgement
that
the
complaint
has
been
received
and
they
will
receive
a
close-out
letter
if
we
don't
move
forward
with
that
complaint,
and
we
also
include
any
resources
that
are
related
to
that
complaint.
So,
for
example,
if
someone
was
to
make
this
type
of
complaint,
we
also
might
refer
them
to
the
citizen
review
board
of
that
particular
agency.
I
So
that
is
our
current
process.
Now
I
don't
imagine
it
changing
in
any
way
other
than
to
make
it
accustomed
to
this
type
of
investigation,
but
people
will
receive
acknowledgement
of
a
receipt
closeout
or
if
it
is
investigated,
they'll
obviously
be
contacted
by
a
member
of
our
office
to
walk
them
through
that
investigation.
A
I
Thank
you,
chair,
jessica,
dare
for
the
record,
unfortunately,
no,
and
the
reason
for
that
is,
then
we
won't
have
the
ability
to
verify
anything
in
that
complaint.
We
can't
then
call
that
person
email
that
person
and
say
tell
us
more
about
this.
I
We
unfortunately
do
get
anonymous
complaints
and
it
makes
it
very
difficult
for
our
office
to
do
our
job.
That
being
said,
I
am
hopeful
that,
should
this
pill
pass,
we
can
work
with
other
other
entities
in
the
community
that
will
allow
us
to
receive
complaints
if
people
do
not
want
to
be
associated
with
those
complaints.
The
citizen
review
boards
would
be
a
good
example.
Other
community
organizations,
though
every
time
we
do
receive
complaints
of
an
anonymous
nature
it
just
it
makes
it
so
difficult
for
us
to
investigate
so
leaving
the
door
open
for.
A
Future
opportunities
that
makes
perfect
sense
to
me
appreciate
that
I
just
have
one
more
question
about
the
process.
If
a
an
agency-
let's
say
they
do
agree
to
the
plan
at
the
beginning,
and
you
don't
have
to
file
that
civil
suit
and
they
say
our
plan
is
going
to
include
whatever
we
are
going
to
increase
our
body
camera
usage
by
25,
and
then
they
don't
do
that.
A
I
Thank
you,
chair,
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
yes,
and
that
is
in
3b,
and
when
we
were
talking
about
this
with
stakeholders,
we
caught
the.
We
called
this
the
with
all
deliberate
speed
problem,
and
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
there
was
a
statutory
mechanism
for
us
to
make
that
agreement
enforceable
with
the
court.
I
Now
I
imagine
that
if
an
agency
engages
in
this
collaborative
process
with
our
office
to
in
a
good
faith
effort
and
that's
why
we
also
included
the
60
days
marker
in
in
statute
as
well,
that
they
have
to
make
good
faith
efforts
within
that
60
days.
A
Thank
you
that
clears
up
all
of
my
questions
and
I
don't
see
any
more
from
members
of
this
committee.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation
and
for
answering
all
of
our
questions.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
support
of
ab58.
I
see
somebody
present
in
person
to
give
testimony
and
we
will
start
with.
A
B
B
How
incredibly
responsive
this
bill
is
to
the
community
outcry
for
attorney
general
intervention
in
a
lot
of
issues
that
were
taking
place
last
summer,
we
received
a
lot
of
the
same
complaints
that
could
typically
go
through
a
pattern
in
practice,
office
or
review
of
those
complaints
through
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
you
know
I've
had
some
conversations
with
the
ag's
office
and
there
really
wasn't
a
path
to
file
those
complaints
or
a
path
for
the
attorney
general
to
look
into
some
of
these
matters,
and
now
we
clearly
have
that
tool.
B
We
speak
a
lot
about
as
an
organization
about
passing
laws
that
have
no
teeth:
no
real
accountability
or
oversight
of
law
enforcement.
It's
really
feel-good
measures,
but
I
think
that
this
measure
before
us
today
is
quite
different
and
does
provide
some
tools
to
really
dive
into
systemic
issues
that
are
occurring
in
nevada's
police
department.
So,
for
these
reasons,
we
support
this
legislation.
Thank
you.
J
J
K
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
chaired
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
reverend
michael
willoughby.
K
M-I-C-H-A-E-L-W-Y-L-L-O-U-G-H-B
and
I'm
the
tech
director
for
battleborn
progress
in
las
vegas,
we
are
absolutely
thrilled
to
be
here
in
support
of
ab58.
We
would
like
to
reiterate
the
widespread
support
for
this
bill.
It
is
absolutely
imperative
that
we
take
this
important
first
step
on
the
road
to
making
sure
that
our
communities
are
safer.
K
J
K
K
J
C
C
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E-S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
policy
director
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
at
plan,
we
work
to
structurally
transform
nevada's
criminal
justice
system
by
organizing
with
people
who
have
direct
experience
with
mass
incarceration
and
their
families.
We
want
to
thank
the
attorney
general
for
bringing
this
important
bill
forward
to
help
increase
police
accountability
in
nevada
after
moments
of
police
violence.
We
often
hear
the
phrase
it
was
just
a
few
bad
apples.
However,
the
problems
continue
to
happen
over
and
over
again
pattern
and
practice.
Investigations
are
an
important
tool
to
address
systemic
racism
and
discrimination
in
law
enforcement
agencies.
J
J
J
Call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
668,
please
press,
star,
61
mute!
Thank
you
so
much
and
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
begin
good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
troy:
scroomy
t-r-o,
y-c-e
k-r-u-m-m-e,
representing
the
las
vegas
police
managers
and
supervisors
association,
we'd
first
like
to
compliment
those
participating
for
wearing
some
amazing
bow
ties
in
the
room
this
afternoon.
J
Second-
and
more
importantly,
we'd
like
to
thank
attorney
general
for
kyle
george
jessica,
adair
and
the
rest
of
the
attorney
general's
staff
for
bringing
us
to
the
table
and
asking
for
our
input
on
this
bill.
They
listened
to
our
concerns
and
allowed
those
concerns
to
be
reflected
in
the
negotiations
that
produced
the
bill.
You
see
in
front
of
you
today.
J
J
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
schreibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
This
afternoon
I
have
the
privilege
of
testifying
on
behalf
of
my
office
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
want
to
thank
attorney
general
ford,
as
well
as
his
staff,
as
the
additional
callers
have
indicated.
C
This
bill
reflects
a
lot
of
negotiations
and
hard
work,
and
we
are
proud
of
the
bill
that
it
has
become
to
help
ensure
that
our
community
members
feel
safe,
feel
like
their
voice,
is
heard
and
feel
like
they
have
an
opportunity
to
go
to
someone
to
address
their
complaints
if
any
arise.
So
we
really
appreciate
this
bill
and
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
listening
to
the
calls
of
our
community
members
asking
for
this
bill.
Thank.
C
A
J
K
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
alina
shell,
it's
spelled
a-l-I-n-a
last
name
is
s-h-e-l-l,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
chairwoman
for
giving
me
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
ab58
today,
I'm
actually
coming
wearing
two
hats.
I
am
a
civil
rights
attorney
in
las
vegas
and
I
have
been
involved
in
civil
rights,
litigation
against
law
enforcement
agencies
in
clark,
county
and
nye
county,
I'm
also
wearing
the
hat
of
being
a
member
of
the
nevada
open
government
coalition,
which
is
a
non-partisan
organization
that
supports
governmental
transparency.
K
We,
the
nevada,
open
government
coalition,
submitted
a
proposed
amendment
to
ab58
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
We
also
provided
a
copy
of
it
to
the
attorney
general
and
his
staff,
and
I
just
wanted
to
just
quickly
address
what
we
are
proposing.
The
amendment
to
we're
specifically
looking
at
the
bill
proposing
amending
section
six.
I
guess
it's
section,
one
sub
six
b
regarding
when
records
can
be
made
public
under
6b
right
now
is
currently
written.
K
The
other
amendment
that
I
wanted
to
address
the
committee's
attention
to
that
we
had
proposed
was
to
section
subsection
6c,
to
add
some
clarity
to
clarify
the
confidentiality.
Provision
cannot
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
a
record
which
would
otherwise
be
public
somehow
becomes
confidential
simply
because
it
becomes
a
part
of
the
attorney
general's
investigation,
and
I
I
would
you
know
we.
We
proposed
this
during
the
march
16th
hearing
before
the
assembly,
judiciary
committee
and.
K
A
J
J
C
Good
afternoon
tara,
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
jennifer
noble
j-e-n-n-I-f-e-r-n-o-b-l-e,
representing
the
nevada
district,
attorney's
association
cheryshev.
I
have
to
apologize.
I
missed
the
prompt
for
support
testimony
and
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
put
our
support
for
ab58
on
the
record
and
thank
a.g
ford's
office.
A
J
J
A
G
Thank
you.
Madam
chair
appreciate
the
opportunity
just
a
quick
question.
A.G
ford,
the
testimony
actually
supported
testimony.
I
made
me
think
of
one
thing
and
that's
we're
looking
at
a
pattern
of
practice
or
pattern
or
practice
that
existed
in
the
past.
How
far
back
would
that
go?
G
I'm
thinking,
for
example,
the
metropolitan
police
department,
las
vegas
was
struggling
a
decade
or
so
ago,
and
then
they
went
through
subject
to
an
investigation,
I
believe
by
the
doj,
and
they
went
through
a
number
of
iterations
of
of
improvements
that
they
went
from
one
of
the
worst
to
one
of
the
best,
or
something
like
that.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
far
back
will
that
scope
go
or,
or
is
this
assumed
to
be
limited
to
the
the
the
current
practice
that
is
under
investigation.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
senator
pickard.
I
think
the
answer
to
that
question
is
best
responded
to
this
way.
Again,
it's
gonna
be
case
specific
right.
If
we
get
a
complaint,
the
effective
date
of
the
bill
that
alleged
something
that
happened
10
years
ago,
but
has
not
we've
not
seen
anything
since
then,
for
example,
then
not
likely
that
complaint
initiates
a
pattern
of
practice
investigation,
especially
if
10
years
ago,
that
particular
police
department
underwent
some
internal
changes
that
have
addressed
those
issues.
H
If
that
complaint
we
received
was
something
that
related
to
yesterday,
then
maybe
that
initiates.
I
just
think
it's
entirely
case
specific.
I
don't
know
if
it's
fair
to
put
a
time
frame
on
it
at
this
juncture,
because
I'll
tell
you
this.
If
it's
been
happening
for
20
years
and
it's
still
happening,
we
definitely
want
to
address
it.
G
And-
and
I
agree
with
that
completely
I-
I
wasn't
thinking
about
a
complaint
that
occurred,
alleging
it-
something
that
happened
ten
years
ago.
I'm
thinking
if
someone
alleges
something
today
and
then
the
ag's
office
were
to
look
back
15
years
and
then
include
that
behavior
that
has
since
been
rectified.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear
we're
not
looking
at
at
the
history
that
might
go
back
at
infinitum,
but
we're
talking
about
a
recent
pattern.
H
G
H
Thank
you.
My
apologies
for
speaking
over
you
as
well,
I
know
miss
king
is
probably
upset
with
me
right
now.
Sorry,
any
additional
questions.
Madam
chair.
H
H
I
C
I
Yep,
though,
to
aj
ford's
correct
point,
something
could
have
been
ongoing
and
as
long
as
it's
you
know
ongoing
now
that
injunctive
relief
would
be
appropriate.
I
I
do
want
to
address
the
testimony
in
in
opposition
from
the
nevada
open
government
coalition,
and
I
I
find
myself
similarly
in
an
in
kind
of
a
strange
position
being
in
opposition
of
of
groups
that
advocate
for
transparency,
because
I
think
you
know
all
of
us
in
the
ag's
office
feel
very
similarly,
but
just
for
some
context
on
that
particular
amendment.
I
This
amendment
was
brought
to
us
the
day
before
the
assembly
judiciary
hearing.
We
then
had
our
stakeholders
who
worked
with
us
on
this
bill.
Take
a
look
at
that
amendment
and
it
did
not
get
get
support
from
the
stakeholders,
and
that
was
really
critical
to
us,
since
we
spent
so
much
time
working
in
good
faith
with
these
stakeholders
to
come
to
a
consensus
that
if
they,
if
they
couldn't
support
that
amendment,
we
we
would
not
adopt
it
and
in
in
good
faith
with
them
and
our
negotiations
with
them.
I
But
I
will
say
that
our
negotiations
did
address
that
point,
because
it
is
a
really
important
point
that
the
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
increase
transparency
and
accountability,
and
we
don't
want
to
do
anything
that
would
further.
Distrust
did
further
grow
distrust
in
the
community,
but
there
are
some
pretty
significant
logistical
problems
of
that
amendment
and
I
can
get
into
detail
if
the
chair
will
give
me
some
a
few
minutes
of
indulgence.
A
I'm
gonna
interrupt
you
just
for
one
second,
because
in
case
it
wasn't
clear
to
the
members
of
the
committee
that
amendment
is
not
available
on
nellis
for
this
meeting.
But
if
you
go
back
to
the
assembly,
meeting,
you'll
see
a
very
similar
amendment
that
was
received
slightly
more
that
with
more
time.
So,
if
you're
wondering
about
the
language,
that's
where
you
can
find
it.
I
I
There
already
is
a
legal
standard
for
the
disclosure
of
public
records
and
and
the
supreme
court
spoke
about
that
in
don
ray
of
nevada
versus
bradshaw,
and
it
adopted
a
balancing
test
to
determine
whether
a
record
should
be
kept
confidential
and
it
it
balances
the
agency's
public
policy
interest
in
withholding
the
document
against
the
general
policy
in
favor
of
open
government
and
the
court
acknowledged
that
the
following
public
policy
concerns
may
justify
an
agency's
refusal
to
disclose
and
and
these
factors
are
really
important
to
this
type
of
information
and
that's
pending
or
anticipated
criminal
proceedings,
confidential
sources
or
investigative
methods
and
techniques,
the
possibility
of
denying
someone
a
fair
trial
and
jeopardy
to
law
enforcement
personnel.
I
So
I
I
think
that
that
is
that
case
law
should
govern
whether
a
record
in
this
specific
instance
is,
is
disclosed
and-
and
I
think
it
might
be
helpful-
to
walk
through
a
hypothetical
situation
of
an
improv
practice
investigation
and
how
this
confidentiality
provision
would
play
out.
So,
let's
say,
hypothetically
we've
received
enough
information
to
initiate
an
investigation
and
an
agency
for
a
pattern
or
practice
of
using
chokeholds.
So,
as
you
know,
better
than
anybody,
the
legislature
has
banned
chokeholds
and
using
a
chokehold
is
is
an
example
of
unlawful
policing
in
this
state.
I
So
to
conduct
our
investigation,
we
collect
the
following
information:
the
agency
agencies
policy,
manual
agency,
training
materials
statements
from
civilians
who
have
been
subjected
to
chokeholds
or
witnessed
to
people
who
have
statements
from
officers,
including
those
who
are
charged
with
training
and
those
who
have
used
chokeholds
on
civilians,
body,
camera.
Footage
of
choke
holds
being
used.
Emails
between
agency
employees,
discussing
choke,
holds
disciplinary
records
of
officers
who
have
used
choke,
holds
and
constituent
complaints
to
the
agency
and
records
indicating
whether
or
not
that
agency
responded.
I
Almost
every
single
one
of
these
records
would
be
under
the
custody
of
the
agency
and
subject
to
the
nevada
public
records
act.
I
do
not
believe
that
it
is
necessary
to
statutorily
include
in
this
bill
that
that
that
clarification
is
needed,
because
there's
nothing
in
this
bill
to
indicate
that
the
agency
that
holds
those
records
would
not
have
to
follow
the
nevada
public
records
act.
So
in
this
example,
the
policy
manual,
the
training
materials,
the
body
camera-
footage
the
emails,
the
constituent
complaints.
I
So
in
this
hypothetical,
the
only
records
that
would
not
already
exist
at
the
agency
would
be
the
witness
and
officer
statements.
And
so,
while
we
agree
there
is
a
strong
public
interest
in
the
transparency
of
these
investigations,
we
have
to
weigh
other
important
factors,
and
that
includes
the
quality
of
our
investigations.
I
If
the,
if
the
committee
members
have
any
questions
about
this
provision,
I
am
happy
to
answer
it.
I
know
we
didn't
really
get
into
detail
in
the
presentation,
but
it
is
the
the
product
of
significant
negotiation
between
the
custodians
of
these
records
that
will
most
likely
be
at
issue
and
groups
that
are
interested
in
government
transparency.
And
this
is
the
compromise
that
we
came
with
up
to.
H
These
considerations,
we
think,
are
simply
unfounded
at
this
juncture
and
we
respectfully
request
that
you
pass
this
bill
as
presented
to
you
currently.
E
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
scheible,
miss
adair
or
or
a.g
ford,
I'm
hoping
one
of
you
would
be
willing
now
to
put
on
the
record
that
it
is
not
the
intent
of
the
ag's
office
to
allow
police
departments
to
consider
documents
confidential.
I
Thank
you
senator
jessica,
dare
for
the
record?
Yes,
that's
our
intent,
and
that
was
the
intent
of
of
the
departments
who
we
worked
with
on
this
bill
too
nobody's.
Nobody
was
trying
to
use
this
as
a
shield.
So,
but
but
what
was
important
to
those
agencies?
It
is
that
they
have
the
ability
to
determine
what
their
what
records
are
produced
and
they
have
the
ability
to
redact
information
that
might
be
privileged
to
them,
and
that
is
their
legal
privilege,
not
ours,
and
so
that's
the
distinction
there.
I
But
it's
absolutely
not
our
intent
or
any
of
the
law
enforcement
agencies
that
we
worked
with
on
this
bill.
To
use
this
as
a
large
shield
over
the
mpra.
A
And
if
I
could
ask
a
clarifying
question,
it
also
doesn't
prohibit
the
attorney
general's
office
from
sharing
some
of
this
information.
If
you
wanted
to,
if
you
were
working
with
another
agency
in
the
investigation,
if
there
was
some
other
reason,
if
something
had
already
been
published,
it
would
still
give
you
the
discretion
within
the
public
records
law.
It
just
wouldn't
require
any
additional
disclosures.
Am
I
reading
that
correctly?
I
I
imagine
that
that
agency
would
probably
include
some
of
that
information
in
that
final
report,
and
also
a
huge
exception
is
if
there
is
a
civil
action
if
we
are
filing
a
lawsuit
against
an
agency,
and
we
have
to
include
all
sorts
of
exhibits
to
establish
that
pattern
in
practice.
All
of
that
information
is
going
to
be
part
of
the
court
record.
So
in
that
way,
the
ag's
office
could
disclose,
but
we
would
not
have
the
unilateral
ability
to
disclose
in
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
nevada,
open
government
coalition.
I
A
Thank
you
for
clarifying
any
other
questions.
I
don't
see
any
other
questions.
We
really
appreciate
all
of
your
time
since
we
got
on
to
you
know
a
second
topic:
do
you
want
to
make
closing
closing
remarks
or
you
guys
have
had
enough
of
us
again?
We
appreciate
the
work
that
you
do
and
your
your
time
and
attention
today
and
that
will
conclude
the
hearing
on
ab58.
The
hearing
is
now
closed.