►
From YouTube: 08/17/2020 - Committee to Conduct an Interim Study of Issues Relating to Pretrial Release
Description
**MEETING RESCHEDULED FROM 8/6/20** This is the fourth and final meeting of the 2019-2020 Interim. Please see agenda for details.
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
D
D
A
All
right,
so
it
appears
we
have
quorum
today,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
run
through
this
work
session
document
in
hopes
of
keeping
things
as
efficient
as
possible.
I
have
located
a
few
items.
I
think
that
can
be
handled
together
and
I
would
invite
members
to
let
me
know
if
they
feel
they
want
to
pull
any
of
these
items.
A
A
D
D
D
D
A
So
I'm
getting
I'm
getting
some
messages
that
the
system
is
not
allowing
callers
to
unmute
themselves.
I
don't
know
if
lcb
broadcast
can
fix
that.
E
Hey
madam
chair,
this
is
assemblyman
roberts,
a
quick
question
on
the
consent
items
and
the
numbers.
Again
I
didn't
catch
them
all.
E
D
A
D
F
Morning
this
is
kendra
burchie,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defenders
office
best
last
name,
birchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y.
I
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
again
so
much
for
taking
on
this
very
important
issue
for
bail
reform.
I'll
start
regarding
the
consent
items,
we
do
oppose
a
consent
item
that
was
listed
as
15
and
recommendations
17..
F
Regarding
17,
we
don't
believe
that
there
is
sufficient
information
provided
which
indicates
that
these
risk
tests,
assessments
and
tools
are
validated
and
would
be
what
we
want
to
go
forward
in
nevada.
Our
concern
is
we'll
have
a
similar
situation
to
where
we
are
now,
where
we're
requesting
to
re-evaluate
and
considering
all
the
issues
that
are
arising
from
our
current
method.
We
do
support
the
other
provisions,
as
listed
in
the
consent
item.
F
I
would
also
just
note
regarding
number
nine:
we
do
support
the
use
of
the
financial
affidavits
to
determine
the
ability
of
the
defendant
to
pay
the
monetary
conditions,
and
we
just
caution
that
that
needs
to
be
done
and
using
the
least
restrictive
conditions,
and
not
just
in
returning
back
to
an
imposition
of
cash
bail.
F
We
do
agree
with
the
other
recommendations
that
were
put
forth
in
the
work
session
document,
and
I
would
just
note
specifically
for
recommendations
three,
that
it
needs
to
be
more
than
just
a
reasonable
time
for
the
bail
hearing
to
occur.
We
would
just
request
that
it
be
an
actual
time
set,
for
example,
the
12
hours
within
24
hours
of
earth
that
we
had
discussed.
F
One
of
the
reasons
for
that
is,
as
of
now
we're
having
problems
with
receiving
criminal
histories
in
order
to
have
an
individualized
bail
hearing.
So
we
are,
we
do
believe
that
that's
important
to
be
fixed
as
well
and
I'll
provide
additional
information
regarding
that
to
the
committee
members
or
the
nrs
that
can
be
modified
in
order
to
ensure
that
we're
able
to
have
those
timely
bail
hearings
with
everyone
getting
access
to
the
information.
That's
needed
with
that.
I
thank
you
all
so
much
and
have
a
great
rest
of
your
day.
D
F
D
D
My
issue
is,
first,
is
the
9-1-1
recording
of
a
event
that
happened
at
my
home
back
in
march
of
2019.?
D
A
Yet
I
apologize
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
have
to
interrupt
you.
The
jurisdiction
of
this
committee
is
limited
to
pre-trial
release,
which
is
really
focused
on
bail.
How
bail
is
set
when
bail
should
be
set
and
doesn't
quite
touch
on
the
issue
that
I
believe
you're
having
and
so.
Unfortunately,
I'm
gonna
have
to
ask
the
next
caller
to
step
forward.
We've
got
a
a
limited
jurisdiction
here,
but
thank
you
for
your
time.
My.
D
D
S-A-R-A-H-A-D-L-E-R
of
silver
state
government
relations
representing
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
I
note
from
your
recommendations
for
the
consent
agenda
that
you
did
not
include
recommendation
14
and
I
just
want
to
note
and
I
apologize
for
the
road
noise.
I
just
want
to
note
that
that
is
a
really
important
issue
for
victim
survivors
of
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence,
and
we
were
concerned
at
the
lack
of
inclusion
of
that
recommendation.
D
D
D
D
A
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
we
will
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call
vote,
as
I'm
sure
you
all
remember
we're
going
to
be
saying
yes
or
no,
instead
of
yay
or
nay
for
clarity
c
secretary,
please
call
the
rule.
D
E
D
B
A
I
believe
she
stepped
away
and
should
be
back
shortly.
Okay,
chair
harris.
Yes,
the
motion
is
approved.
A
Okay,
so
we'll
now
move
on
to
the
consideration
of
our
recommendations.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
have
a
few
items
on
the
consent
agenda
at
this
time.
I'll
invite
members
to.
E
It's
I
would
this
is
assembling
the
roberts.
Madam
chair,
can
I
get
some
clarification
from
staff
on
which
items
we
are
that
will
codify
the
supreme
court
decision?
I
know
there's
a
number
of
those.
If
I
could
just
have
somebody
do
that
and
then-
and
maybe
some
discussion
on
on
13.
A
Okay,
mr
anthony,
if
you
could
address
his
question
for
us
and
then
I
will
pool
13
for
for
discussion.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Through
you
to
mr
roberts,
the
valdez
jimenez
case
is
encompassed
in
recommendations,
three
which
is
not
currently
on
the
consent,
calendar
five,
six,
seven
and
11..
So
three,
six
and
six
are
not
currently
on
the
consent
agenda,
but
those
also
relate
to
the
him
in
this
case
as
well.
A
All
right
any
additional
questions
or
items
that
we
got
from
the
consent
agenda.
H
A
I
find
that
to
be
extremely
reasonable.
Let's
go
ahead
and
take
a
a
10
minute
recess.
I
don't
mind
that
at
all
to
give
members
some
time
to
really
think
through
it.
It's
not.
My
intention
to
you
know,
rush
anybody
into
any
decisions,
so.
H
H
A
A
I
think
twice
now
on
the
record
and
would
be
happy
to
repeat
so
that
you
know
there's
no
one
no
concerns
here,
we're
looking
at
items,
one
two:
five
7
10
11
12.,
I've
removed
13
at
the
request
of
assemblyman
roberts,
15,
16,
17,
18
and
19.
D
A
A
Okay,
so
at
this
time
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
invite
members
to
just
pull
any
items
off
of
the
the
consent
agenda.
That
they'd
like
are
there
any
items
that
you
all
would
like
to
pull
senator
scheible.
H
All
right,
thank
you.
Senator
there
are
a
couple
that
I'd
like
to
pull
from
the
consent
calendar.
Those
include
numbers,
5,
7,
10
and
18.
D
I
B
J
This
is
senator
hammond.
If
I
could.
The
only
question
I
had
was
you
know
when
you
use
terms
like
reasonable
time,
then
I
would
imagine
that
at
some
point
there
was
a
discussion
about
what
reasonable
is.
I
can't
remember.
I
can't
recall
that
if
there
was
a
time
that
was
discussed,
so
if
you
remember-
or
somebody
remembers
what
they
would,
they
deemed
was
sort
of
reasonable.
Is
that
a
48
hour
period
or
72
hour
period?
I'd
really
like
to
know
about
that.
A
A
I
think
the
purpose
of
this
recommendation
would
not
be
to
simply
codify
the
term
reasonable
time,
but
to
attack
that
very
question
and
mr
anthony.
If
you
could
supplement
that
with
any
additional
details
that
you
recall.
G
G
There's
policy
a
b
or
c,
and
the
committee
members
may
recall
that
several
interested
parties
discussed
what
a
reasonable
time
would
be
and
they
suggested
various
timelines
based
on
some
non-binding
federal
court
cases
in
those
interpretations
of
what
a
reasonable
time
is
and
whether
it
depends
on
if
there's
a
bail
schedule
or
not
so
you'll,
see
in
policy
option
a
bail
hearing
within
12
to
24
hours
after
arrest
or
48
hours.
G
If
there's
going
to
be
detention
and
then
policy
b
was
maximum
on
the
outside
48
hours,
but
then
a
shorter
period
24
hours,
if
there's
a
bail
schedule
used
and
then
option
c,
is
simply
to
defer
to
the
counties
and
leave
it
as
a
determination
by
the
county
on
a
case-by-case
basis
for
what's
proper
in
their
jurisdiction.
J
So
if
I
could
it
sounds
like
I,
I
get
the
gist
of
the
the
bones
of
what
we're
talking
about,
and
it
just
sounds
like
it'll
be
determined
by
the
language
we
put
in
the
bill
eventually
so
yeah,
and
I
appreciate
mr
anthony's
assessment.
There
is
some
summation
of
this
because
I
can
see
now
what
he's
talking
about.
So
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
great,
I
will
go
ahead
and
accept
the
emotion.
What
is
the
pleasure
of
the
committee.
D
B
D
I
A
A
A
I
I'm
just
talking
into
space.
Can
you
hear
me
now?
We
can
yes,
okay,
sorry
about
that.
Senator
scheible
can
hear
me,
so
I
was
wondering
if
anyone
had
any
recollection
of
whether
or
not
we
had
consulted
or
we
had
heard
testimony
or
any
testimony
had
been
submitted
from
the
office
like
the
office
of
the
courts
or
the
administration
office
of
the
courts.
Regarding,
like
implementation
of
that,
I
couldn't
remember
offhand
and
when
I
reviewed
the
minutes,
I
didn't
really
see
any
discussions
of
that.
A
I
do
know
that
I
believe
the
office
of
the
courts
presented
to
us
in
one
of
our
earlier
meetings,
but
I
believe
it
was
more
related
to
the
kind
of
mechanics
of
how
it
works
and
not
this
issue
specifically
mr
anthony,
is
that
correct.
D
E
A
quick,
quick
question,
so
if
you
removed
the
standard
bail
schedule,
then
that
would
not
allow
anyone
to
get
out
prior
to
the
bail
hearing
as
it
currently
is
now.
E
Okay,
so,
apparently
you
could
post
bail
under
a
standard,
bail
hearing
or
a
standard
bail
amount
prior
to
your
arraignment
or
bail
bell
hearing
is
that
is
that
correct,
so
we
will
be
stopping
that.
A
So
I'm
gonna,
let
mr
anthony,
take
that.
I
do
not
believe
that
this
would
necessarily
prohibit
some
other
type
of
mechanism
for
people
to
get
out
in
in
advance
of
it
of
a
hearing
or
prohibit.
I
guess
some
mechanism
that
would
allow
these
hearings
to
happen
in
a
much
quicker
fashion,
but
mr
anthony,
if
you
could
address
that.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Yes,
this
is
correct
in
that
the
the
idea
is
that
in
lieu
of
a
bail
schedule,
you
would
have
an
individualized
bail
hearing
and
then
that
would
be
held
within
a
reasonable
time.
That's
number
three.
The
recommendation
was
just
approved
by
this
body,
so
in
lieu
of
a
bail
schedule,
you
would
have
a
individualized
hearing
within
a
reasonable
time.
E
A
I
And
if
I
assemblywoman
win,
can
you
hear
me
there
we
go?
I
I
think
there
was
also
a
lot
of
discussion
from
both
sides
that
people
that
had
the
resources
were
able
to
post
bail
and
there
were
no
conditions,
whether
or
not
it
to
protect
the
victims
in
cases
like
with
violence.
A
A
I'll
take
it,
I've
been
called
worst
any
any
further
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
Yes,
yes,
madam
chair,
assemblyman
roberts
look
I'll.
I
have
some
concerns
about
removing
standardized
bail,
but
I
obviously
your
ex
explanation
and
legal
explanation.
These
would
be
doing
in
tandem
at
the
legislature
with
with
simultaneous
bills,
so
in
an
effort
to
move
this
forward
I'll
be
voting
yes
on.
Despite
my
concerns.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
roberts.
I
appreciate
you
getting
it
on
the
record
that
it's
this
committee's
intention
that
we
work
with
these
specifically
these
two
two
pieces
together.
J
Yeah
this
this
is
senator
hamm
and
I
I
kind
of
echo
the
concerns
that
you
just
heard
from
some
of
the
roberts
again
that
you
know
for
me
it
was
the
concern
was:
are
we
still
allowing
people
to
get
out
early?
Is
this?
We
don't
want
to
standardize
it.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
as
we
go
forward
and
we
put
the
legislation
together.
I
guess
it's
always
the
the
devils
in
the
details.
We
want
to
find
out
what
it
says
and
be
able
to
tweak.
J
On
but
in
an
effort
to
move
it
forward
and
go
on
with
it,
then
we'll
go
ahead
and
vote
yes
today,
but
I'll
be
watching
that
in
the
the
next
session.
C
E
E
A
A
H
Sorry
this
is
senator
scheible.
I
asked
for
it
to
be
removed
from
the
consent
agenda,
because
I
did
want
to
clarify
that
it's
only
subsection
1
of
178.48
that
was
found
unconstitutional
by
valdez
jimenez,
and
so
the
legislation
would
propose
removing
that
subsection,
which
makes
sense
to
me.
H
I
think
my
question
was
so:
if
we're
drafting
legislation
to
put
the
burden
of
proof
on
the
state,
is
it
going
to
be
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence,
as
suggested
by
valdez
jimenez,
or
I
think
we
need
to
be
more
specific
in
our
request
to
lcb.
A
Thank
you
senator
scheibel,
so
mr
anthony,
the
valdez
jimenez
case
required
clear
and
convincing.
Is
that
correct.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
valdez.
Haman
is
required
and
convincing
in
terms
of
as
opposed
to
release
on
other,
less
restrictive,
non-monetary
means.
I
think
what
recommendation
number
five
does
is.
There
was
a
good
cause
showing
in
subsection
one
that
was
placed
on
the
defendant
to
show
good
cause.
The
case
is
pretty
clear
that
the
court
wishes
to
strike.
That
provision
is
unconstitutional,
whether
or
not
then
the
committee
chooses
to
codify
that
the
burden
is
squarely
within
the
state.
G
A
H
I
think
there's
a
third
thing
also
what
it
is
that
the
state
has
to
prove.
Is
it
the
that
they're
requesting
the
least
restrictive
meanings
possible?
Is
it
that
they
are
that
the
defendant
is
at
a
risk
of
flight?
Is
it
that
the
defendant
poses
a
safety
danger
to
the
community?
Is
it
all
three
of
those
things
the
burden
of
proof
of
what.
I
E
I
Or
not,
you
know,
I
know
in
the
courts,
all
parties
are
dealing
with
whether
it's
the
judiciary
or
prosecution
or
defense
are
all
grappling
with
how
that
part
of
the
supreme
court
decision
is
being
interpreted.
I
know
that,
for
example,
I
believe
it
should
be
interpreted
with
all
three
like
it
should
address
all
of
it.
I
I
know
that
there
is
obviously
a
dispute
amongst
all
parties
on
that,
so
I
think
there's
a
discussion
on
whether
or
not
we
want
to
define
that
legislatively
or
if
we
want
to
leave
that
up
to
the
courts
to
determine.
I
know
that
there's
ongoing
litigation
discussing
some
of
the
finer
elements
of
that
valdez
decision.
H
And
there's
something
else
that
comes
up
with
this
question:
that's
just
because
bail
is
a
little
bit
different
from
a
a
trial
or
a
or
a
different
kind
of
hearing.
Where
you
have
a
jury
that,
and
so,
when
the
burden's
on
the
state,
then
they
have
to
prove
everything
they
have
to
prove
guilt
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
when
you're
in
front
of
a
judge.
H
H
So,
for
example,
I
had
this
come
up
in
a
murder
case,
the
other
day,
where
the
the
judge
made
a
finding
that
the
defendant
was
a
danger
to
the
community
before
the
state
even
opened
their
mouth,
because
the
person
had
just
committed
a
murder
and
the
evidence
was
pretty
obvious
that
they
were
the
person
who
caused
the
other
person's
death.
And
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
specific
about
if
it
is
the
state's
burden.
H
Does
that
mean
that
the
state
actually
has
to
open
their
mouth
and
make
the
record
or
can
a
judge
make
the
finding
that
the
state
has
met
the
burden
simply
by,
for
example,
filing
a
criminal
complaint
or
by
getting
the
search
warrant
or
getting
the
arrest
warrant?
Or
something
like
that?.
A
So
I
think
you're
hitting
on
all
great
points,
I'm
just
not
sure
that
you
can
specify
in
that
much
detail
in
this
committee's
particular
recommendation.
A
G
That
is
correct,
madam
chair
and
subject
to
approval
the
legislative
council.
Several
of
these
bill
drafts
may
be
able
to
be
combined
into
to
reduce
the
number,
but
the
committee
is
authorized
statutorily.
Five
total
bdrs.
A
So
I
would
leave
open
the
rec
the
option
of
you
know
possibly
bringing
recommendation
number
five,
let's
say
outside
of
some
omnibus
bill
that
the
committee
might
bring
in
order
to
be
able
to
kind
of
work
out
these
fine
details
that
I
agree
do
need
to
be
addressed.
A
I
guess
the
question
before
the
committee
today
is:
would
we
like
to
draft
legislation
that
somehow
places
the
burden
of
proof
on
the
state
in
line
with
the
valdez
cements
decision.
H
A
Okay,
any
further
discussion
on
recommendation
number.
A
C
A
H
This
is
melanie
schreibel
again,
and
I
am
going
to
be
voting
no
on
this,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
very,
very
clear
record
that
I'm
not
that
I
am
only
voting,
no,
because
I
think
that
we
have
some
unanswered
questions
that
I
would
like
to
hammer
out
before
we
make
this
recommendation,
or
this
request
to
lcb.
I
do
believe
that
the
burden
is
on
the
state
to
show
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
they
have
requested
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary
for
somebody's
release.
D
E
D
A
Passes
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
recommendation
number
six,
which
is
to
draft
legislation
permitting
pre-trial
detention
only
when
necessary,
I'll
turn
the
committee's
attention
to
both
policies.
A
and
policy
b
as
you'll
see,
we've
got
a
couple
of
options
before
us.
A
I
am
open
to
the
committee
considering
passing
a
or
b
whether
the
committee
just
wants
to
pass
a
and
or
whether
the
committee
only
wants
to
pass
b.
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
options
here
and
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
discussion
on
the
floor.
E
G
Thank
you
option
a
deals
with
release
and
which
order
the
court
should
proceed
in
and
I
believe
miss
lemke
stated
that
she'd
like
to
see
a
process
where
the
court
proceeds
in
the
following
order,
released
without
conditions,
release
with
conditions
and
then
last
resort
detention
option
b
could
be
a
standalone.
A
Much
is
there
any
further
any
other
questions
any
discussion
on,
and
I
again
I
think,
maybe
would
be
better.
Take
these
one
at
a
time
on
6a
any
other
questions
or
discussions.
J
Yeah,
just
a
real,
quick
question,
so
are
we
doing
a
or
b
or
a
combination
we
can
do
both
or
you
know,
are
we?
How
is
this
proceeding.
A
A
My
plan
to
proceed
was
to
kind
of
have
discussion
on
a
see
if
we
can
get
some
agreement
on
that.
If
the,
if
the
body
feels
good
about
a
we
would,
we
would
move
a
then
we
could
have
some
discussion
on
b
and
if
the
committee
likes
b.
If
it's
the
committee's
pleasure,
we
could
also
pass
b
and
then
have
a
discussion
about
whether
we
want
to
do
both
or
one
or
the
other,
in
further
discussion
to
the
further
direction
to
lcd.
J
A
A
C
E
A
And
the
motion
then
passes
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
a
look
now
at
6b.
Any
discussion
on
6b.
A
All
right,
it
sounds
good.
Any
anyone
else
have
any
discussion
on
6b.
A
Mr
anthony,
I
are
there:
is
it
common
for
us
to
codify
things
that
are
in
the
nevada
constitution?
Is
that
something
we
do
regularly.
G
G
A
G
G
A
Okay,
what
is
I'll
take
a
motion
at
this
time?
What's
the
committee's
pleasure.
E
I'm
sure
similar
roberts
I'll
make
a
motion
to
do
pass.
I
Family
woman,
when
I
I
just
I
don't
know
if
this
is
necessary,
I
think
that
it's
already
codified
in
the
like
the
strongest
document
that
we
have
in
our
state
and
our
state
constitution.
So
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
further
codify
it
in
statute
at
the
beginning
of
and
the
individual
sections.
I
I
don't
believe
it's
in
any
of
the
other
sections.
I
think
the
fact
that
it's
in
our
nevada
state
constitution
is,
like
you
know,
pretty
strong.
I
A
J
Well,
now
that
you
guys
have
mentioned
it,
I'm
gonna
have
to
say
I
like
strong
statements,
and
if
this
is
just
restating
what's
in
there
and
putting
it
in
the
statute,
I
see
no
reason
that
we
can't
put
it
in
there.
It
just
basically
tells
people
what
we
felt
was
necessary
and
it's
a
reminder.
I
have
no
problem
with
being
a
strong,
authoritative
statements
like
that.
E
If
I
may,
madam
chair,
you
know
and
I'll
agree
with
senator
hadman,
you
know
I
think,
as
we
move
through
bail
and
the
change
of
bail,
I
think
the
victims,
although
it's
it,
isn't
the
constitution.
I
I
think
this
sends
a
strong
statement
that
victims
are
still
considered
during
this
process
and
they
should
have
a
voice
at
the
table
and
that's
why
I'm
supporting
it.
B
C
E
D
H
Well,
if
no
one
else
is
going
to
do
it
I'll
do
it.
This
is
senator
scheible.
I
I
have
a
couple
of
issues
with
this
recommendation,
the
first
one
being
that
I'm
pretty
sure
the
supreme
court
has
already
found
that
it
is
constitutional
to
impose
unattainable
conditions.
H
So
I
have
concerns
about
the
constitutionality
of
a
recommendation
like
this
and
second
of
all,
if
there
are
no,
if
there's
a
ban
on
unattainable
conditions,
but
still
the
right
to
bail
in
the
constitution,
there
effectively
becomes
no
way
to
detain
somebody
pre-trial,
even
if
the
state
overcomes
the
burden
of
showing
it
by
clearing
convincing
evidence
that
they
are
a
danger
to
the
community
and
unlikely
to
return
to
court.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
in
reviewing
this
recommendation.
I
think
the
the
intent
was
to
if
the
court
imposes
an
unattainable
pretrial
release
condition,
then
it
kicks
it
up
to
the
next
level
of
scrutiny.
It
would
be
constitutional,
however,
it
bumps
it
up
to
whether
it's
a
de
facto
detention
order
and
then
a
heightened
level
of
scrutiny
if
it
is
unattainable.
G
I
think
the
intent
was
to
broadly
say
that
unattainable
bail
conditions
would
simply
be
prohibited.
If
the
committee
wants
to
change
that
in
some
fashion,
they
certainly
could
within
constitutional
boundaries,
but
I
think
the
intent
is
to
just
clarify
the
distinction.
If
it's
unattainable,
then
there's
a
heightened
procedural
due
process
requirement.
D
E
So
the
way
I
the
way
I
read
this
is
that
it's
it
prohibits
it
right.
It
means
that
it
would
prohibit
unattainable
conditions.
He
just
said
that
it
would
add
some
due
process,
I'm
a
little
a
little
confused
on
that.
Did
you
clarify.
A
Yes,
so
if
you
look
at,
let's
see
the
last
sentence
of
the
first
paragraph
under
the
background
information
for
this
recommendation,
you'll
note
kind
of
towards
the
bottom
here
that
it
triggers
a
heightened
procedural
process
as
to
whether
the
detention
is
necessary.
A
I
am
open
to
amending
the
recommendation
to
reflect
that
language
a
bit
more
closely.
If
that
makes
the
committee
feel
a
bit
better.
E
So
what
could
you
give
a
good
example
of
what
that
language
might
sound?
Like
sorry,.
A
Sure
draft
legislation
requiring
a
heightened
procedural
process
if
conditions
are
found
to
be
unattainable.
H
So
I
think
that
still
conflicts
with
our
earlier
discussion
in
our
earlier
decision
to
go
forward
with
trying
to
codify
the
that
as
ximena's
decision,
because
I
think
I
think
something
that's
being
lost
in
translation
here-
is
that
basically
all
of
nevada's
pre-trial
detention
orders
are
de
facto
detention
orders
because
everybody
has
the
constitutional
right
to
bail.
H
Conditions
that
results
in
a
de
facto
detention
order,
that's
just
the
same
thing
as
implementing
a
higher
level
of
scrutiny
for
pre-trial
detention,
which
is
kind
of
circular,
and
that's
why
I
still
I.
I
don't
think
that
there's
a
way
to
clarify
this,
that
makes
it
that
allows
it
to
comport
with
valid
ximena's
looking
at
it
charitably.
H
I
understand
the
point
being
that
if
the
court
truly
believes
that
the
least
restrictive
means
necessary
for
somebody's
release
exists,
but
that
person
can't
meet
them
and
the
example
given
was
someone
being
homeless
not
being
able
to
comply
with
the
conditions
of
house
arrest,
I
think
then
we
need
to
have
a
different
discussion,
because
what
the
court
has
to
do
is
the
court
has
two
options
at
that
point:
they
need
to
go
up
or
they
can
go
down.
H
They
can
go
up
to
more
restrictive
conditions
or
they
can
go
down
to
less
restrictive
conditions
and
by
simply
telling
them
that
they're
not
allowed
to
have
the
unattainable
conditions.
It
doesn't
give
courts
the
instruction
necessary
to
determine
whether
they're
supposed
to
go
up
or
down
automatically,
and
I
don't
think
that's
a
policy
decision
that
we're
ready
to
make
in
this
in
this
committee.
But
I
could
be
wrong.
A
I
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
you
that
that's
not
a
a
policy
decision
that
we
are
ready
to
make
at
this
point.
I
would
like
to
find
some
way,
however,
that
we
can
get
at
the
situation
where,
as
as
you
mentioned,
someone
is
homeless
and
then
they're
placed
on
house
arrest.
A
I
think
the
intention
here
is
that
the
the
condition
doesn't
have
to
be
changed
up
or
down.
Well,
I
guess
it
would
be
changed
up,
they
would
be
locked
up
because
they
can't
meet
the
lower
condition
right,
which
would
be
house
arrest,
and
I
I
think
the
intention
here
is
to
if
that
is
the
case,
you
have
to
prove
at
a
heightened
procedural
standard
why
they
must
remain
with
this
unattainable
condition,
as
opposed
to
something
less
restrictive.
A
Well,
I
guess
that
would
only
happen
in
an
instance
where
the
least
restrictive
means
isn't
available,
and
so,
if
you're
going
to
go
up,
then
you've
got
to
bring
some
additional
proof
right.
So
I
I'm
looking
at
it,
conversely,
from
the
way
you're
looking
at
it,
we've
already
determined.
This
is
the
least
restrictive
means,
but
now
because
at
least
restrictive
means
is
unattainable,
what
we're
going
to
do
is
actually
impose
a
stricter
means.
You
don't
get
out
at
all
and
in
order
that
second
choice,
we're
asking
you
to
bring
some
additional
proof,
but.
H
H
There
is
actually
another
option
and
I
was
simply
being
overly
zealous
in
my
previous
ruling
that
required
this
person
to
be
on
house
arrest,
and
now
I
am
finding
that
this
person
can
actually
be
out
on
mid-level
monitoring
or
intensive
supervision,
and
that
is
the
new
least
restrictive
means
necessary,
and
I
just
can't
get
behind
a
law
that
asks
the
court
to
go
back
and
forth
like
that.
A
So
I
I
completely
understand
what
you're
saying
I
think
it
would
be.
I
think
the
message
would
be
if
we
did
this,
that,
if
you
do
the
least
restrictive
means
which
everyone
can
agree
on,
and
it
turns
out
that
those
means
are
not
available
and
you're
going
to
end
up
having
to
to
lock
someone
up
that
you
need
to
bring
a
little
bit
more,
and
so
the
default
would
be
yes
find.
Another
least
restrictive
means.
A
You
know,
the
criminal
law
element
is
not
my
it's
not
my
bailiwick,
it's
something
that
you
know
you
and
vice
chair
win
interact
with
much
more
than
I
do,
but
I
don't
know
if
there
is
ever
just
one
less
restrictive
means
there
can
be
a
variety
of
options
that
are
put
together
or
presented
in
order
to
monitor
someone
and
if
one's
not
available,
then
I'm
not
sure
that
the
only
other
option
is
to
go
with
something.
A
That's
so
much
less
less
restrictive
that
it
isn't
just
a
safe
or
effective,
and
the
only
other
option
is
to
then
lock
them
up
as
opposed
to
requiring
some
different
solution.
But
that's
well.
That's
just
my
interpretation.
I
And
I
I
think
I
mean
I,
I
understand
the
intent
behind
where
we're
trying
to
go
with
this
potential
recommendation,
because
you
do
have
jurisdictions
that
don't
have
any
of
those
or
don't
provide
any
of
those
least
restrictive
means.
We
have
many
municipal
courts
that
don't
have
house
arrests,
don't
have
intensive
supervision,
don't
have
other
options,
and
so
they're
least
restrictive
means.
I
Would
you
know,
be
monetary.
I
guess
so.
I
understand
some
of
the
intent
on
trying
to
do
it.
I
I
understand
senator
scheidel's,
like
concerns,
and
I
kind
of
wonder
if
some
of
the
intent
behind
what
we're
trying
to
do
can
be
incorporated
in
some
of
the
other
recommendations
that
we
did
as
we
go
forward,
potentially
drafting
legislation
to
make
sure
there
aren't
inconsistencies
in
what
we're
asking
the
courts
to
interpret
and
what
we're
asking
you
know
all
parties
to
present.
I
I
don't
know
if
senator
scheible,
you
know
concurs
with
that.
I
know
we
practice
in
that
area
and
I
understand
her
concerns
and
I
understand
the
intent
and
I
can
see
how
there
is
some
potential
room
for
like
misinterpretation
and
inconsistency.
But
I
think
it
could
be
incorporated
into
some
of
the
other
recommendations
and
I'm
really
bad
with
numbers.
So
I'm
trying
to
go
back
to
see
when
it
could
be
in
there.
But.
A
I'm
taking
a
look
at
recommendation,
eight,
which
we're
actually
going
to
discuss
after
seven-
and
I
think
maybe
there's
some
way
to
in
recommendation.
Eight
get
our
point
across
without
you
know,
doing
number
seven
and
prohibiting.
I
A
Be
a
request:
there's
a
motion:
the
table
recommendation:
seven!
Is
there
a
second
I'll
second,
that
okay,
any
discussion
on
the
motion
to
table
seven.
B
C
E
D
A
So
we'll
go
ahead
and
win
against
all
right.
Thank
you.
We'll
go
ahead
and
ch
table
recommendation
number
seven!
Let's
go
ahead
and
look
at
recommendation
number
eight,
which
is
to
draft
legislation
creating
a
mechanism
which
requires
the
review
of
unattainable
conditions
of
release.
Any
discussion
on
this
recommendation.
J
So
if
I
understand
this
correctly,
if
this
were
the
step
that
comes
first
and
they
looked
at
what
what
obstacles
are
in
the
path
for
a
attainable
restriction
or
retainer,
you
know
what
what
is
in
the
in
the
way
of
making
a
recommendation,
then
I
guess
going
back
to
number
seven.
You
would
never
have
a
scenario
that
was
described
by
senator
scheible,
where
wherein
you
make
a
recommendation
then
find
out
afterwards.
That
is
unattainable.
A
A
The
one
thing
that
I
don't
see
in
policy
b
is
still
any
guidance
on
whether
the
court
is
supposed
to
you
know
tick
the
requirement
up
and
keep
them
locked
up
or
take
the
requirement
down
and
maybe
release
them
or
come
up
with
some
alternative,
less
restrictive
means
I'll.
A
Let
senator
scheibel
speak
to
whether
you
know
policy
b
kind
of
addresses
her
concerns
that
she
had
with
recommendation
number
seven,
but
I
do
believe
that
it
would
allow
a
person,
at
least
to
get
back
in
front
of
a
judge
if,
for
some
reason,
they're
still
locked
up
after
they
were
ordered
released.
H
Yeah,
I
think
that
policy
b
does
get
at
the
concerns,
and
I
think
that
I
mean
this
would
be
great
in
clark
county.
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
try
to
do,
and
I
don't
know
if
by
putting
it
in
statute,
that
would
make
it
more
likely
to
happen.
I
think
another
little
piece
that
is
getting
lost
in
translation
here
is
that
often
what's
going
on
in
our,
I
don't
know
system
in
which
somebody
is
supposed
to
be
released
or
supposed
to
have
bail
conditions
that
then
aren't
being
done.
H
I
think
that
where
we
run
into
trouble
is
trying
to
tell
the
court
what
to
do
once,
the
person
is
back
in
front
of
them
because
it
really
depends
on
the
reason
if
we
do
have
an
unfortunate
case
where
somebody
has
been
ordered
on
house
arrest
and
they
represented
to
their
attorney,
that
they
would
qualify
for
house
arrest
and
so
their
attorney
agreed
to
it.
H
And
then
it
turns
out
that
they
don't
qualify
for
house
arrest
because
they
don't
have
a
phone
or
because
their
phone
doesn't
have
access
to
the
internet
or
because
something
like
that
which
can
be
remedied.
We
definitely
want
the
judge
to
have
the
tools
available
to
be
able
to
make
a
different
decision.
But
if
it's
an
issue
where
you
know
they've
represented
to
their
attorney
that
they
would
be
able
to
qualify
for
house
arrest,
but
they
can't,
because
they
have
a
detainer,
then
you're
going
to
have
a
different
conversation.
H
When
the
person
comes
back
in
24
hours-
and
maybe
the
solution
is
that
the
attorney
needs
to
get
the
other
case
on
calendar,
the
next
24
hours
to
get
them
award
on
that
case,
so
that
they
didn't
qualify
for
house
arrest
in
their
justice
court
case.
Basically,
what
I'm
saying
is
that
there
are
so
many
different
reasons
that
somebody
might
not
be
put
on
monitoring
that
I
wouldn't
want
to
tie
the
hands
of
judges
by
saying
that
they
have
to
have
a
whole
other
hearing.
H
You
know
a
short
amount
of
time
and
then
all
of
the
parties
have
the
opportunity
to
readdress
bail
using
the
same
standards
still
trying
to
get
them
out
on
the
least
restrictive
means
possible,
still
accounting
for
the
danger
to
the
community
and
the
likeliness
to
reappear
the
likings
of
conviction,
all
those
things
that
we
normally
consider
during
fail.
H
I
think
the
point
is
just
to
get
them
back
in
front
of
the
judge
to
reassess,
without
dictating
or
without
suggesting
that
there's
any
kind
of
change
in
the
burden
of
proof
or
change
in
the
level
of
restrictions
necessary,
but
acknowledging
that
our
system
is
imperfect
and
even
though
we
can
set
a
goal
threshold
here
at
house
arrest
that
there
is
room
for
adjustment.
H
A
You
know
the
idea
that
the
court
can
can
reassess
and
and
and
hopefully
find
other
bail
conditions
that
are
attainable
for
for
someone,
and
I
think,
regardless
it's
important
that
we
get
people
back
at
least
give
them
some
way
to
get
back
in
the
court,
so
that
the
judge
has
that
opportunity,
and
I
definitely
want
to
give
them
as
much
leeway
as
possible
to
craft
solutions
for
people
and
mr
anthony.
A
I
I
appreciate,
if
you
could
take
a
note
of
the
committee's
intention
that
that
the
that
the
factors
that
be
that
are
assessed
should
be
similar
when
we
come
back
to
have
a
a
new
when
they
bring
back
in
front
of
the
court.
If
they
haven't
been
let
out.
A
So
let's
go
ahead
and
if
we
could
guys,
let's
just
talk
about
8a
very
quickly,
because
if
the
committee
likes
8a,
I
believe
it's
possible
for
us
to
be
able
to
recommend
both
a
and
b.
I
don't
believe
they
conflict
in
any
way.
So
is
there
any
discussion
on
on
policy
a.
H
I
remember
the
presentation
on
the
jail
statistics
that's
mentioned
here.
I
don't
remember,
hearing
from
jurisdictions
that
implement
this
kind
of
policy.
H
It
sounds
to
me
like
it
would
clog
up
the
court
system
a
lot
to
basically
everybody
who's
being
held
on
bail
would
come
in
front
of
the
court
every
seven
days,
just
to
like
remind
the
court
that
they're
still
being
held
on
bail,
but
maybe
I'm
just
forgetting
a
jurisdiction
that
utilized
this
method
to
significantly
reduce
the
jail
population
successfully.
A
A
G
That's
correct,
madam
chair,
require
the
jails
to
have
a
population
manager
to
kind
of
keep
tabs
on
their
inmate
population
and
then
report
back
to
court
on
anybody
being
held
on
monetary
bail.
H
It
can
force
my
understanding,
I'm
just
I'm
going.
To
be
honest,
I
don't
really
see
the
value
in
this
policy.
You
know
you
talk
about
a
place
like
ccdc.
You
have
some
people
in
there
who
are
awaiting
their
murder
trials.
They
have
monetary
bail
set
and
they
can't
make
that
bail
and
so
they're
going
to
appear
on
that
report
every
single
day
from
now,
until
three
years
from
now
when
they
finally
go
to
trial.
I
So
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
alleviate
and
I'm
also
curious
if
there
is
any
way
to
incorporate,
because
I
don't
think
it
necessarily
conflicts
but
adding
into
policy
b
like
amending
like
like
some
sort
of,
I
guess,
policy
or
statutory
language
that
would
have
the
courts.
Look
at
the
you
know,
I
guess
some
of
the
recommendations
that
are
the
intent
of
seven.
I
don't
know
if
nick
can
answer
some
of
that
question
or
that
I'm
asking
for
like
too
big
of
a
move
here
in
a
work
session.
A
So
let
me
first
just
thank
you.
I
did.
I
meant
to
note
that
the
2500
or
less,
I
think,
that's
intended
to
get
at
whether
we
have
people
still
in
jail
simply
because
they
sorry
to
myself
simply
because
they
can't
pay
right.
The
idea
is
to
kind
of
keep
track
of
who
that
might
be.
Not
you
know,
in
hopes
of
not
clogging
up
the
report
with
people
who
are
in
jail
for
a
high
bail
for
a
good,
a
good
reason.
Go
ahead.
We're.
H
Just
not
sure
that
the
policy
reads
that
way.
It
doesn't
say
that
the
jail
will
write.
A
report
of
people
held
a
bail
less
than
2
500..
It
just
says
that
they'll
have
a
population
manager
who
will
frequently
assess
and
report
on
individuals
to
be
placed
on
the
court
calendar.
So
we
might
want
to
tighten
this
up.
A
Perfect,
I
am
let
now
let
me
get
to
assemblywoman
wins
second
issue.
First,
senator
scheibel,
I'm
open
to
tightening
that
up
100,
mr
anthony,
could
you
address
vice
chair,
wins
question
about.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
policy.
Eight
is
a
recommendation
to
bring
individuals
back
in
front
of
the
judge,
and
then
policy
seven
goes
to
a
determination
as
to
unattainable
conditions,
and
those
are
procedural
due
process
type
constitutional
questions.
Certainly,
if
you
wanted
to
fold
that
into
eight
in
terms
of
reminding
the
court
that
a
heightened
level
of
procedural
due
process
applies,
if
there's
an
unattainable
bail
condition,
you
could
do
that.
The
two
could
stand
alone
if
you'd
like.
I
I
get,
I
guess
my
idea
is
like
I'm
thinking
of
the
situation
where
you
have
someone
who
is
ordered,
for
example,
on
house
arrest
as
a
pre-trial
condition
and
that's
determined
to
be
the
least
restrictive
means
and
so
they're
put
on
house
arrest
and
then
they
are
homeless
and
they
don't
have
a
telephone.
I
You
know,
and
then
they
just
sit
there.
Because
they're
I
mean
we
have
a
mechanism
in
clark
county.
It's
not
like
in
statute
with
this
within
you
know,
I
think,
is
to
have
them
brought
back
like
within
a
certain
time
of
thing,
which
I
I
support.
I
But
is
it
possible
to
look
at
whether
or
not
we've
made
like
an
unattainable
and
allow
the
judges,
the
discretion
to
go
back
and
without
being
inconsistent?
But
determining
that
you
know
we
shouldn't
be
holding
someone
just
because
they
are
homeless
and
they
can't
abide
by
like
a
house
arrest.
But
there
may
be
a
similar,
like
least
restricted
means
like
gps
monitoring,
where
you
don't
need
to
have
like
a
home,
or
you
know,
intensive
supervision
where
you're
checking
in
on
a
regular
basis.
So
I
think
there
are
other
options.
I
So
I
like
being
able
to
give
judges
more
ability
to
do
it,
but
I
think
that
it
would
send
a
strong
message
that
the
legislature
wants
the
judges
to
be
aware
of
the
fact
that
we
don't
want
people
being
held
because
they
are
in
their
unattainable
conditions.
I
don't
know
if
that
makes
sense,
I'm
kind
of
rambling
in
the
circle,
but
that
that's
what
I
would
kind
of
like
to
see
in
that
section
and
it
sounds
like
we
would
be
able
to
incorporate
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
anyone
has
any
other,
I
see.
C
I
know
we
like
to
think
that
our
courts
know
everything
and
they
have
it
all
situated
and
squared
away,
but
I
do
like
the
reporting
mechanism
that
is
in
policy
a
specifically
because
I
don't
know
that
we
understand
what
is
attainable
or
unattainable.
I
think
there's
a
disconnect
in
that.
So
I
think
getting
those
reports
back
will
really
inform
the
court
as
to
whether
or
not
a
twenty
five
hundred
dollar
bill.
C
Twenty
four
hundred
twenty
three
hundred
twenty
two
hundred
whatever
the
common
practice
may
be
for
whatever
specific
scenario
the
courts
consistently
seeing.
I
think
it's
going
to
provide
some
good
insight
as
to
whether
or
not
they
use
that
or
not
that's
going
to
be
at
the
discretion
of
the
court.
But
I
do
think
it's
great
insight
and
I
do
think
that
we
don't
know
what
is
unattainable.
I
I
think
we're
still
very
much
in
the
infancy
stage
of
this
conversation.
We've
been
having
it
for
a
long
time.
It's
not
a
new
conversation.
C
C
So
I
do
think
that
us
sending
that
very
strict,
strong
messaging
as
to
we
have
a
role
to
play
in
what
is
attainable
or
not,
is
important
and-
and
I
I
appreciate
senator
scheible's
perspective
as
to
whether
or
not
an
individual
has
multiple
cases
open
at
the
same
time,
and
that
there's
concerns
about
that
or
whether
or
not
a
person's
release,
and
that
you
know
within
the
very
next
few
hours
it
gets
picked
up
again
for
a
different
charge
that
the
court
should
be
taking
all
that
into
account.
C
We
can't
just
do
past
that
on
its
own,
if
we
don't
want
to
touch
policy
a
and
policy
b
here,
I
think
all
of
them
are
going
to
work
in
concert
together
towards
the
objective
of
saying
if
an
individual
got
in
trouble
and
now
has
to
pay
a
15
bond
and
for
whatever
reason
they
can't
and
they're
there
for
five
six
weeks,
that's
going
to
be
incredibly
helpful
to
the
court
to
know
if
that
same
exact
individual
does
pay
and
gets
released.
C
The
very
next
day
that's
going
to
be
very
informative
to
the
court
and
in
the
scenarios
that
we've
been
highlighting
and
the
vice
chair
mentioned,
where
house
arrested
just
doesn't
work,
we're
going
to
find
out
that
that's
not
the
the
least
restrictive
or
that
it's
it
is
unattainable
at
that
time,
and
we
have
to
look
at
another
option.
I
just
think
that
they
all
do
work
in
concert.
I
don't
know
that
we
can't
just
go
through
each
policy
and
let
them
stand
alone.
C
A
Thank
you
settlement
flores,
so,
mr
anthony,
what
I
I
believe,
I'm
hearing
from
the
committee
is
there
is
a
desire
to,
at
the
very
least
place
some
kind
of
presumption,
or
I
don't
know,
a
strong
policy
statement
in
favor
of
amending
conditions
to
make
them
attainable.
A
I
I
don't
hear
a
desire
from
a
majority
of
the
committee
to
flat
out
prohibit
unattainable
conditions,
but
I
do
hear
a
desire
to
favor
them
and
to
try
and
incentivize
the
courts
to
get
creative
when
someone
comes
back
and
it
turns
out
a
condition
that
is
less
restrictive
is
unattainable.
For
that
particular
person.
A
Is
there
room
in
recommendation
b
to
make
that
strong
statement.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I'm
assuming
in
in
paul
cb.
You
would
like
a
a
policy
statement
included
as
opposed
to
drafting
legislation,
so
the
legislation
would
be
if
somebody's
held
longer
than
24
hours
after
they
were
supposed
to
be
released.
They
brought
they're
brought
back
in
front
of
the
court,
but
then
the
recommendation
of
this
body
would
actually
be
a
policy
statement
in
the
final
report
that
this
committee's
aware
and
the
court
should
be
looking
at
whether
any
conditions
are
unattainable.
A
A
I'm
hoping
we
can
make
some
strong
policy
statement
that
unattainable
conditions
if
found
unattainable,
are
strongly
disfavored
or
or
we
you
know,
encourage
the
courts
to,
I
don't
know,
be
creative
or
find
ways
to
keep
people
at
you.
G
Yes,
madam
chair,
I
think
that
could
be
included
and
if
you'd
like
it
could
be
included.
If
you
wanted
it
as
part
of
the
legislation,
it
could
be
a
statement
of
legislative
intent
at
the
beginning
of
the
bill.
It
could
also
just
be
a
policy
statement
in
the
final
report,
basically
spelling
out
the
committee's
intent.
There.
A
E
Madame
cherry
or
simon
roberts,
so
I
I'll
agree
with
simon
flores
that
you
know
I
would
prefer
taking
each
of
these
items.
I
think
we're
trying
to
do
too
much
into
into
one
policy
decision
and
it'd
be
much
cleaner
to
take
them
each
on
its
own.
So
if
we
we
try
to
do
that,
I
I'll
probably
be
a
no.
A
Okay,
so
just
for
the
committee's
information
at
this
time,
it
would
be
my
preference
to
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote
on
8a
and
then
separately.
Take
a
vote
on
a
fee.
A
The
vote
on
8
a
would
be
slightly
amended
from
the
policy,
as
you
see
to
make
it
clear
that
this
is
to
include
statistics
on
persons
held
on
bail
of
less
than
2500
for
more
than
seven
days
in
order
to
you
know
codify
our
intent
that
this
is
to
try
and
get
statistics
to
the
courts
on
how
many
people
are
still
being
held
on
bail,
simply
because
they
can't
pay
understanding
that
it's
not
a
perfect
mechanism
and
then
on
8b.
A
When
I
bring
that
up,
which
will
happen
shortly,
it
would
be
as
discussed
and
then
with
the
legislative
intent
that
mr
anthony
and
the
committee-
and
I
just
just
had
that
we
would
prefer
more
that
unattainable
conditions
are
are
strongly
disfavored
and
it's
our
intent
that
the
courts
work
diligently
to
to
find
attainable
conditions
for
folks.
That
still,
of
course,
meet
all
of
the
standards
and
all
of
the
factors
that
must
be
considered
when
pre-release
conditions
are
set.
A
D
E
I
A
I
I
I
just
don't
know
how
I
feel,
how
I
feel
I
feel
comfortable
with
adding
those
two
pieces
kind
of
together
from
seven.
I
tend
to
agree
with
assemblyman
flores
that
perhaps-
and
I
realized
I
was
on
the
table-
that
I
think
it
needed
some
further
discussion,
but
I
I
like
the
24
hours.
Obviously
I
think
that's
important,
but
I
I
don't
know
if
I
want
to
combine
all
those
things
and
you
know
perhaps
we
can
just
revisit
recommendation
number
seven
as
a
standalone
I
don't
know.
A
Well,
assemblywoman,
when
that's
for
clarification,
and
I
I
don't
think
that
you
necessarily
got
it
wrong,
but
just
for
clarification
I
want
to
state
that
the
only
thing
we
would
be
adding
to
policy
be
is
a
statement
of
legislative
intent.
I
Okay,
I
I
just
don't
want
to
lose
like
the
whole,
like
intent
and
policy
behind,
like
recommendation
number
seven
like
we're
somehow
incorporating
that
into
this.
As
long
as
it's
just
like
that
statement
of
intent,
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that.
I
think
that
is
consistent
with
the
case
law
as
well.
As
you
know,
potentially
the
desire
here,
but
okay.
A
That's
that's
my
intention.
My
intention
is
to
just
get
the
legislative
intent
language
that
we
talked
about
with
the
with
the
strong
preference
for
attainable,
bail
conditions,
and
we
would
have
to
bring
recommendation
seven
off
the
table,
but
there's
no
prohibition
of
reconsidering
recommendation.
Seven
at
this.
A
D
B
D
J
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Yes,
you
can
leave
it
open
as
long
as
senator
schreibel
returns
in
the
same
meeting.
That's
fine.
A
Okay,
I
don't
think
she
completely
skipped
out
on
us,
so
we
should
be
okay,
let's
go
ahead
and
leave
that
role
open
so
that
sanders
scheible
can
voice
her
preference.
A
This
recommendation
does
have
two
parts
policy:
a
and
b
looking
at
them.
It
doesn't
seem
that
there's
any
prohibition
on
allowing
both
a
and
b,
and
so
I
am
open
to
allowing
the
committee
to
recommend
both
or
one
or
the
other
can
we
have
some
discussion
on
recommendation
number
nine.
I
I
It's
already
done.
There's
some
financial
affidavits,
at
least
here
in
clark
county,
that
individuals
are
required
to
fill
out
even
at
the
initial
arraignment
court
that
usually
takes
place
within
that
first
24
hours,
even
before
charges
are
brought.
So
I
think
requiring
this
would
just
give
the
courts
more
information
in
determining
indigency
and
what
potentially
least
restrictive
means
are,
and
I
think
it
would
also
play
into
some
of
those
questions
to
help
answer
some
of
those
questions
about
whether
or
not
monetary
would
be
a
least
restrictive
means
or
attainable.
J
It's
just
this
is
senator
hayman,
so
I
guess
this
gets
like
you
know
when
we're
discussing
number
eight.
I
guess
this
is
the
question
that
kept
coming
up.
In
my
mind,
is
you
know
when
do
judges
get
to
hear
a
lot
of
this
information?
And
I
understood
from
some
of
my
some
of
you,
some
of
the
folks
that
talked
a
minute
ago
that
sometimes
the
judges
don't
always
get
everything,
but
this
right
here.
J
If
we
pass
this
this
would
you
know
to
me
it
means
that
we're
going
to
bring
a
lot
of
the
information
to
bear
for
the
judges
to
make
considerations
so
that
they
know
ahead
of
time
before
they
make
the
first
recommendation,
probably
making
it
move
forward
and
to
make
a
recommendation
24
hours
later.
But
you
know
I
don't.
J
I
don't
work
in
the
system,
and
so
that's
why
I
kept
listening
to
the
to
the
discussion,
but
it
seems,
like
I
mean
it
seems
like
this
recommendation
is
timely
right
because
now
we're
telling
everybody
that
we
need
to
get
these
the
the
information
to
the
judges
in
a
timely
manner
so
that
they
can
make
the
least
restrictive
recommendations
on
each
and
every
person
individually.
A
No
senator
hammond,
I
think,
you're,
hitting
on
the
exact
purpose
of
this
recommendation
to
give
the
judges
the
information
they
need
right
up
front
as
soon
as
possible,
so
that
we're
not
figuring
out
that
you
know
some
monetary
bail
number
is
unattainable
24
hours
later,
or
even
you
know
further
than
that.
So
yes,
thank
you.
A
I
I'd
make
a
motion
to
do
pass
a
and
b
recommendation
number
nine.
A
Oh
lovely,
second,
from
senator
hammond
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
D
E
B
A
D
E
D
A
E
Yeah,
yes,
yes,
madam
chairs,
assemblyman
roberts.
I
had
requested
this
be
pulled
and
I
had
some
some
questions
as
to
it
says
certain
misdemeanors
and
I
don't
recall
what
misdemeanors
we
were
talking
about.
I
mean
obviously,
traffic
offenses
are
all
inclusive,
but
what
other
misdemeanors
are
we
talking
about
in
this
recommendation?.
G
E
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
believe
that
the
intent
of
this
is
to
issue
a
a
citation
in
lieu
of
arrest
and
detention,
so
in
your
hypothetical
assemblyman
roberts,
yes,
you're
correct
for
a
trespass
assuming
if
the
committee
defines
this
as
non-violent
misdemeanors,
I
would
argue
that
a
trespass
is
a
property
offense
versus
a
person
offense.
G
It
typically
doesn't
involve
the
use
of
or
threat
of
force,
so
it
would
be
a
non-violent
misdemeanor,
in
which
case,
if
the
committee
were
to
pass
this
would
be
a
citable
offense
as
opposed
to
arrest
and
detention.
E
Thank
you
for
that
clarification
I
mean
those
are
currently
citable,
offenses
already
and
expression
is,
is
usually
applied
in
those
instances
and
in
some
instances
you
have
you
have
citizens
arrests,
where
certain
certain
people,
or
whatever
you
have
a
citizen
that
that
has
a
misdemeanor
crime
and
and
they'll
produce
an
affidavit
for
a
citizen's
arrest
which
actually
takes
away
the
discretion.
E
I
I
just
think
the
traffic
offenses
would
be
okay,
but
I
think
moving
into
misdemeanor
all
misdemeanor
crimes
with
that,
not
knowing
which
ones
are
which
are
just
a
non-starter
for
me.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
I
I
would
just
say
that
the
recommendation
title
and
then
the
background
information
is
kind
of
inconsistent,
like
one
just
talks
about
certain
misdemeanors,
potentially
traffic
matters
and
certain
non-violent
misdemeanors,
and
then
you
know
I
know
in
reviewing
it.
It
was
mostly
like
referring
to
non-aggravated
traffic
offenses,
so
I
just
think
that
it
would
need
to
be
clear.
I
I
understand
that
there
are
some
concerns
that
assemblyman
roberts
might
have
based
on
his
experience
in
the
field,
but
I
also
know
that,
for
example,
under
the
henderson
you
know
municipal
code,
they
have
arrested
people
for
unlawful
to
encourage
pigeons
to
linger
roost
or
congregate,
and
so
people
are
actually
being
arrested,
not
just
cited
on
that
type
of
offense.
So
I
obviously
have
concerns
that
you
know
we
have
jurisdictions
that
are
arresting
on
non-violent
circumstances
and
having
people
in
jail
for
extended
periods
of
time
based
on
those
type
of
offenses.
A
A
And
I
again,
mr
anthony,
maybe
you
can
help
me
out
here
because
I
don't
do
I
don't
do
criminal
law
much
right.
Is
there
some
way
to
address
assemblyman
robert's
concerns
by
also
making
these
certain
misdemeanors
non-aggregated
right?
So
if
you
give
a
citation
and
the
person
refused
to
leave
the
second
citation
and
the
third
right
kind
of
then
allow
you
to
possibly
actually
detain
someone.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Yes,
I
believe
there's
a
way
to
adequately
capture
the
committee's
intent
and
to
draft
that
accordingly,
so
that
any
second
third
offense
becomes
aggregated
and
then
it
would
be
an
arrest
and
detention
situation.
I
And
mr
anthony
is
an
assemblywoman:
when
is
it
possible
to
you
know
it's
my
understanding
like
if
someone
was
to
be
given
a
citation
and
then
they
don't
appear
for
their
citation,
it
would
still
have
the
ability
to
go
into
like
a
bench
warrant
status.
G
That's
correct
vice
chair
when,
yes,
it,
it
would
not
prohibit
the
court
issuing
a
bench
warrant
for
failure
to
appear.
E
See
using
a
casino
environment
to
where
routinely
casinos
will
have
folks
that
are
trespassed
and
repeatedly
returned,
and
if
it's
their
first
offense,
then
the
so
I'm
clear
the
the
officer
would
have
no
choice
other
than
to
issue
a
citation
rather
than
to
arrest.
Under
this
recommendation.
E
A
C
C
specifically
focuses
on
washoe
county's
proposed
language,
to
reclassify
non-aggravated
traffic,
offenses
and,
and
then
it
goes
on
to
describe
a
little
bit
about
that.
But
it
doesn't
talk
about
the
certain
misdemeanors,
but
my
my
reading
of
this,
that
it
would
then
become
our
role.
So
if
this
recommendation
moves
forward,
we
would
then
in
the
actual
language.
C
I
think
the
fact
that
it
has
certain
misdemeanors
is
going
to
give
us
the
leeway
to
specifically
address
the
concerns
that
assemblyman
roberts
is
bringing
forth,
which
makes
absolute
sense
and-
and
I
think
his
experience
will
be
incredibly
important
for
us
here,
but
I
just
want
to
make
the
point
that
I
don't
know
and
legal,
please.
If
you
could
help
us
understand
this,
we
don't
have
to
include
trespassing
there.
For
example,
I
mean
the
fact
that
we're
saying
certain
misdemeanors
is
that
we
are
acknowledging
that
we're
going
to
carve
out
a
bunch
of
them.
G
Thank
you,
mr
flores.
Yes,
you
are
correct
the
way
the
recommendation
is
written.
It's
written
broadly,
it's
up
to
you
as
a
committee
to
decide
and
then
further
on
down
the
road
during
the
next
legislative
session.
If
there's
testimony,
certainly
the
bill
can
be
drafted
and
amended
such
that
it
it
take
out
certain
misdemeanors.
If
that's
the
body's
wish,
it
could
be
that
you
simply
say
non-violent,
misdemeanors
and
further
define
that
by
threat
or
use
of
force
or
misdemeanors,
not
including
misdemeanors,
committed
against
the
person.
G
So
you're
only
talking
about
property,
you
could
further
limited.
If,
if
you
wanted
to
exclude
trespass,
for
instance,
and
mr
roberts
example,
certainly
the
legislature
could
do
that,
but
as
written
currently,
it
is
just
a
broad
policy
recommendation
which
could
be
further
refined
throughout
the
process.
A
Thank
you,
mr
anthony.
Is
there
further
discussion
on
13
at
this
time.
E
So,
madam
chair,
just
another
clarifying
question
is
so
it
does
say.
Traffic
offenses
is,
is
that
all
traffic
offenses
or
or
are
there
going
to
be
some
excluded
for
that,
for
instance
like
driving
on
a
revoked
driver's
license
or
driving
on
a
suspended
driver's
license,
or
some
of
those
things
basically
more
more
so
revoked?
E
So
would
it
exclude
some
of
those
traffic
offenses
or
would
it
is
it?
Is
it
all
traffic
offenses.
A
Well,
the
way
that
I
read
it
says
certain
traffic
offenses,
which
again
it's
similar
to
the
discussion
that
we
just
had
on
misdemeanors.
It
would
allow
for
carveouts
of
any
particular,
let's
say,
traffic
offense
that
that
we
find
may
not
be
appropriate
it
doesn't.
This
recommendation
would
not
require
that
all
traffic
offenses
be
citations
not
punishable
by
jail
time.
A
A
C
C
J
A
And
the
motion
passes
at
this
time,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
please
open
up
the
role
again
on.
D
H
A
You
very
much
recommendation
8b
also
passes
all
right.
We
will
now
move
on.
Congratulations
to
everybody
to
our
last
recommendation
for
consideration.
This
is
recommendation
number
18
and
that
is
to
draft
legislation
providing
a
48-hour
grace
period
after
a
defendant
fails
to
appear
before
issuing
an
arrest
warrant.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
item
number
18.
H
H
I
think
that
we
have
enough
trouble
getting
people
to
court
as
it
is,
and
they
should
be
there
when
they
are
expected
to
be
there
and
it
puts
an
undue
burden
on
the
court
to
keep
track
of
people
who
are
calling
and
stopping
by
for
48
hours
instead
of
just
the
normal
two
to
three
hours.
That
court
is
held
for.
A
A
Okay-
and
I
will
just
say
I-
I
believe
the
intent
here
is
to
give
people
some
time
to
realize
they
missed
their
court
date
and
provide
them
with
just
a
little
bit
of
room
to
rectify
that
before
you
know,
the
failure
to
appear
warrant
is
issued.
A
I've
heard
not
great
concern,
but
but
some
concern
from
community
members
who
feel
that
you
know
at
1201
is
24
hour
town
at
1201.
You
know
you
may
have
gotten
off
work
and
you
missed
your
court
date
and
that
second
they're
gonna,
you
know
possibly
pick
you
up
if
you
get
pulled
over
for
something
and
so
that
people
might
want
to
need
just
a
little
bit
of
time
to
rectify
it
before
the
failure
to
appear
warrant
goes
into
effect.
A
A
Issue
so
I'll,
let
mr
anthony
follow
up.
I
am
not
sure
what
the
current
court
system
is.
It
may
be
that
if
you
on
a
certain
day
miss
your
bench
ward,
they
issue
miss
your
court
hearing.
They
issue
all
the
bench
warrants
at
the
end
of
the
day.
If
that
was
the
case,
then
you
would
have
48
hours
from.
I
guess
the
end
of
the
day
where
you
were
supposed
to
appear
in
court.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
believe
the
way
the
recommendation
is
written.
It
puts
the
onus
on
the
defendant
or
the
person
that
missed
their
appearance,
and
it
gives
them
a
48-hour
window
opportunity
to
res
schedule
their
court
appearance.
It
doesn't
necessarily
indicate
that
that
appearance
will
be
within
48
hours,
but
rather
it
gives
them
a
window
to
contact
the
court
and
say
yes,
I'm
sorry,
I
missed
it.
I'm
available
here's
my
new
date
and
that's
the
way
it's
currently
phrased.
A
Sorry,
no!
That's!
Okay!
I
just
wanted
mr
anthony
to
clarify
that
there's
no
opportunity
really,
if
you
don't
make
that
call,
then
you
will
in
fact
get
a
there
will
be
a
warrant
for
your
arrest
48
hours
afterwards.
Is
that
right.
H
Well,
I
mean
I
assume
that
we're
not
taking
away
discretion
from
judges
to
just
choose
not
to
issue
a
bench
warrant
if,
for
example,
the
parties
agree
to
waive
a
defendant's
appearance,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
wondering
about
is
whether
there's
any
kind
of
standard
for
showing
good
cause
explaining
why
they
missed
court.
I
don't
see
what,
in
this
prevents
somebody
from
continuously
not
coming
to
court,
calling
the
next
day
getting
a
new
date
and
then
just
doing
that
in
perpetuity.
A
I
understand
that
concern.
I
believe
we
could
put
a
limit
on
the
amount
of
time.
Someone
is
able
to
do
that
in
order
to
kind
of
prevent
that
scenario
from
happening.
Would
that
allay
some
of
your
concerns?
Sandra
schauble.
H
A
C
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
ask
a
question
of
senator
scheible
senator,
I
appreciate
your
perspective
and
I
know
that
you
see
it
through
a
lens
that
some,
some
of
us
are
either
unfamiliar
with
and
or
just
don't
understand
how
you
know.
Procedurally
in
the
practical
everyday
approach
to
this
conversation,
maybe
so
I
appreciate
your
insight
besides
that
concern.
So
assuming
we
were
to
put
a
cap
on
it
saying
you
can
only
do
this
once
or
twice
whatever
it
may
be.
C
Is
there
another
hypothetical
you
could
share
with
me
so
that
I
understand
what
other
issue
you
you
foresee
that
this
could
be
creating.
You
know
I
personally
sometimes
know
folk
who
will
miss
court
and
or
whatever,
whatever
reason
had
an
emergency
and
they
couldn't.
They
couldn't
be
there
and
now
they're,
paying
an
attorney
a
thousand
dollars
to
quash
the
warrant
only
and
they're
already
in
a
very
difficult
position,
and
it
was
just
simple
oversight-
overwhelmed-
have
forty
thousand
things
going
on
in
their
lives.
C
So
that's
like
that's
where
my
mind
automatically
goes
when
I
think
of
this
particular
recommendation,
but
I
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
when
we
put
a
cap,
we're
like
look,
it
happened
once
oversight,
we
get
it
we're
going
to
work
with
you.
I
want
to
see
what
else
you
you
saw
as
an
issue
beyond
that.
C
If
just
give
some
insight
so
that
I
can
understand
a
little
bit
better
if
you
have
another
hypothetic
or
and
or
you
may
just
be
airing
on
the
side
of
overly
being
cautious
and
you're
still,
you
know
I
get
that
you
may
not
have
had
an
opportunity
to
dissect
at
all,
but
I
was
just
curious
to
know
if
you
had
anything
else
to
share.
H
All
right
that
there
are
a
couple
of
things.
One
of
them
is
that
I
don't
see
how
we
could
constitutionally
allow
somebody
a
number
of
exceptions
like
over
their
lifetime,
for
example.
H
So
it
would
have
to
be
case
by
kate,
like
literally
case
by
case,
and
so
we
see
people
who
pick
up
bench
warrants
in
multiple
cases
across
multiple
years,
and
so
I'm
I
have
no
problem
giving
somebody
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
allowing
them
some
time
to
get
their
house
in
order
and
make
their
appearance
in
front
of
a
court
if
they
have
that
one
that
one
instance
oversight.
H
But
I
don't
think
there's
anything
to
prevent
somebody
from
having
the
oversight
in
their
first
case
and
their
second
case
and
their
third
case
and
their
fourth
case,
and
their
fifth
case
you
could
say
only
once
per
case,
but
that
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
they
then
learn
over
the
course
of
time
that
your
first
bench
warrant's,
always
free.
You
always
have
48
hours
from
your
first
appearance
to
make
a
call,
send
a
text
do
whatever
and
get
out
of
taking
responsibility
for
not
coming
to
court.
H
The
second
issue
that
I
see
is
that
practicing
in
this
arena,
I
think
that
our
judges
have
discretion
when
they
issue
bench
warrants
and
when
they
don't.
I
have
very
rarely
seen
ever
seen
a
judge
issue,
a
bench
warrant
for
an
individual
who
has
good
contact
with
their
attorney,
who
has
made
a
good
faith
representation
that
they
are
running
late,
that
they
have
a
flat
tire
that
they
are
sick,
that
they
have
child
care
issues.
H
I've
never
seen
a
benchmark
issue
in
that
kind
of
situation
in
the
second
kind
of
situation
that
we're
talking
about
where
somebody
really
just
misses
court
and
it's
it's
an
accident
and
they
don't
check
in
with
their
attorney.
H
I've
seen
some
of
those
still
not
get
bench
warrants
and
then,
even
when
they
do
like
you
said
they
have
to
go
through
the
process
of
getting
a
bench
warrant
quashed,
and
I
can
appreciate
that
it
is
expensive
and
it
is
inconvenient,
but
I
think
that
it's
unfair
to
our
courts
to
require
that
they
babysit
people
for
48
hours
after
their
court
appearance
and
not
simply
allow
a
court
to
set
a
time.
H
You
have
to
be
there
and
let
the
court
institute
their
own
rules
for
who
gets
a
bench
warrant
and
who
doesn't
by
saying
that
you
know
you're,
not
basically
you're
telling
judges.
You
can't
issue
a
bench
warrant
for
somebody
until
48
hours
after
they
fail
to
appear
in
front
of
your
court,
even
though
that
judge
might
have
a
very
good
reason
for
issuing
a
bench
warrant.
I'll
give
you
another
example
a
case
that
I
had
a
couple
months
ago
with
a
domestic
violence
case
where
the
abuser
was
out
of
court.
H
He
did
violate
his
no
contact
order.
He
went
to
the
victim's
house.
I
requested
that
he'd
be
present
in
court.
He
wasn't
present
in
court,
so
I
requested
a
bench
war
in
that
case.
That
judge
wouldn't
have
been
allowed
to
issue
the
bench
warrant
for
48
more
hours
and
that
would
have
put
the
victim
in
further
danger.
So
I
just
think
it's
important
that
courts
have
the
authority
to
issue
a
bench
warrant
when
they
determine
that
it
is
time
to
issue
a
bench
warrant.
C
And
I
appreciate
that
I
guess
the
only
other
thing
that
I
was
that
my
mind
always
goes
to
is
all
the
folk
who
won't
have
a
representative
who
don't
can't
afford
an
attorney
who,
who
won't
have
someone
there
to
be
able
to
explain
whatever
scenario
they're
going
through
and
now
the
warrants
there
and
again
they
didn't
have
an
attorney
from
the
beginning.
You
know
it's
their
first
court
appearance
or
whatever
it
may
be,
but
I
but
I
appreciate
your
insight
and
thank
you
for
sharing
senator.
I
This
is
assemblywoman
when
I
I
don't
know
if
this
recommendation
is
vague
enough
to
give
the
committee
kind
of
the
flexibility
to
flush
out
some
of
the
language,
but
just
in
reading
it
I
mean
in
practice.
There
are
certain
circumstances
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
you
know
I
would
recommend
in
like
the
vetting
of
this
legislation.
I
If
it
you
know
was
to
move
forward,
is
looking
at
limiting
it
to
certain
types
of
cases
and
certain
types
of
circumstances,
because
if
you
have
a
situation
where
you
have
a
preliminary
hearing
that
is
going
forward-
and
you
have
you
know,
the
district
attorney
has
subpoenaed
and
they're
present.
You
know
you
know
two
three,
four,
five,
ten
twenty,
like
you
know
victim
or
witnesses
that
are
present
there
to
testify
and
the
you
know
the
criminal
defendant
does
not
show
up
for
court.
In
that
circumstance.
I
You
know
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
you
know,
a
circumstance
where
it
is
like
an
initial
appearance
or
if
it's
something.
I
know
that
some
of
our
municipal
jurisdictions
have
24-hour
grace
periods
for
their
first
arraignments,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
part
of
their
municipal
code
or
court
practice,
but
I
I
I
if-
and
maybe
mr
anthony
can
provide
some
information
on
whether
or
not
the
language
of
that
recommendation
is
big
enough,
that
we
can
play
with
what
hearings
and
what
determinations,
and
you
know
what
the
circumstances
are.
I
That
would
you
know,
allow
for.
You
know
that
grace
period,
because
I
know
there
are
jurisdictions
that
obviously
do
that
and
they
do
them
on
certain
types
of
crimes
at
certain
like
points
in
the
proceeding.
I
But
we
don't
want
a
situation
where
you
don't
show
up
for
your
trial
and
you
have
48
hours
to
be
able
to
make
good
on
coming
to
trial
when
you
have
like
jury
services
or
people
waiting
there.
So
I
I
can
see
situations,
but
my
my
intent
at
least
with
seconding
the
motion
to
do
past.
This
was
with
the
understanding
that
we
would
have
the
flexibility
to
carve
out,
like
the
specific
you
know,
circumstances
and
the
specific
types
of
cases
that
certain
periods
where
we
can
address.
You
know
that
grace
period.
G
Thank
you
vice
chair
when,
yes,
as
written
recommendation,
number
18
is
broad.
It
does
not
limit
in
any
way
which
type
of
appearances
it
just
says.
Court
appearance
misses
a
court
appearance,
so
in
the
future,
if
this
were
to
be
drafted,
the
legislation
could
certainly
be
amended
changed
testimony
taken,
and
it
would
be
up
to
the
body's
desire
at
that
time
if
they
wanted
to
limit
it
to
certain
types
of
appearances,
certain
types
of
offenses,
etc.
A
And
I
guess
I
I'd
like
to
ask
if
the
committee
would
feel
more
comfortable
amending
the
recommendation
as
such
now
so
that
it
it
mimics
somewhat
the
language
that
we
have
about
certain
misdemeanors
and
certain
traffic
offenses.
A
I
I
would
be
open
to
amending
recommendation
18
to
make
it
clear
to
draft
legislation
providing
a
48-hour
grace
period
after
a
defendant,
fails
to
appear
for
certain
traffic
offenses
and
certain
missiles
before
issuing
an
arrest
warrant,
to
make
it
clear
it's
our
intention
that
it
not
be
everything
and
that
we
recognize.
There
are
some
situations
where
this
may
not
be.
C
Appropriate,
madam
chair,
I
I
I
think
I
was
I
made
the
motion
to
do
pass.
I
can
withdraw
my
my
my
motion
to
do
pass
and
then
instead
make
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
past
recommendation
18
with
the
clarification
that
we
focus
on
misdemeanors
non-violent
misdemeanors,
and
that
and
then
I
mean
I
really
think
that
would
capture
the
intent,
because
I
believe
when
we
had
this
conversation,
the
focus
has
consistently
been
on
trying
to
avoid
that.
C
The
only
reason
somebody
is
consistently
getting
in
trouble
is
because
they
are
poor
because
they
can't
afford
representation,
because
they
don't
have
an
attorney
and
it's
this
consistent
cycle
of
keeping
folk
in
that
unfortunate
situation,
even
if
they
did
have
a
traffic
ticket
that
started
it
and
that
that's
how
I
approached
this
conversation,
I
I
don't
know
if
we
could
do
that.
A
Okay,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
C
B
E
E
D
A
All
right
and
the
motion
does
not
pass
at
this
time.
I'll
just
remind
the
committee
that
we
have
recommendation
seven
on
the.
A
A
Just
a
reminder,
you
don't
have
to
take
any
action
hearing,
no
further
discussion
on
the
recommendations.
We
will
go
ahead
and
close
it
out
and
open
it
up
now
for
our
second
round
of
public
comment
lcd,
please
take
it
away.
D
Chair
this
is
broadcast.
We
do
need
to
take
a
quick
break
to
give
the
internet
broadcast
a
chance
to
catch
up
to
real
time
and
see
if
anyone
wants
to
call
in
so
if
we
could
be
at
ease
for
maybe
two
minutes.
A
D
A
Okay,
if
the
committee
doesn't
mind
I'd
like
to
give
people
just
two
more
minutes
to
see
if
anybody
else
wants
to
call
in
before
we
wrap
it
up,
so
just
hang
tight
guys
we're
almost
there.
A
Okay,
are
there
any
further
callers
on
the
line
at
this
point.
A
Okay,
I
would
like
to
thank
our
wonderful
staff,
our
secretary,
our
legal
counsel,
who
have
guided
us
through
this
really
really
complicated,
difficult
issue
and
process
over
the
last
four
meetings.
I
want
to
thank
the
members
for
bringing
your
expertise
and
passion
to
the
issue
and
your
attention.
I
truly
believe
that
we've
gotten
some
good
things
done
throughout
this
interim
and
that's
not
a
guarantee,
so
we
should
all
be
patting
ourselves
on
the
back.
I
think
we're
gonna
make
some
good
changes
for
for
nevadans.