►
From YouTube: 4/28/2021 - 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
I
will
call
this
meeting
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
to
order
I
apologize
for
my
tardiness.
I
was
out
front
at
the
denim
day
press
conference,
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
today
is
denim
day
in
the
nevada
legislature,
where
we
wear
denim
in
solidarity
with
victims
and
survivors
of
sexual
assault
and
sexual
violence,
and
I
think
it's
a
very
important
moment
for
us,
and
I
appreciate
your
patience
as
I
finished
up
that
obligation
before
I
came
down
here,
but
now
we're
ready
to
get
started.
B
A
A
A
Here,
thank
you.
We're
going
to
go
a
little
bit
out
of
numerical
order
today
to
accommodate
our
guest
presenters
so.
A
E
E
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheibel
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
steve
yeager
I
represent
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas,
and
it
is
a
real
pleasure
to
be
in
front
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
for
the
first
time
this
session
and
likely
not
the
last
time.
But
it
is
an
honor
to
be
here
today
and
to
present
assembly
bill
107
in
its
first
reprint
joining
me
here
at
the
table.
As
you
can
see
and
is
bailey
borderland,
she
will
be
helping
me
to
present
the
bill
to
you.
E
I'll
just
have
a
very
quick
opening
statement
and
then
I'll
hand
it
over
to
her
to
take
you
through
the
provisions
of
the
bill
assembly.
Bill
107
relates
to
access
to
justice,
access
and
justice
is
important
and
the
inability
to
afford
court
filing
costs
should
never
serve
as
an
impediment
to
having
your
day
in
court
assembly.
E
Bill
107
is
a
bill
that
will
improve
access
to
justice
because
it
gives
the
court
more
guidance
on
how
to
determine
whether
a
person
should
be
relieved
from
having
to
pay
costs,
and
that
is
the
statement
I'd
like
to
make
chair.
With
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
hand
it
over
to
ms
bortolin,
who
will
explain
the
bill
and
then,
of
course,
we
would
be
available
to
answer
any
questions.
F
F
F
We
know
that
in
the
state
of
nevada,
a
tenant
has
to
affirmatively
respond
to
an
eviction
notice
and
actually
initiate
that
court
proceeding
themselves
and
there's
a
cost
associated
with
doing
that.
So,
there's
a
cost
to
being
able
to
defend
yourself
in
the
judicial
process
in
a
totally
different
scenario.
F
I
would
note
that
you'll
see
throughout
that
we've
removed
some
of
the
formality
language.
At
the
request
of
some
of
the
judiciary,
we've
been
working
as
a
system
throughout
the
pandemic
to
streamline
processes
whenever
possible,
and
so
we're
no
longer
requiring
a
formal
court
order.
Courts
could
continue
to
do
that,
but
should
there
be
a
way
to
automate
these
applications
and
streamline
these
applications?
We
want
to
give
the
courts
the
ability
to
do
that
in
a
streamlined
fashion,
and
then
the
meat
of
the
qualifications
is
in
section
two,
so
I'll
walk
through
quickly.
F
F
So
that
way,
it
would
be
the
same
population
whether
they
were
able
to
access
a
legal
aid
provider
or
not
in
advance
of
their
legal
need
that
wouldn't
have
to
pay
the
filing
fee
and
then
sections
three
and
four
allow
for
an
individual
review
of
a
case
and
the
individual
need
that
someone
may
have
if
they
haven't
met
those
previous
thresholds.
So
oftentimes
we
have
a
parent
whose
child
is
experiencing
a
medical
emergency
that
is
taking
up
a
significant
portion
of
their
wages,
but
they
otherwise
look
like
they
would
be
able
to
qualify.
F
They
could
still
lay
out
that
fact
situation
for
the
courts
to
consider
if
they
wanted
to
grant
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
and
then
the
last
one
is
an
existing
fee
waiver
that,
if
you
are
a
client
of
legal
aid,
legal
aid
has
vetted
you
because
of
our
funding
mechanisms
that
we
serve
people
who
have
shown
a
financial
need.
So
you
would
continue
to
not
pay
the
filing
fees
if
you're
a
client
of
legal
aid
as
well.
F
G
F
Bailey
borderland
for
the
record.
We
don't
see
this
as
a
large
change,
I'm
not
sure
if
stephanie
can
speak
to
what
percentage
of
people
are
currently
qualifying.
I
will
note
in
my
conversations
with
the
courts,
they
didn't
see
it
as
a
substantive
change
from
the
way
that
they're
currently
receiving
fees,
because
it
is
just
those
little
pieces
of
uniformity
that
we're
trying
to
reach.
F
F
Bailey
borderline
for
the
record,
if
it's
legal
aid,
clients,
100
of
legal
aid,
clients
are
indigent,
so
they're
already
qualifying
for
the
fee
waivers.
Okay,.
H
Thanks
ma'am
jared
yeah.
My
question
deals
with
section:
oh
one,
I'm
sorry
on
page
three
about
the
sheriffs
when
I've
done
a
long
time,
but
I
used
to
have
to
hire
sheriffs
to
deliver
certain
legal
processes,
small
claims
actions
and
things
like
that.
Typically
back,
then
it
was
50
to
100
bucks.
Last
time
I
did
it,
I
actually
had
to
hire
a
private
server
and
cost
me
like
200
bucks,
because
the
person
lived
out
of
a
certain
zone.
What
what
is
the
I
mean
who's
supposed
to
pick
up
the
tab
here
for
the
sheriff?
I
I
B
I
I
H
Mileage,
so
there
is
a
cost
on
that
yeah,
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
whole
program.
I
mean
the
the
the
concern
I
had
just
reading
it,
how
they
prevent
you
know
frivolous
redundant,
vindictive
type
of
actions
if
there's
no
cost
to
the
individual
filing
these
things.
What
what
prevents
them
from
just
doing
it
in
a
way
that,
frankly,
I'm
just
trying
to
be
obnoxious
to
their
former
landlord
or
whatever.
F
Bailey
borderland
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator.
I
would
note
that
the
sheriff
language
is
pre-existing
on
page
two,
and
the
bill
is
just
kind
of
rearranged,
so
I
think
what
stephanie
was
referencing
is
that
that's
the
process
currently
that
the
sheriffs
are
working
with
us
on
this
as
far
as
filing
the
court
always
has
the
ability
to
order
that
costs
do
be
paid
once
the
case
has
been
opened
if
they
feel
that
the
fee
waiver
wasn't
justified.
H
Are
there
situations
where
this
could
be
abused,
or
has
it
been?
I
mean
you
know,
obviously
I'm
not
an
attorney,
I'm
not
in
practicing
like
like
yourself
what
prevents
people
from
misusing
this
and
just
filing.
You
know
an
unlimited
number
of
civic
act
or
civil
actions
just
to
harass.
F
Thank
you
senator
it's
not
specific
to
somebody
who
can't
pay
right.
Anyone
could
pay
to
file
a
harassing
amount
of
lawsuits
as
well.
So
there
are
mechanisms
in
the
law
that
do
address,
I'm
forgetting
my
law
school
term,
but
obnoxious,
filers,
oh
vexatious,
litigants.
H
B
K
You,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
both
for
presenting
the
bill.
I
mean
I
deal
with
these
all
the
time
and-
and
I
I'm
interested
though
in
in
understanding
the
difference
between
the
existing
state
of
informa,
paparazz
filings
and
and
what
this
bill
will
do
not
so
much
from
clark
county.
They
do
a
wonderful
job.
They've
got
the
forms
all
ready
to
go.
K
I
think
those
in
clark
county
who
avail
themselves
of
the
self-help
center
will
be
guided
right
through
the
process
and
they
don't
seem
to
have
much
of
a
problem
and
certainly
those
clients
that
come
to
me
and
and
we
decide
to
take
them
on,
but
they're
indigent.
We
work
very
well
with
legal
aid
to
get
that
done
so,
but
in
areas
where
we
don't
have
a
good,
solid,
self-help
center
or
legal
aid
center.
That
can
help
people
through
this.
K
K
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
pickard.
First,
I
would
note
that
we
do
have
a
legal
aid
provider
that
technically
covers
every
county.
So
if
you
need
help
come
find
me.
Secondly,
something
that
we
really
like
in
this
bill.
F
But
we
have
successfully
created
a
statewide
form
for
domestic
violence,
protection
orders,
for
example.
So
I
think
the
goal
and
the
vision
as
we
continue
to
work
as
the
statewide
access
to
justice
commission
is
to
constantly
increase
when
we
can
have
statewide
forms
available
so
that
we're
pulling
along
those
other
counties
in
terms
of
accessibility.
K
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
and-
and
I
presume
that
we'll
be
working
with
the
office-
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts-
to
get
that
done
quickly,
because
if
we
just
leave
it
up
to
the
courts,
they're
slammed,
I
don't
know
how
long
that
would
take
to
get
done.
But
I
assume
that
they're
part
of
the
stakeholder
conversations
that
have
been
had.
F
K
Great,
thank
you
and-
and
I
love
the
bill,
I
think
it's
it's
a
great
idea
to
make
sure
we've
got
uniformity,
and
particularly
given
some
judges,
just
frankly,
are
reluctant
to
do
this,
because
not
because
they're,
they're,
mean-spirited
or
anything
they
just
don't
want
to
push
the
burden
onto
the
county
already,
and
so
this
will
give
some
additional
guidance
and
incentive
to
give
these
people
the
access
they
need.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
L
L
Don't
don't
realize
that
a
person
who
is
the
plaintiff
and
has
to
serve
they
can
actually
have
a
friend
serve
the
individual
at
no
cost,
so
that's
another
way
that
they
can
get
around
it
and
a
lot
of
people.
Some
people
know
that
some
people
don't,
but
I
just
kind
of
want
to
let
you
know
that
there
are
people
that
do
it
that
way.
I've
had
to
do
that
with
the
real
estate
agency.
A
M
M
M
B
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piero
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
and
we
just
want
to
testify
and
support
access
to
justice
as
a
major
issue,
and
we
think
that
this
bill
helps
increase
access
to
justice.
Thank
you.
M
M
A
M
A
M
M
B
My
name
is
alex
falcone,
I'm
testifying
neutrally
just
wanted.
To
give
some
of
my
experiences
I
filed
informa
poppers.
I
guess
you
could
say
cases
because
it
was
not
just
in
district
court.
It
was
also
in
the
supreme
court
on
multiple
occasions,
and
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
my
experiences
with
former
proper
status
were
very
heartening,
because
I
was
a
college
student
and
I
couldn't
afford
to
litigate.
B
B
So
I
wouldn't
say
that
all
of
them
were
filed
for
free,
but
I
would
say
about
half:
maybe
three
quarters
of
those
actions
were
filed
for
free
and
those
outcomes
would
not
have
been
possible
without
form
of
popular
status
100
for
sure,
because
I
just
simply
could
not
afford
afford
to
pay
the
filing
fees.
The
other
thing
that
I'd
like
to
mention
is
that
I,
at
one
point
on
a
number
of
occasions,
tried
to
get
the
losing
party
to
pay
the
costs
as
mandated
by
statute
and
most
of
the
time
the
judges
were
resistant.
B
To
doing
that.
So
I
think
I
think
I
did
hear
some
concerns
from
some
of
the
legislators
about
abuses
and
there
is
a
statute
that
mandates
an
award
of
costs
against
losing
the
party,
but
it
looks
like
it's
going
to
be
probably
on
the
onus
of
somebody
besides
one
of
the
litigants
to
make
sure
that
those
judges
are
ordering
those
costs
are
imposed
against
the
losing
party
and
that
could
possibly
help
with
some
of
the
financial
concerns.
Some
of
the
legislators
had
that's
all.
A
Before
you
sign
off,
could
you
just
clarify
whether
you're
calling
in
in
support
or
neutral.
A
Okay,
well,
it
sounded
more
supportive
to
me,
but
we'll
just
let
the
record
speak
for
itself
in
a
hundred
years
when
we
go
back
to
read
it
and
with
that,
do
the
that
sorry
is
there
anybody
else
to
testify
and
neutral.
A
It's
like,
I
knew
and
do
the
that
concludes
testimony.
Do
the
presenters
have
any
closing
comments?
It's
not
mandatory,
but
it's
welcome.
E
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
chair
schreibel.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
miss
bortolin
and
also
our
partners
in
the
the
justice
courts
in
particular.
They
worked
very
hard
on
this
matter,
and
so
I
would
urge
your
support
and
certainly
available
for
questions
after
today's
hearing.
If
you
might
have
any.
A
E
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
esteemed
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
steve
yeager
and
I
represent
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas.
It
is
my
pleasure
this
afternoon
to
present
assembly,
though
104
in
its
first
reprint.
As
you
can
see
here
at
the
table,
joining
me
is
a
chief
deputy
attorney
general
heather
proctor
from
the
attorney
general's
office
and
chair
with
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
background
and
then
hand
it
over
to
ms
proctor
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
bill
to
really
understand
this
bill.
E
Some
people
267
from
last
session
did
something
really
really
significant.
It
provided
compensation
for
those
who
had
been
wrongfully
convicted
and
incarcerated
in
our
state.
Many
people
helped
make
that
legislation
a
reality,
and
I'm
very
thankful
for
that.
It
was
certainly
a
long
time
coming
for
the
state
of
nevada.
E
E
I'm
proud
that
assembly
bill
267
from
last
session,
had
bipartisan
co-sponsors
and
passed
both
houses
unanimously
and
then
was
signed
by
governor
sisilak.
I
tell
you
all
of
this,
because
the
bill
in
front
of
you
assembly
bill
104,
make
some
changes
to
the
law
we
passed
last
session.
Those
changes
came
as
a
result
of
feedback
from
the
attorney
general's
office.
Who
is
the
one
who
actually
defends
or
negotiates
these
lawsuits?
They
were
able
to
provide,
suggested
changes
to
make
the
law
clearer
and
easier
to
administer.
E
I
will
say
it
was
an
absolute
pleasure
to
work
with
them
on
this
bill
over
the
last
few
months
and
I'm
very
thankful
for
their
collaboration
on
this
issue.
Chair
with
your
permission,
I
would
now
like
to
hand
it
over
to
ms
proctor
to
give
you
some
additional
background
about
how
the
attorney
general's
office
has
been
handling
assembly
bill
267,
and
then
she
can
take
you
to
the
bill
and
will
be
available
for
any
questions.
D
D
To
that
end,
the
office
ensures
every
claimant,
complies
with
nrs
41.900
and
establishes
by
a
preponderance
of
the
evidence
that
they
did
not
commit
the
crime
for
which
they
were
convicted.
As
with
any
new
law
through
enactment,
the
attorney
general's
office
discovered
that
the
existing
law
required
clarification,
uniformity
and
certainty
for
the
state
and
claimants
alike.
This
led
to
the
proposed
amendments
in
ab104
to
be
clear.
D
An
award
does
not
place,
blame
or
find
fault.
Rather,
the
person
is
provided
a
chance
to
live
a
normal
life,
with
a
certificate
of
innocence,
permitting
the
claimant
to
move
forward
without
the
wrongful
felony
conviction
looming
in
their
background
and
at
every
traffic
stop
and
money
to
start
that
life
and
the
necessary
provisions
of
life
from
medical
care
and
counseling
to
advanced
education
to
re-entry
and
financial
literacy
programs,
as
many
of
these
claimants
are
also
seeking
monetary
compensation
against
a
county
or
state
agency
through
a
civil
rights
1983
action
which
typically
takes
years
to
resolve.
D
D
Second,
the
attorney's
fees,
which
are
capped
at
25,
000
and
third,
the
additional
benefits
section.
One
of
ab104
revises
nrs
41.910
to
clarify
the
documents
to
be
sealed.
Following
the
issuance
of
a
certificate
of
innocence
and
the
confidential
nature
of
such
proceedings,
section
2
exempts
the
state
from
the
restrictions
of
an
offer
of
judgment,
as
well
as
pre-judgment
and
post-judgment
interest.
D
Again,
I
return
to
the
intent
of
the
bill,
which
is
to
permit
the
claimant
sufficient
funds
to
restart
their
lives
while
they
await
larger
settlement
funds
from
civil
rights
matters
without
incurring
unnecessary
additional
costs
for
the
state
section.
3
provides
clarification
for
the
claimant
and
the
state
in
calculating
the
statutory
damages
based
on
the
length
of
incarceration
in
implementing
this
law.
The
attorney
general's
office
determined
that
caps
were
necessary
for
the
additional
benefits
a
person
could
claim
under
the
statutes.
D
No
caps
currently
exist
for
these
additional
benefits
we
found,
for
instance,
a
person
wrongfully
incarcerated
for
five
years
would
be
entitled
to
a
lesser
amount
of
statutory
damages
for
the
length
of
their
incarceration,
but
the
same
amount
of
benefits
in
both
monetary
value
and
length
of
award.
As
someone
wrongfully
convicted
for
30
years,
a
person
should
not
receive
benefits
for
a
period
that
exceeds
their
original
incarceration
again.
The
intent
of
the
statute
is
to
give
the
person
assistance
in
returning
to
normal
life,
not
a
lifelong
windfall.
D
In
addition,
the
board
of
examiners
requested
some
certainty
in
the
costs
that
would
be
sought
from
the
reserve
for
statutory
contingency
account.
This
led
to
the
additional
proposed
caps
in
section
three
which
serve
to
one
clarify
the
costs.
A
claimant
can
pursue
two
maintain
the
assistance.
A
claimant
requires
to
return
to
normal
society
and
three
create
certainty
for
boe
to
budget
for
the
additional
expenses
by
providing
a
maximum
potential
cost
for
these
benefits.
Each
year.
D
During
the
committee
hearings
on
ab267
in
2019,
assemblyman
yeager
and
the
innocence
project
stressed
that
the
payments
under
these
new
statutes
were
not
intended
as
a
double
reward.
Again,
it
was
intended
only
to
permit
the
claimant
the
ability
to
return
to
her
normal
life
pending
settlement
of
a
1983
action.
D
It
is
possible
for
a
claimant
to
commence
a
civil
action
in
any
state
or
federal
court
throughout
the
country,
not
just
in
nevada.
It
is
impossible
for
the
attorney
general's
office
to
track
every
claimant
throughout
every
potential
state
or
federal
court
for
years
to
determine
when
and
if
the
claimant
receives
another
settlement
related
to
their
wrongful
conviction.
D
To
that
end,
section
4
clarifies
the
language
of
the
offset
provision
to
bring
it
in
line
with
the
original
legislative
intent
it
clarifies
for
for
all
parties
what
settlement
funds
are
subject
to
the
offset,
and
it
establishes
a
time
frame
for
the
claimant
to
notify
the
state
of
subsequent
settlements.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentations.
Are
there
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee?
All
right,
senator
hansen
go.
H
Ahead
thanks,
madam
chair,
of
course,
the
the
martial
berry
cases.
You
know
everybody
knows
about
that.
One,
I'm
just
curious
how
many
cases
have
been
brought
before
the
ag's
office
since,
since
the
law
was
passed.
D
H
And
is
there
any
certain
jurisdictions
that
seem
to
have
a
disproportionate
number
of
them?
You
know
I
represent
seven
counties,
one
of
my
da's
all
doing
a
good
job
and
not
you
know
the
concept
is:
let
ten
guilty
go
rather
than
convict
one
innocent.
So
I'm
kind
of
just
curious.
That's
actually,
a
surprisingly
small
number,
that's
a
good
thing
right.
D
I
mean,
as
to
your
question
of
the
eight
all
one
was
in
washoe
county,
the
other
seven
were
in
clark
county.
I
also
wanted
to
clarify
that
four
individuals
who
were
wrongfully
convicted
prior
to
2019
they
have
until
september
of
this
year
to
file
their
claims
because
they
have
a
two-year
statute
limitations.
H
Good,
well,
you
know
I'm
totally
supportive
of
the
concept,
just
a
horrible,
my
mind
that
we
haven't
ever
convicted
anyone,
but
you
know
think
things
you
know
try
to
do
the
best.
We
can
we're
all
human,
but
they
certainly
deserve
full
compensation
and
then
something
if
you
ask
me
when
they've
been
wrongfully
convicted.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
K
The
amount
of
chair
and
I
agree
with
senator
hanson-
I
think
that
this
is
good
policy.
I
have
a
question
and
it's
just
technical,
I'm
looking
at
section
three
and
and
trying
to
figure
out
how
this
would
work
and
we
the
trigger
event,
is
the
wrongful
conviction
or
the
release
from
prison,
which
is
earlier
and
ms
proctor.
K
You
actually
touched
on
my
question
a
little
bit
and
that's
what
happens
when
the
person
is
out
on
parole,
so
they're
technically
released
from
prison
and
unless
I've
misunderstood
that
term-
and
it
may
be
a
term
of
art-
maybe
they're
still
technically
considered
imprisoned
until
they're
done
with
parole.
But
my
understanding
was
that
they're
once
they're
released
from
prison
and
they're
on
parole.
K
This
would
start
at
that
time
that
at
the
release
of
prison,
but
then
in
the
other
instance,
they
may
still
be
in
prison
and
then
may
get
the
wrongful
termination
or
I'm
sorry,
wrongful
conviction,
a
designation.
But
then
they
may
not
be
released
right
away
either
because
they
may
not
have
a
place
to
go.
So.
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
why
we've
chosen
this
type
of
trigger
and
and
how
it
would
work.
D
Certainly
for
the
record
heather
proctor,
as
your
first
question
section
three
section,
a
one
two
and
three
address
the
length
of
actual
incarceration
section
b
of
that
statute
addresses
the
length
of
time
on
parole.
So
we
actually
take
the
length
of
incarceration,
add
the
length
of
make
that
determination
as
to
which
category
they
fall
into.
Then
we
add
the
number
of
years
or
months
on
parole
with
that
calculation
of
the
25
000
per
year,
and
that
is
the
total
amount
of
the
statutory
damages.
K
Okay,
so
perfect,
because
that
was
my
follow-up
question,
because
I
it
seemed
that
because
they
were
disjunctive
in
its
construction
that
we
may
actually
see
some
overlap,
but
you
just
resolved
that
for
me,
the
other
thing,
the
other
question
I
had
had
to
do
with
the
additional
programs
and
counseling
and
whatnot,
I'm
assuming
that
when
we're
talking
about
these
and
we're
talking
about
the
costs
of
them,
we're
talking
about
programs
that
are
held
within
the
state
that
we're
not
considering
programs
for
counseling
and
whatnot
that
might
be
outside
the
state
and
beyond
our
control
to
control
those
costs.
K
But
is
there
a
limitation
as
to
where
they
can
re?
You
know
obtain
these,
because
my
thought
is
this:
some
of
these
people
may
choose
to
relocate
to
family
out
of
state,
and
yet
they're
still
going
to
need
some
of
these
programs.
D
D
K
Okay,
I
guess
my
only
concern
is
just
as
I
stated
if
they
choose
to
live
with
family
out
of
state,
because
they
don't
have
anybody
here,
they're
foreclosed
from
obtaining
those
services,
and
so
I
I
just
I
thought
that
was
kind
of
interesting.
Given
those
are
two
things
that
are
probably
the
most
important
services
that
they're
going
to
receive.
D
A
All
right
any
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
I
don't
see
any
thank
you
again
both
and
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
support
of
ab104.
A
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
support
testimony
on
ab104,
and
I
understand
that
there
is
nobody
on
zooms.
Therefore
we
will
go
to
the
phones.
Please.
M
M
A
Okay,
then
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
opposition
to
ab104.
It
looks
like
we
have
somebody
in
the
room
to
give
opposition
testimony,
so
we
will
start
with.
L
You
tonya
brown
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent.
Thank
you,
members
of
this
committee
for
hearing
this
bill.
We
would
normally
support
the
bill,
but
we
see
some
issues
with
with
this,
and
so
we
oppose
8104.
L
This
bill
has
unattended
consequences
to
begin
with,
it
denies
full
compensation
to
those
who
have
been
wrongfully
convicted
by
not
including
the
jail
time
they
have
spent
awaiting
trial.
In
previous
testimony,
given
some
individual
individuals
have
been
waiting
for
over
a
year
to
go
to
trial.
In
section
three
subsection,
a
one
two
and
three,
the
language
or
the
person
was
released
from
prison.
Whichever
is
earlier
to
be
released
from
prison,
a
person
must
be
paroled,
their
sentence
must
have
expired,
or
their
life
has
expired.
L
If
a
person's
life
is
expired
by
means
of
natural
death,
lack
of
medical
medical
care
or
has
contract
contracted
a
contagious
deadly
disease
or
virus,
they
are
released
from
prison
if
the
person
who
has
always
maintained
their
innocence-
and
they
have
an
appeal
pending,
the
appeal
now
becomes
moved.
It
is
over
for
them.
Not
only
is
it
over
for
them,
but
their
loved
ones
as
well.
Does
the
state
of
nevada
not
care
about
actual
justice,
because
the
person
has
died?
Is
the
person's
life
now
meaningless
and
insignificant
is
their
loved
ones?
L
Families
lives
meaningless
and
insignificant
too.
These
are
some
of
the
unintentional
consequences
of
this
bill.
There
is
no
other
remedy
to
exonerate
their
names
in
2019
assembly
bill
356
the
factual
innocence
bill
passed
during
the
senate
judiciary.
It
provided
a
proposed
factual
innocence,
posthumously
amendment
to
allow
the
families
of
those
who
have
been
wrongfully
convicted
an
opportunity
to
exonerate
their
loved
ones
names.
This
committee
chose
not
to
place
it
onto
the
work
session
in
2011.
L
The
nevada
supreme
court
in
its
decision
to
deny
a
petition
for
exonerated
suggested
the
legislature
create
a
law
to
allow
the
courts
to
hear
and
grant
petitions
for
exonerations
posthumously
as
of
to
date.
That
has
not
happened,
however,
with
the
passing
of
ballot
question
3
the
pardons
board.
The
pardons
board
has
now
been
asked
to
consider
setting
aside
one
pardon's
board
hearing
per
year
to
allow
pardons
on
factual
innocence
posthumously
until
the
law
is
changed.
I
have
in
the
the
bill.
There
is
an
exhibit
the
conceptual
amendment
to
this.
L
I
would
like
for
you
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
consider
it.
It
deals
in
section
3a.
L
It
should
be
calculated
from
the
time
of
their
arrest
and
then
also
it
states
to
an
in
a
and
it's
a
typo
I've
met
or
meant
to
include
or
if
he
or
she
was
given
a
life
sentence
with
or
without
the
possibility
of
parole
and
died
prior
to
21
years
calculation
of
the
bill,
the
estate
will
receive
the
maximum
allowed
awarded
by
the
state
of
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
each
year.
L
Actually,
if
a
person
serves
1,
5,
10,
20
50
years
and
they
die
whether
they
had
parole
with
or
without,
they
should
be
paid,
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
each
year,
they've
lost
and
it
should
go
to
their
estate.
Not
only
have
they
lost
something
their
families,
their
loved
ones
have
lost
as
well,
and
I
ask
that
you
consider
this
amendment
to
this
bill.
A
M
M
N
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
senate,
judiciary
and
assemblyman
yeager,
my
name
is
lisa
rasmussen.
N
L-I-S-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-S-E-N
I
and
I'm
testifying
on
on
behalf
of
my
law,
firm
law
offices
of
christina
wildebell.
Today
I
really
only
have
one
small
opposition
to
the
bill
and
and
before
I
explain
that
I
want
to
really
thank
everyone.
Who's
worked
so
hard
on
this.
I
have
two
of
these
cases.
N
One
we've
just
recently
resolved
and
the
other
one
we're
in
the
process
of
resolving
right
now,
and
it
has
been
a
pleasure
to
work
with
heather
proctor
and
her
cohorts
in
the
attorney
general's
office
and
I've
also
spoken
to
chairman
yeager
about
my
specific
opposition.
Although
when
we
did
speak,
we
were
talked
looking
at
a
conceptual
amendment
that
was
slightly
different
than
the
one
that
came
out
so
here
and-
and
I
want
to
say-
I
think
all
of
these
changes
and
proposed
changes
are
are
good.
They
make
common
sense.
N
I
can
tell
the
this
committee
from
working
through
these
that
these
just
make
sense
kind
of
all
the
way
around
and
these
issues
other
than
the
one
thing
I'm
going
to
point
out
are
problematic.
N
So
the
one
issue
I
have
is
section
3,
subsection
a
and
it's
kind
of
what
senator
pickard
was
touching
on
it's
sub
section,
a
one
two
and
three
where
it
says
the
conviction
was
reversed
or
the
person
was
released
from
prison.
Whichever
is
earlier
so
when
I
was
working
on
this
with
chairman
yeager,
the
whichever
earlier
was
not
in
the
conceptual
amendment,
and
I
see
that
it's
been
added
back
in.
If
I'm
looking
at
the
right
thing,
so
I
don't
think
the
whichever
earlier
should
be
in
there
and
here's.
Why?
N
The
minute
an
order
comes
from
the
nevada
supreme
court,
reversing
a
conviction
that
defendant
our
client
does
not
get
out
of
prison.
That
day
there
there's
a
reminitor
that
comes
within
the
next
40
days
that,
as
actually
makes
it
final.
The
reminder
could
be
held
in
a
band
for
a
petition
for
rehearing
or
a
petition
for
cersei
ari.
N
That
date
is
not
the
date
that
the
prison
doors
open
up
and
the
person
walks
out
of
prison
most.
What
what
generally
happens
is
they
get
remanded
back
to
local
custody
back
to
the
clark
county
detention
center?
So
while
I
understand
it's
the
state's
position
that
once
they're
remanded
back
to
local
custody,
they're
no
longer
imprisoned
under
the
wrongful
conviction,
while
I
don't
love
that
you
know,
I
do
understand
that
the
time
prior
to
the
conviction
and
the
time
when
they're
no
longer
laboring
under
a
wrongful
conviction
is
not
counted.
N
The
problem
is
just
in
the
detail
here,
whichever
is
earlier
so
I
would
recommend
that
we
remove
the
words,
whichever
is
earlier
and
just
leave
it
at
when
the
conviction
was
reversed
or
the
person
was
released
from
prison,
and
that
can
mean
different
things
in
different
cases.
For
example,
one
of
the
cases
we're
working
on
right
now,
it's
actually
kind
of
confusing,
because
it's
so
old
trying
to
figure
out
when
he
was
brought
back
from
the
prison
back
into
local
custody
and
may
make
a
difference
of
half
a
year
at
75
000..
N
So
these
are
no.
These
are
not
huge
differences,
but
in
fairness
to
these
defendants
who
are
wrongfully
convicted,
it
shouldn't
go
based
on
the
date.
The
nevada
supreme
court
orders
something
because
the
prison
doesn't
open
the
doors
and
say
hey
you're
good
to
go.
You
can
be
released,
it's
just
not
the
way
it
works
so
and
in
fact,
you
know
people
can
be
back
in
local
custody
for
a
long
time
as
well,
but
that
time
doesn't
count.
N
But
what
we're
trying
to
pinpoint
here
is
when
they're
released
from
the
prison,
whether
that's
transport
back
to
local
custody
or
not,
and
that
never
happens
the
day
of
the
reversal.
So
I
think
that,
whichever
is
earlier
part
should
be
removed.
That's
my
suggestion.
Otherwise
I
would
be
testifying
in
support
of
it,
and
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
listening
to
my
comments
and
input.
M
M
O
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T,
I'm
calling
in
opposition
of
the
bill
the
wrongfully
convicted,
have
already
suffered
the
ultimate
injustice.
The
stigma
attached
to
the
conviction
will
plague
them
long
after
exoneration.
Their
nightmare
begins
day.
One
at
the
false
arrest
of
compensation
should
begin
then,
as
well.
Not
at
the
time
of
conviction.
O
Look
at
how
long
people
are
waiting
for
trial
now
due
to
cobit
19.
one
day
in
jail
wrongfully
convicted
is
wrong.
Let
alone
years
I
will
support
miss
tanya
brown's
amendment.
If
this
bill
passes,
it
doesn't
appear
to
speak
on
the
posthumously.
They
are
victims
of
the
system,
more
so
than
anyone
when
you
die
in
jail
wrongfully
convicted.
O
Given
the
new
developments,
ms
brown
demand
mentioned
it's
possible.
The
pardons
board
may
entertain
posthumous.
Pardon
hearings.
Governor
sisselak
asked
me
for
my
documents
that
I
spoke
of
when
I
made
public
comment
at
the
last
meeting.
As
I
do
public
records
requests
and
came
across
across
evidence
that
I
do
believe
is
newly
discovered.
In
some
cases
the
legislature
will
be
back
again
for
two
years.
If
these
hearings
happen
at
the
pardons
board,
this
bill
may
not
protect
all
wrongfully
convicted,
whether
alive
or
dead.
O
A
M
B
My
name
is
lurleen
rover,
lurleen
l-e-r-l-e-n-e
last
name,
rover
r-o-e
v,
as
in
victor
e-r
good
afternoon.
All
I
will
be
brief
and
concise.
B
B
It
was
so
well
done
that
the
federal
court
judge
refused
me
counsel,
but
by
the
time
that
the
federal
ag
responded
to
my
writ,
my
helper
had
passed
away
and
I
had
no
idea
what
to
do,
and
I
still
don't
anyway.
I
keep
hoping
for
a
television
show
or
someone
to
be
interested,
in
my
case,
to
help
with
forensic
testing
etc.
That
was
never
done
and
that
I
certainly
can't
afford
by
that
time,
I'll
probably
be
dead.
B
B
I
am
not
insignificant
or
a
useless
nobody,
and
neither
were
they.
They
deserve.
The
compensation
that
I
most
likely
will
not
be
alive
to
see.
I
am
on
parole
have
been
successfully
for
two
years,
but
I
also
live
in
fear
of
being
sent
back
to
prison.
If
I
personally
complain
about
my
own
circumstances
or
the
unfairness
that
happened
to
me,
but
after
I'm
dead,
I
would
like
to
know
that
my
kids
lives
will
be
better
than
they
were
all
those
years
that
they
were
apart
and
that
we
were
torn
apart
as
a
family.
A
E
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
Thank
you
chair.
Just
a
couple
of
points
I
wanted
to
make.
Some
of
these
issues
came
up
in
the
assembly,
judiciary
and
the
first
one
is
about
compensating
people
for
pre,
basically
pre-trial
incarceration,
and
I
think,
as
a
policy
as
a
state.
We
just
don't
do
that.
Generally
speaking,
a
lot
of
people
are
incarcerated
and
then
go
to
trial
and
when
they
are
acquitted,
of
course,
they're
free
to
go,
but
I
think,
as
a
state,
we've
decided
that
we
don't
compensate
for
that.
E
Maybe
we
ought
to,
but
this
bill
I
don't
think,
is
the
place
to
do
it.
So
I've
still
resisted
those
efforts
for
pre-trial,
and
then
you
know,
I
had
a
very,
very
productive
meeting
with
miss
brown
the
other
day
talking
about
posthumous
exonerations,
and
you
know
what
I
told
her.
What
I'll
say
here
is,
I
think,
the
intent
of
this
bill,
as
you
heard
pretty
clearly,
is
to
help
the
individual
get
back
on
his
or
her
feet
once
released
from
prison.
E
Now,
obviously,
there's
there's,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
pain
and
suffering
for
the
families
of
those
individuals,
but
as
of
now
that's
what
the
bill
is
aimed
towards.
I
think
there's
always
an
opportunity
in
the
future.
If
we
have
these
situations
where
there
are
posthumous
exonerations
to
perhaps
look
at
that
policy
and
decide
where
we
want
to
go,
but
I
think
for
now
it
makes
sense
to
keep
it
where
it
is.
E
I
respect
ms
rasmussen's
position
on
the
bill
and
I'll
continue
to
kind
of
work
on
some
of
that
language,
because
I
do
think
there
is
potentially
an
injustice
there
if
your
conviction
gets
overturned,
but
maybe
you're
incarcerated
still
for
another
year
or
so.
So
I
will
work
on
that
and
get
back
to
the
committee
with
any
potential
amendment
and
again
just
want
to
thank
ms
proctor
and
the
attorney
general's
office.
E
They've
been
wonderful
to
work
with
on
this
bill
and
they've
really
been
doing
great
work
and
making
sure
that
people
get
compensated
and
they
get
compensated
quickly
and
fairly.
So
I
want
to
recognize
them
thank
the
committee
for
your
time
and
would
urge
your
support
for
assembly
bill
104
in
his
first
reprint.
K
A
quick
question,
my
understanding
is
this:
is
the
the
intermediate
piece
there's
still
civil
penalty
or
not
penalties,
but
civil
damages
that
can
be
awarded
and
there's
so
there's
still
an
availability
to
pick
up
that
time
that
wasn't
captured
in
this
correct.
E
Steve
yeager
for
the
record,
I
think,
you'd
be
correct.
Senator
as
indicated
most
of
these
individuals
will
file
federal
1983
actions
where,
frankly,
the
the
recovery
is
usually
larger
than
what
we're
giving
out
in
the
state.
So
I
think
that
would
potentially
be
captured
there.
The
piece
I
don't
know
I'm
not
going
to
say
this
is
true
or
not.
I
don't
know
if
a
family
member
can
bring
in
1983
on
behalf
of
a
deceased
person
on
a
wrongful
conviction
basis.
So
I
had
a
conversation
with
ms
brown
about
that.
E
A
E
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
I
promise
this
one
will
be
quick.
Madam
chair,
thank
you.
Excuse
me,
chair,
shy.
Well,
thank
you.
So
much
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
I'm
assemblyman,
steve
yeager,
representing
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas
before
you
is
assembly
bill
394
in
its
first
reprint.
I
should
also
note
there
is
a
small
amendment
that
was
submitted.
You
should
have
that
on
nellis,
just
by
way
of
background
before
we
get
into
this
bill.
E
E
We
fortunately
very
fortunately
identified
a
funder
who
is
interested
in
investing
in
a
program
like
this
in
the
state
of
nevada
through
a
multi-year
grant
to
prepare
for
the
likelihood
of
securing
this
funding.
We
reviewed
our
statutes
and
believe
that
including
immunity
for
mobile
crisis
response
team
members
is
important
assembly
bill.
394
would
provide
immunity
from
liability
to
encourage
certain
behavioral
health
professionals
to
participate
as
members
of
a
mobile
crisis
response
team.
E
We
do
not
want
them
to
be
a
part
of
this
crisis
response
team,
so
we
do
not
want
them
to
not
want
to
be
a
part
of
this.
Due
to
concerns
about
liability.
Now,
you'll
see
with
the
amendment,
we
did
some
tweaking
to
make
sure
we're
identifying
the
right
professionals
who
are
going
to
be
potentially
engaging
in
these
services.
So
we
took
out
physicians
generally,
but
we
have
psychiatrists
both
of
the
md
and
do
variety
and
then
also
the
other
individuals
listed
there.
E
So
immunity
in
these
cases
would
only
extend
to
the
situations
where
that
person
is
acting
in
good
faith
and
their
actions
are
not
considered
to
be
gross
negligence
or
willful
wanton
or
intentional
misconduct.
So
this
is
not
blanket
immunity.
It's
narrowly
tailored
immunity.
There
is
currently
no
statutory
definition
for
mobile
crisis
intervention
services
in
our
states.
Ab394
makes
clear
what
those
services
are
by
providing
a
definition
of
mobile
crisis
intervention
services
you'll
find
that
on
page
two
of
the
bill
line
16.
E
these
type
of
services
are
really
important
because
they
support
law
enforcement
with
complex
behavioral
health
situations
that
they
sometimes
are
not
fully
trained
to
handle.
This
model
can
reduce
the
number
of
involuntarily
mental
illness
holds
and
hospitalizations
divert
people
from
jail
and
promote
voluntary
participation
in
treatment
services,
which
we
want
to
encourage
whenever
possible.
Having
the
help
of
behavioral
health
professionals
can
also
reduce
the
degree
of
the
crisis
and
can
result
in
fewer
adversarial
and
confrontational
episodes
faced
by
law
enforcement.
E
A
A
L
Tonya
brown
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
nsa.
We
would
support
a
bill
like
this.
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
for
all
it
to
de-escalate
the
situation
would
be
a
good
example
of
controlling
police
brutality,
someone
being
injured
someone
dying,
and
I
think
that
social
workers,
those
types
of
individuals,
are
better
well
equipped
to
handle
these
types
of
situations
and
not
law
enforcement,
so
yeah
we
would
support
this.
Thank
you.
A
M
A
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
kyle.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
ab394.
M
A
C
Chair
shiable
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
good
afternoon,
I'm
keith
lee
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
judges
of
limited
jurisdiction,
which
is
the
association
of
comprised
of
most
of
the
justices
of
the
peace
and
the
municipal
court.
Judges
in
the
state
of
nevada,
I'm
here
to
present
reprint,
run
one
of
ab43.
C
By
way
of
quick
background.
Ab43
was
sponsored
by
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
supreme
court,
at
the
request
of
the
nevada
judge's
eliminated
jurisdiction
to
address
some
concerns
that
the
judges
had
with
respect
to
some
procedural
aspects
of
the
nevada
judicial
discipline.
Commission,
as
you
can
see,
reprint
one
completely
completely
deleted
the
bill
and
request
that
the
nevada
supreme
court
study
and
make
recommendations
concerning
the
procedural,
substantive
statutes
and
rules
of
the
judicial
discipline
commission
and
to
gather
some
statistics
with
respect
to
that
and
then
to
report
back
to
the
legislature.
C
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
the
in
in
the
the
mouth
of
chair
yeager,
and
he
is
certainly
here
to
to
to
speak
up,
but
I
think
the
the
the
very
quick
background
of
where
we
got
from
where
we
started
to
where
we
are
today,
is
that,
given
some
discussions
that
the
chair
and
other
folks
have
had
with
respect
to
the
bill,
it
became
clear
that
the
bill
was
very
complex,
a
lot
of
issues
that
needed
to
be
resolved
and
we
simply
couldn't
do
it
within
the
the
time
frame
of
the
legislative
session,
particularly
given
how
busy
both
both
your
committee
is
and
how
busy
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
is
so
chair,
yeager,
in
consultation
with
chief
justice
hardesty
in
consultation
with
our
organization
and
in
consultation
with
a
number
of
other
stakeholders
and
interested
parties,
determined
that
as
we
see
and
reprint
one.
C
The
best
way
to
go
is
to
request
the
supreme
court
to
study
this
and
to
report
back
to
the
to
the
legislature.
With
that
chair
scheible.
I
would
urge
the
committee
to
process
the
bill
as
it
is,
and
to
support
on
the
floor
and
with
that
I'll.
Try
to
answer
any
questions
that
any
of
you
may
have.
Thank
you.
A
I
just
have
a
brief
question
that
I
understand
that
the
supreme
court
undertakes
studies
like
this
on
a
relatively
regular
basis,
and
so
is:
can
you
just
describe
what
the
report
is
that
they
ultimately
produce
for
the
legislature?
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
keith
lee
for
the
record.
I
I
think
it's
what
we'd
expect
by
way
of
very
quick
background
way
back
in
2006,
chief
justice
rose
convened.
What
was
we
now
referred
to
as
the
article
6
study
committee,
and
that
resulted
in
several
suggestions?
The
legislature
that
was
that
were
adopted,
and
I
think
2009,
and
so
the
report
would
be
the
same.
It
would
be
a
report
that
would
come
back
to
the
legislature
very
similar
to
the
the
first
article
six
commission
report
way
way
back
in
2009.
I
believe.
A
M
A
M
M
B
B
I
just
wanted
to
note
for
the
record
today
that
the
commission's
executive
director
and
general
counsel,
paul
dyla,
did
want
to
attend
today's
hearing
on
this
bill,
but
unfortunately
he
could
not
attend
if
he's
currently
on
a
plane.
So
instead
he
has
submitted
his
written
testimony
regarding
ab43
and
that
can
be
found
in
melis.
B
A
A
I
Good
afternoon
I'll
start
and
then
turn
it
over
to
miss
manske.
When
I
complete
the
initial
presentation,
mandy
davis,
deputy
administrator
for
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
I'm
here
to
present
ab30,
which
revises
some
areas
related
to
the
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
The
account
for
aid
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
receives
funding
through
a
portion
of
the
fee
for
marriages
like
marriage
licenses
sold
throughout
the
state.
The
funds
are
used
to
support
nonprofit
community
providers
of
services
for
victims
of
domestic
violence.
I
One
of
the
requirements
is
that
the
that
this
bill
changes
with
that
would
be
that
the
nonprofit
organization
provides
services
exclusively
for
victims
of
domestic
violence
if
they
are
located
in
a
county
whose
population
is
a
hundred
thousand
or
more
so
currently,
clark
and
washoe,
and
then
that
it
provide
its
services
primarily
for
those
victims
if
they
are
located
in
a
county
with
a
population
less
than
a
hundred
thousand.
So
all
the
rural
counties.
I
Finally,
currently
there's
no
limit
to
the
number
of
awards
that
can
be
issued
in
a
county
or
statewide.
Section
2.5
of
the
bill
requires
that
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
child
and
family
services
award
grants
to
no
more
than
one
applicant
in
each
county,
whose
population
is
less
than
a
hundred
thousand.
Currently,
we
don't
have
any
counties
worth
more
than
one
eligible
provider
who
regularly
applies
for
this
funding
source,
so
that
would
not
have
a
current
a
significant
change
on
the
current
operations
or
the
awarding
of
those
grants.
I
The
division
of
child
and
family
services
will
be
able
to
implement
the
requirements
of
this
bill
without
any
additional
resources
or
funding,
and
then
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mrs
maskey
from
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence,
to
provide
a
more
in-depth
overview
of
what
these
funds
go
towards.
Supporting.
J
J
The
recipient
organizations
range
from
large
multi-staff
agencies
in
clark
and
washoe
counties
to
small
two
to
three
person
operations
in
communities.
Like
elko,
fallon
and
winnemucca
to
an
all-volunteer
program
in
battle
mountain,
while
each
program
is
a
private
non-profit
organization,
they
are
all
dedicated
to
serving
survivors
of
domestic
and
or
sexual
violence
in
their
communities.
J
J
For
this
reason,
the
division
approached
providers
several
months
ago
about
the
need
to
change
the
statutory
language
from
exclusively
serving
victims
of
domestic
violence.
To
primarily,
as
you
see
in
the
bill,
the
large
counties
and
the
small
counties
had
different
reactions
to
this
language
change
for
programs
in
larger
counties
which
receive
enough
funding
to
be
able
to
specialize
in
domestic
and
or
sexual
violence.
J
J
A
K
K
That
said,
I
I'm
a
little
confused,
I'm
supportive
of
of
the
the
concept,
but
we
we
seem
to
be
in
in
section
one
in
the
opening
statements:
expanding
the
account
to
include
sexual
violence
and
then,
as
we
progress
down
to
sub
4,
we
seem
to
be
limiting
it
still
to
domestic
violence,
and
I
understand
you
spoke
a
little
bit
about
the
the
the
tug
of
war
over
the
the
funds,
the
small
amount
of
funds
that
are
there,
but
it
seems
to
defeat
the
purpose
of
expanding
the
title
of
the
account
and
then
not
expanding
the
services
that
are
provided
by
that
account.
K
Can
you
explain
why
we
we
expand
the
tithe
or
the
yeah,
the
title,
the
name
of
the
account,
but
then
we
don't
look
at
the
victims
of
sexual
violence
or
those
programs
that
are
presumably
providing
services
to
both
of
those
communities.
I
J
Ahead
to
sumaiski,
the
current
statute
has
funds,
for
the
funding
is
provided
for
domestic
violence
services
and
in
clark,
county
15
of
the
funding
goes
to
sexual
assault.
That's
the
current
language,
so
the
division
wants
to
add
sexual
violence
into
the
title,
because
they're
currently
funding
asexual
violence
service.
J
Change
the
fact
that
there
it
will
only
fund
one
sexual
violence,
program
right
or
one
county
will
receive
funding
right.
All
the
rest
of
the
counties
will
not
receive
any
funding
for
sexual
violence
services,
because
this
bill
does
not
increase
any
funding.
I
Mandy
davis,
for
the
record,
no,
I
was
going
to
say
the
same
thing
that
currently
we
allocate
15
in
clark
county
to
sexual
violence
programs.
So
this
would
just
change
the
name
of
the
account
to
reflect
that
as
well.
K
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
and
what
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
do
is
and,
and
if
that
and
and
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
that
appears
in
a
different
section
of
statute
that
we're
not
amending
here.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that,
by
changing
the
language
under
section
1
sub
4a
to
exclusively
for
victims
of
domestic
violence,
we
weren't
undoing
that
expenditure
for
the
sexual
violence
piece,
but
if
that's
in
a
different
section
we're
not
amending
that
that
stays
intact.
I'm
fine!
Thank
you.
A
I
don't
see
anybody
coming
forward
in
the
room
on
for
support
testimony
so
we'll
go
to
the
phones,
please,
mr
kyle,
in
support
of
ab30.
M
M
B
B
The
domestic
violence
programs
around
the
state
do
critical
work
on
behalf
of
our
the
victims
of
domestic
violence,
and
we
appreciate
all
of
their
efforts
and
we
just
wanted
to
get
on
record
in
support
of
ab30.
Thank
you.
M
A
A
A
All
right,
then,
that
concludes
the
hearing
on
ab30.
Unless
you
guys
have
any
closing
remarks,
okay,
then
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
ab30.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
patience
for
sticking
with
us
through
the
end
of
this
committee
meeting
to
to
present
ab30
I'll
now
move
to
public
comment.
I
see
somebody
here
in
the
room
to
give
public
comment,
so
you
may
go
first
and
you
will
have
two
minutes.
L
Tonya
brown
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocents.
Thank
you.
We
heard
miss
rover
speak
and
I
believe
that
she
had
a
little
problem
with
how
this
this
works,
the
telephone
she
meant
to
testify
under
opposition
and
not
neutral
okay,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
that,
thank
you
and
then
she
had.
L
She
admitted
something,
and
I
just
kind
of
want
to
touch
on
kind
of
what
I
do
as
for
an
advocate
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent
besides
trying
to
get
laws
created
that
better
help
them
and
help
to
seek
their
paroles
exonerations
and
other
things,
what
betters
them.
Okay,
I
also
do
other
things
too
for
the
the
innocent,
and
that
is
sometimes
I'll.
Take
it
upon
myself
and
others
will
take
it
upon
themselves
and
we
will
look
into
cases
when
she
had
talked
about
that
tv
show.
L
I
actually
provided
her
case
to
reasonable
doubt
show,
and
they
called
me
about
two
years
ago.
They
actually
wanted
to
consider.
They
were
going
to
take
her
case
on,
but
in
order
for
that
to
happen,
they
had
to
speak
with
her.
I
did
not
know
because
I
had
not
spoken
to
the
woman,
never
really
spoken
to
the
woman
in
years,
and
so
it
turns
out
that
they
have
to
contact
them
and
then
they
said
they
contacted
her,
but
she
was
no
longer.
Apparently
she
had
been
paroled.
L
That's
the
reason
her
case
has
not
already
been
seen,
but
there's
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
ms
rover
is
in
fact
innocent
of
this
crime
and
it
explains
a
lot.
Although
she's
had
three
trials,
and
I
could
tell
you
that
the
when
we
get
this,
we
get
this
a
lot
with
those
who
maintain
innocence.
You
hear
the
courts,
the
courts
will
go
on
appeal
and
the
stuff
that
that
cries
for
a
resolution
in
their
petitions
and
on
appeals
do
not
get
addressed.
L
They're
overlooked,
they're,
totally
disregarded
and
especially
if
it
proves
innocence
and
then,
if
you're
lucky
enough
and
you
get
into
the
federal
court
and
they
actually
look
at
it
like
in
her
particular
case
the
the
ag's
office,
like
I
said
they,
they
filed
a
motion
and
she
didn't
know
how
to
answer
it.
In
fact,
she
wasn't
even
gonna.
Do
a
petition.
Her
actual
appeal
was
filed
within
like
the
timeline
within
like
two
days.
L
Otherwise
she
would
have
lost
all
appealability
for
everything
and
I
actually
managed
to
find
someone
to
help
her
made
it
through
the
process
all
the
way
to
the
federal
court,
and
then
the
person
passed
away
and
she
stuck
so
without
a
tv
show
to
exonerate,
and
this
is
something
that
we
do
so
it's
not
just
you
know,
there's
other
things.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
M
M
O
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
two
people
that
were
killed
by
local
law
enforcement
in
your
state,
jose
luis
dominguez
was
47
years
old
when
he
was
shot
and
killed
by
sparks
police
officers,
ryan
patterson,
corey,
foster
and
scott
bader.
Two
years
ago
today,
in
d.a
chris
hicks,
typical
mo
he
did
not
release
his
usual
justification
of
the
shooting.
Until
august
21st
2020.,
the
officers
literally
were
in
an
armored
vehicle
when
they
shot
jose
those
who
knew
jose
loved
him
and
were
blessed
with
his
generous
spirit.
O
He
loved
deeply
and
he
loved
his
family
was
the
utmost
importance
to
him.
He
enjoyed
cooking
working
around
his
home
playing
horseshoes
and
watching
his
49ers
and
giants
play
washoe
county
sheriff's
office
took
the
lead
on
the
independent
investigation.
They
are
the
same
agency
along
with
rpd
who
affixiated
my
mentally
ill
brother
in
crisis.
O
Police
investigating
police
is
not
transparency
and
accountability.
15
years
ago
today,
36
year
old
aaron
jones
was
killed
by
lvmpd
after
being
confronted
by
officers
near
sahara.
In
durango
drive.
He
allegedly
tried
to
ram
a
police
car
and
started
driving
towards
officers.
He
was
shot
at
the
coroner's
inquest.
Questions
were
raised
about
whether
the
officers
were
truly
in
danger
when
they
fired
their
weapons.
Armored
vehicles
hollow
point,
bullets,
rubber
bullets,
cs
gas
helicopters,
stab
best
tactical
robots,
de-escalation,
training,
cit
training,
we
have
given
it
all
to
police
and
they
are
still
killing
community
members.