MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
March 8, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:10 a.m., March 8, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John C. Carpenter (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Susan Haase, Representative, Lieutenant Governor's Office
Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Chief, Nevada Attorney General's Office, Criminal Justice Division
Mr. Noel S. Waters, Carson City District Attorney, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Mr. Lansford W. Levitt, Executive Director, University of Nevada Reno, E.L. Cord Foundation Center for Dispute Resolution
Mr. John C. Morrow, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender's Office
Mr. Dennis Metrick, Court Administrator, Washoe Second Judicial District Court
Judge Scott Jordan, Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division
Dr. Phil Bushard, Director Family Mediation Program, Second Judicial Court, Family Court Division
Captain Frank Barker, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Detective Bureau
Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Detective Sergeant Randy Saulnier, Reno Police Department, Repeat Offender Program
Detective Sergeant Dave Zeissner, Reno Police Department, Property Crimes Section
Mr. John J. Long, Investigator, Washoe County Office of the District Attorney
Mr. Frank D. Landes, Supervising Investigator, Washoe County Office of the District Attorney
Mr. Kevin M. Kelly, Attorney, Nevada Association for Criminal Justice
Ms. Marilyn Ives, Child Assault Prevention
Ms. Susan Rose Klink, Assistant Director, Child Assault Prevention
Ms. Florence McClure, Las Vegas Community Action Against Rape
Following roll call, the meeting was called to order on A.B. 82.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 82 Expands authority of district courts to issue orders for use of pen register or trap and trace device to include investigators for attorney general or district attorneys.
Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Chief, Nevada Attorney General's Office, Criminal Justice Division, supported the proposed amendments in A.B. 82 which would allow investigators employed by the Attorney General's Office and the District Attorney's Office to obtain pen registers or trap and trace devices on telephone lines when deemed necessary.
According to Mr. Sarnowski, the Attorney General's Office was dependent on local law enforcement agencies to assist them in applying to the district courts for pen register authorizations. He maintained the District Attorney's Office required the latitude other law enforcement agencies had.
Mr. Noel S. Waters, Carson City District Attorney, on behalf of the District Attorney's Association, echoed Mr. Sarnowski's remarks and supported passage of A.B. 82. He felt A.B. 82 would do no more than include district attorneys, investigators and Attorney General's Office investigators in the statute. A.B. 82 would not change the procedural requirements already in existence.
Mr. Waters stated there were a number of cases in the District Attorney's Office and the Attorney General's Office which included primary investigative responsibilities and they should not be required to clear through other law enforcement entities. The passage of A.B. 82 would allow investigators to make the affidavits part of the applications for pen registers or trap and trace devices. Mr. Waters stated the District Attorney's Association thought A.B. 82 was reasonable and there did not appear to be significant opposition to it.
Mr. Waters explained the application of pen registers, and trap and trace devices, as different electronic means of monitoring calls or electronic devices. These devices would not monitor the content of communications, but the output of the communications. Pen registers identified the locations of outgoing calls where trap and trace devices identified incoming calls to particular lines and recorded only the phone numbers. Mr. Waters noted the monitoring of the contents of communications were already covered by separate statutes.
Mr. Sarnowski added trap and trace devices would be helpful in instances where individuals harassed witnesses. Once the phone calls were on the line and enough time had elapsed, the trap and trace devices could be placed through the phone companies' electronic systems and identification could be made as to where the calls originated from.
Mr. Frank D. Landes, Supervising Investigator, Washoe County District Attorney's Office, testified in favor of A.B. 82. He stated there was no expansion of the circumstances in which pen registers or trap and trace devices would be obtained. A.B. 82 would allow investigators in prosecutorial agencies the ability to utilize an investigative tool which had worked effectively. Uncooperative witnesses could be located through mechanical means. Often one agency would request another agency investigate within respective departments.
Mr. Kevin Kelly, testified on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association and opposed the passage of A.B. 82. He referenced investigations which involved the use of force. According to Mr. Kelly, trap and trace devices would not be of any service in those instances. The devices were utilized primarily in drug-related investigations. He noted local law enforcement agencies had been relied upon to conduct most investigations. The Nevada Trial Lawyers Association would be opposed to A.B. 82.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Kelly if he had any specific opposition to the application with respect to the special investigator's employed by the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Kelly referenced Subsection 2 (b) of A.B. 82 which allowed the investigators with the Department of Motor Vehicles to utilize the investigative tools. He added he would lose credibility if he opposed the Attorney General having those investigations as the agency was involved in telemarketing investigations.
In response to Mr. Regan's question, Mr. Kelly stated he would not support providing authorization to the Attorney General's Office, particularly in Workmen's Compensation fraud cases. According to Mr. Kelly, A.B. 82 identified telephone numbers only. He argued, in fraud cases, individuals would be inclined to discuss those matters on the telephone although the bill would apply to situations which involved illegal drugs or racketeering.
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Kelly if pen registers or trace and trap devices would lead to probable cause for the affidavit to obtain the wire tap. Mr. Kelly stated there were speculations as to what the conversations indicated. He noted this would be where the abuses would arise. Mr. Porter did not agree with the advantage of knowing the telephone caller's numbers. Mr. Porter stated he opposed A.B. 82 when the bill was introduced in 1982 and opposed the amendment during the 1991 Session. Mr. Kelly responded by stating investigations could lead to suggest untrue values. He alleged callers could become suspect because they placed calls to persons who might be connected to criminal activities. For these reasons, The Nevada Trial Lawyers Association felt A.B. 82 would lead to abuse.
Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 82 and opened the hearing on A.B. 225.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 225 Changes punishment for crime of burglary with intent to commit petit larceny to misdemeanor.
Mr. John C. Morrow, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender's Office, spoke in favor of A.B. 225. He stated the bill proposed to divide the crime of burglary into two separate degrees which would be first and second degree burglary. He stated the focus would be on the second degree aspect of the bill.
Mr. Morrow presented circumstances where the crimes of shoplifting were prevalent. He noted in these cases shoplifters would often be charged with the felony crime of burglary. The problems originated when felony burglaries would be charged which activated the felony system. In felony cases, the right to counsel attaches and individuals would be defended at the public's expense. Also, activating the felony system would entail high bail limits and diminish possibilities for release of individuals on their own recognisance. He rationalized the felony convictions resulted in overcrowding in penal facilities. He hypothesized anything done to reduce the immured population would benefit the fiscal impacts.
Mr. Morrow noted the major objection to A.B. 225 appeared to be in instances where persons entered dwellings with the intent to commit petty larceny which would be charged as misdemeanor burglaries. A proposed amendment to the amendment, Exhibit C, would exclude entries into occupied dwellings from the misdemeanor provision. He felt the revised amendment would encompass individuals who broke into dwellings and deserved subjection to heavier felony penalties.
In addition, Mr. Morrow elaborated, the provision in the amendment contained in Exhibit C would escalate the penalties. The third time offenders would be charged with felonies provided two prior second degree burglaries had been committed. It was Mr. Morrow's inference A.B. 225 would add additional rationality to the current system and conserve money as well as prevent citizens from becoming felony offenders which carried lifetime disabilities.
Mr. Sader recapped the basic effect of the second amendment to the bill would exclude inhabited dwellings or portions of buildings from the force and effect of A.B. 225. Mr. Morrow concurred with Mr. Sader's review.
Mr. Sader advised current law dictated any individuals who would enter into a dwelling with the intent to commit any kind of theft would be charged with a felony. As he understood, the intent of the revised amendment to A.B. 225 would be to read if the intended theft involved property valued less than $250, the charge would become a misdemeanor charge. Therefore, the bill would track the larceny statutes which have the same $250 monetary threshold. Mr. Morrow concurred.
To further clarify the intent of the bill, Mr. Sader illustrated commercial theft cases as in the crime of shoplifting. Under A.B. 225, the widest applications would entail commercial establishments. He asked if shoplifting merchandise was normally prosecuted as a burglary charge or as a petit larceny charge. Mr. Morrow responded by stating these cases were where the issues arose. According to Mr. Morrow, no specific guidelines were in effect to address these particular situations.
Mr. Sader asked what would be required as the burden of proof in shoplifting crimes to establish the burglary charge. Mr. Morrow responded by stating the intent would be all that had to be proved. Mr. Sader clarified the differences between burglary charges and larceny charges. A burglary charge would have to entail proven intent and the offense would have to be committed on the premises. A larceny charge would involve taking the merchandise from the premise which would in itself be proof of the crime. Mr. Morrow concurred and added, theoretically, burglaries could be charged with no theft resulting provided the intent to steal could be proved at the time the individuals entered the establishments.
Mr. Gibbons referenced the intent aspect of A.B. 225 and asked how the intent to commit petit larceny would be established if the burglaries were committed and the stolen items were valued at less than $250. The thieves would be guilty of petty larcenies although the intent upon entering the premises was to steal. Mr. Gibbons surmised the purpose of the proposed amendment was to distinguish between grand larceny and petty larceny based on the value of the items stolen. Mr. Morrow responded by stating this was the only way possible to distinguish between the two.
Mr. Porter voiced the same concerns as Mr. Gibbons. He elaborated the problem with the language in A.B. 225 would necessitate whether or not the thieves knew the dwellings were inhabited. The intent of the suspect prior to entry would make it difficult for the prosecution to prove. According to Mr. Porter, the illegal entry in itself would carry severe enough penalties. Mr. Morrow addressed this concern and added the residential burglary issues would be excluded from A.B. 225 by the proposed amendment contained in Exhibit C. Mr. Porter understood this aspect but maintained the issue was whether or not the dwellings were inhabited was distinguishable. Mr. Morrow elucidated the proposed amendment and stated in cases where residences were violated, felony charges would be levied regardless of whether items were stolen or intended to be.
Mr. Toomin did not concur with Mr. Morrow's testimony. His objection to the amendment was he did not want A.B. 225 to send false messages to the criminal. Mr. Morrow responded by stating it was the intent in the bill to maintain misdemeanors as misdemeanors.
Mr. Petrak asked how the stolen items would be evaluated. He regarded the amendment as not stringent enough. The focus of the bill appeared to be on the overcrowding problems in the jail facilities. Mr. Morrow rebutted by drawing attention to the penalties for misdemeanors which were 6 months incarceration or a $1,000 fine for convicted thefts.
Mr. Kelly stated one of the key provisions in A.B. 225 was to avoid charging minors with burglary in cases where theft involved inconsequential items. A first time juvenile offender could be warned and punished but would not necessarily be charged with a felony conviction. He suggested the committee take into consideration the true value of the items stolen, not the sale value. The Nevada Trial Lawyers supported A.B. 225.
Mr. Porter suggested a resolution to the issues regarding juvenile offenders might be to develop mechanisms where courts would have more leeway in the sentencing guidelines. According to Mr. Porter, the monetary value of stolen items made no difference as robberies were severe enough crimes. Mr. Kelly asserted there was a difference such as merchandising thefts which were often negotiated due to overcrowding in the court systems. Mr. Porter argued why should the statutes take away the ability to plead felonies if under the circumstances the individuals deserved the charges. He added as the law currently applied, the flexibility to plead the charges down remained viable. Mr. Kelly cited situations where hard-core prosecutors would not bring down the charges.
Mr. Noel S. Waters, Carson City District Attorney, spoke on behalf of the Nevada District Attorney's Association which opposed A.B. 225. He cited present policy pertaining to burglary convictions which were somewhat different than thievery charges as burglary convictions involved aspects of the individual invasion of privacy. He observed commercial establishments appeared to be the main thrust of the proposed amendment under A.B. 225. Burglary convictions were felony charges with penalties of 1 to 10 years.
Mr. Waters pointed out another issue contained in the proposed amendment to A.B. 225. He queried how prosecutors would prove felony burglaries. As he understood, the elements of burglary required proof of unlawful entry. At the time of entry, individuals had to exhibit specific intent to steal, or to commit assault or battery. Under these circumstances, Mr. Waters alleged, prosecutors would need to prove specific intent to steal items valued in excess of $250, or distinguish from items less than $250. This would not be an easy undertaking to prove as there were not many caught-in-the-act burglaries. Also, proving the identity of the thieves would be difficult. He noted typical defenses used in burglary cases were sudden impulse alledgments. In sudden impulse claims, suspects alleged they entered dwellings and a sudden impulse prompted the suspects to steal, or they were under the influence. Any of these causes would negate the specific intent the law required. Establishing a monetary threshold of $250 complicated the process.
Mr. Waters addressed the comments made regarding prosecutors abusing the burglary statute and subjecting individuals to unwarranted charges. He disputed the accusation as he rarely utilized the charge of burglary as intended, the reason being most prosecutors had no desire to obstruct the legal system with situational offenders who did not deserve incarceration or felony history. He contended repeated offenders should be charged with burglary crimes.
Mr. Waters continued juveniles under the age of 18 years would be charged with delinquent acts and it would not be pertinent whether the charges were petty larceny or burglaries. The courts would be concerned with past criminal records and how amenable to rehabilitation the juveniles might be. In Mr. Waters opinion, A.B. 225 was a bad bill and should be rejected.
Captain Frank Barker, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department testified in opposition to A.B. 225. He informed the committee his law enforcement jurisdiction assigned approximately 800 burglaries per month to the investigations division. Burglary charges were simple crimes as suspects entered dwellings with the intent to commit grand or petty larceny acts, or other felonies, and were charged with the crimes of burglary. He contended the passage of A.B. 225 would unnecessarily complicate the investigative processes and hamper prosecutions.
Captain Barker stated items stolen which did not have monetary value, but personal value, contributed to the insecurity within communities. Other stolen items proposed threats to communities as thefts of firearms valued below $250 and legal and illegal drugs which would cause further damage when sold on the streets.
Captain Barker addressed the primary opposition to A.B. 225 which encompassed professional shoplifters and repeat offenders. Detective Sergeant Randy Saulnier, Reno Police Department, Northern Nevada Repeat Offender Program, focused his discussion on the burglaries committed in public businesses. He noted he had never experienced minors between the ages of 14 and 15 years of age charged with the crimes of burglary. The "boosters", or repeat offenders who shoplifted merchandise to support their heroin habits, stole approximately $400 to $600 per day. The Reno Police Department's financial impact reports divulged one small theft ring had stolen approximately $1 million per year to support heroin habits. These individuals were described as professional shoplifters and difficult to catch as the intent to commit burglaries when they entered the stores needed to be proven.
Mr. Sader asked if the professional shoplifters intentionally kept the stolen items under $250. Sergeant Saulnier responded by stating the professional shoplifters rarely stole merchandise valued over $250 and they appeared to be knowledgeable of the law and avoided being charged with grand larceny, which would be stealing items valued at $250 or more. Sergeant Saulnier noted the majority of the discussed individuals were repeat shoplifters and had been arrested on misdemeanor petty larcenies approximately 15 times. They would be incarcerated for a small period of time and continue their trade when released from prison. The most shoplifters could be incarcerated for on misdemeanor charges would be one year.
Detective Sergeant Dave Zeissner, Reno Police Department, Property Crimes Program, provided examples of crimes which would be difficult to investigate should A.B. 225 pass. The first example entailed vehicle burglaries where thieves would be arrested by police while committing the act and had stolen items valued at less than $250. Under A.B. 225 the thieves would be charged with misdemeanors. According to Sergeant Zeissner, the issues would be in the area of the police officers ability to interview the suspects to discern former convictions. If previous convictions revealed burglaries of merchandise valued under $250 per charge, the individuals could not be charged with the former crimes as misdemeanors had not been committed in the presence of law enforcement officials. The police could only arrest thieves if they had observed misdemeanor burglaries.
To address the unfeasibility of A.B. 225, Detective Zeissner provided a second scenario which addressed commercial burglaries. In these cases, individuals entered places of business and stole items of lesser values such as files, software, and other items with information detrimental to the operation of the businesses. In these instances, thieves would be arrested on misdemeanor charges although the thefts could basically shut down the businesses.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 225.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 66 Makes various changes relating to neighborhood justice centers and certain programs for mediation of disputes.
Chairman Sader noted A.B. 66 had been heard in southern Nevada specifically to allow for testimonies regarding neighborhood justice centers. He stated, since A.B. 66 dealt with funding of different types of programs in Northern Nevada, particularly the Mediation Program, the bill was held for testimony in Carson City to ascertain how the funding would be used in the mediation of disputes.
Chairman Sader informed the committee vote would not be made on A.B. 66 as the bill dealt with raising fees for court filings and four different bills were pending under the same category to raise fees for court filings. The four bills referenced to were the Law Library bill, a Legal Aid bill, the bill under discussion, and the Nevada Association of Counties omnibus bill which also pertained to court filing fees. Chairman Sader directed, in order to fully understand all the requests for changes of fees to support the various programs, the committee would have to refrain from voting. He noted testimonies would be heard on A.B. 66.
Mr. Dennis Metrick, Court Administrator, Second Judicial District Court, urged passage of A.B. 66. He noted Judge Scott Jordan of the Family Court, Second Judicial District Court had been present earlier to testify in favor of A.B. 66 but left due to a former commitment.
Dr. Phil Bushard, Director of the Family Mediation Program, Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, provided the Progress Report for the Family Mediation Program, Exhibit D. He explained the purpose of the Family Mediation Program was to provide parents experiencing divorce or post-divorce disputes an alternative forum in which to attempt solutions to their problems. As an alternative dispute resolution method, parents had the opportunity to work out details of custody and access problems and avoid court procedures.
According to Dr. Bushard, previous legislation provided a funding stream for the Mediation Program. He reported the increase in referrals to the program, based on the first two months of 1993, was projected to be over 350 referrals by the end of the reporting year. The feasibility for the Mediation Program was made apparent due to the numbers of referrals made by judges and attorneys. According to Dr. Bushard, resources were not available to meet the expanding needs of the program. Increased funding provided for in A.B. 66 would allow the Mediation Program to add a full-time associate mediator and contract mediators.
Mr. Sader stated the same bill had been passed during the 1991 Legislative Session and allowed funding for two separate and different types of programs, one in Clark County and one in Washoe County. The bill applied to the two counties and raised filing fees to meet operational costs. A Sunset provision had been placed on A.B. 66 to conduct a review during the 1993 Legislative Session to evaluate and justify the expenditures and intended purposes of the two programs.
Chairman Sader addressed one issue observed in the Family Mediation Program Progress Report, Exhibit D, which dealt with whether fees for services should be increased. Mr. Sader requested specific reasons for the proposed increase in fees. Dr. Bushard explained the Mediation Program had covered operational costs. The current program existed by virtue of the initial funding fees. The Mediation Program could not expand to meet the needs of client referrals without a minimum of one additional staff member. There was no clerical staff. According to Dr. Bushard, the funding bill would allow the Family Mediation Program to employ the present associate mediator to a full-time position. The administration asked for additional funds to provide for additional staffing to meet the increased demands.
Mr. Metrick pointed out the original revenue projections in the amount of $120,000 to $150,000 which was to be generated from the $5 filing fees and applied to both the justice and district courts, had not materialized due to temporary leveling off of case filings. According to Mr. Metrick, the program brought in only $100,000 and funding was not available to add the needed staff person. Raising the $5 filing fees would provide the Family Mediation Program with the needed resources.
Chairman Sader asked for the budgetary report for the mediation program in Las Vegas. Mr. Metrick stated he would comply with the request.
Mr. Scherer asked if the Mediation Program was operational during 1991. Dr. Bushard responded the programs were operational at that time. Mr. Scherer asked if data was available on cases settled prior to hearings before 1991. Mr. Metrick stated anadotical information was available which had been supplied by the judges. Initially, the reports would entail those divorce cases which took the longest to process through the system, particularly cases which were outstanding custody and visitation cases. According to Dr. Bushard, proponents for the Mediation Program in Washoe County had secured grant funding prior to 1991. He noted 35 percent of the referrals to the Mediation Program had been post-divorce disputes where circumstances might have changed and people were on the threshold of returning to the courts to litigate the matters. Dr. Bushard could not provide long-term statistics on original divorce actions and what percentages were litigated.
Mr. Metrick cited a national study conducted by the National Center for State Courts. Nevada was one of 8 sites selected to compare court systems without mediation systems with those that did have the programs. The result of the study concluded it took longer for divorce cases with custody and visitation issues to process through the legal system with no Mediation Program in effect. The financial considerations were apparent in the case study as well. Mr. Metrick would provide the committee members with copies of the study conducted by the National Center for State Courts.
In answer to Mr. Anderson's concerns, Dr. Bushard explained parties who sought mediation through attorneys or voluntarily arranged for conferences would not pay filing fees at the district or justice court levels. Those parties would recover only amounts of fees for services. Mr. Anderson surmised the more successful the Mediation Program became, the less opportunity there would be to generate revenue to operate. Dr. Bushard confirmed this and added the Mediation Program had been taken in-house by the district court. Overhead operating costs were covered by the day-to-day operations of the court house. The Mediation Program was expected to eventually have a line-item budget which would make the program responsible for meeting all expenditures.
Mr. Bonaventura noted the sunset provision would be eliminated in A.B. 66. He asked if Dr. Bushard would consider extending the sunset clause, rather than deleting it, for the purpose of accountability. Dr. Bushard surmised the elimination of the sunset clause affirmed the Legislature was interested in families having dispute resolution processes made available. Mr. Bonaventura did not agree with eliminating the sunset clause. He wished to review the Mediation Program during a latter legislative session.
Mr. Metrick suggested eliminating the sunset clause by providing a mandatory reporting requirement to report to the legislature every two years to maintain a level of accountability.
Mr. Collins agreed with Mr. Bonaventura in reference to discussions held in Las Vegas on the Sunset provision. Dr. Bushard addressed Mr. Collins additional concerns by noting the bills discussed dealt with radically different types of programs but entailed one type of funding stream which applied to both types of programs. He continued, the Mediation Program in the Reno District Court attended to child custody and access problems as well as financial issues. The Mediation Program did not extend services outside the court system and would continue to serve the needs of the Family Court, the judges and attorneys who dealt in family law. In terms of other providers in the community, the Mediation Program was setting up an apprenticeship program to assist in providing direct service experience to individuals in the private sector who wanted to conduct mediation on their own. They actively encouraged parties to seek private mediators.
In reply to Mr. Collins' question regarding the retainment of the sunset provision and maintaining stable employment within the department, Dr. Bushard thought a program evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness and merit of the program should be ongoing. The sunset provision would be more theoretical in Washoe County.
Mr. Toomin referenced the Family Mediation Program Progress Report, page 10, items (7) Caseload Analysis, and (8) Client Reports Abuse or Threat of Violence. He was curios as to why the percentages had decreased in 1992 in both categories. Dr. Bushard responded by stating there were two basic reasons for the decrease. When the program started in 1991, the worst disputes had been channeled to the Mediation Program which required additional attention and different work. Since then the part-time associate mediator had become more experienced and efficient.
Dr. Bushard addressed Mr. Toomin's concern with the reduction of the Client Reports Abuse or Threat of Violence data in items (8) from 77 percent in 1991 to 70 percent in 1992. He considered the data as representation as to how frequently violence and emotional conflict between spouses occurred. He did not feel the data was optimistic. He did not rule out the reporting processes which might have been different and could explain the 10 percent difference in two years.
Dr. Bushard noted the Mediation Program operated on a fiscal year budget. The report was based on calendar year figures noting the Legislature provided the funding stream July 1991.
The budget commenced July of every year. Mr. Metrick interjected and stated he would comply with Mr. Toomin's request and provide the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 budget as well as the 1993/1994 proposed budget for the Mediation Program.
Chairman Sader stated he had received several telephone calls from prominent interested parties in regard to A.B. 66 which included the Nevada Supreme Court, Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner and the District Court Judges in support of the bill.
Susan Haas represented Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner and conveyed the Lieutenant Governor's regret she could not testify before the committee but requested her testimony be read into the record (Exhibit E).
Mr. Lance Levitt, Executive Director, University of Nevada Reno, E. L. Cord Foundation Center for Dispute Resolution, stated the center had been formed in early 1992 in cooperation with the National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Mr. Levitt supported A.B. 66. He was pleased to testify as to the excellent work done in Clark County with the Neighborhood Justice Center. He noted the caseload had increased dramatically and it took only 5 days for parties to have cases heard through mediation in Clark County, a sharp contrast from the time period involved in court processes.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 66.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 68 Extends time in which action for damages for injury arising from sexual abuse of minor may be commenced.
Chairman Sader noted A.B. 68 was the Civil Statute of Limitations. He added the bill originated as a Reckless Endangerment bill and was terminated by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. A.B. 68 was amended to include a concept from another bill relating to the Statute of Limitations in civil actions for sexual abuse. This bill was created in order to hear the concept at Ms. Smith's urgency. A.B. 68 would extend the Statute of Limitations from 3 years to 10 years. Chairman Sader noted A.B. 68 was a committee bill although representatives from the Child Assault Prevention program would testify in support of the bill.
Ms. Marilyn Ives, Child Assault Prevention Project, testified in support of A.B. 68. She noted she was a board member for the Child Abuse Neglect Task Force of Northern Nevada. She spoke before the committee, not as a professional, but as a survivor of sibling incest. Sexual abuse carried long range psychological damages which required different treatment programs later in life. She contended the costs of the programs should not be absorbed by the victims or the state but by the individuals who perpetrated the crimes.
Ms. Ives stated there were many reasons why sexual abuse victims did not come forward with the crimes until after the age of 18 years of age, among which could be feelings of guilt, fear of reprisal and suppression of memories. Ms. Ives urged support of A.B. 68.
Ms. Susan Rose Klink, Assistant Director, Child Assault Prevention, commended the virtue of A.B. 68. She testified she was also an incest survivor. She did not seek counseling for the victimization until she was approximately 30 years old. She summarized personal accounts of her experiences. She voiced her opinion the statutes of child molestation should be equaled to those of murder.
Ms. Florence McClure, former Director, Las Vegas Community Action Against Rape testified in favor of A.B. 68. Her concern for passage of the bill came about due to her involvement with a child incest case in which the Statute of Limitations had run out.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 68.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 82.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Gibbons stated he would support the do pass motion on A.B. 82 although he did have concern with the potential for abuse. Pen registers might be the basis for subsequent wire taps without the necessary or needed probable cause which would establish a wire tap independent of the pen register or trace and trap device.
Mr. Anderson recapped his reason for supporting the motion on A.B. 82. He supported the needed requirement for the Attorney Generals Office to conduct investigations in telemarketing fraud and noted the similar provision that should be extended to the District Attorney's for interdepartmental investigations.
Mr. Porter stated he would oppose passage of A.B. 82 and cited the same rationale for opposing A.B. 225. He stated his concern for the privacy of individuals. He objected to the recording of telephone numbers or conversations and the authorized breaking into buildings and viewing private papers as also discussed in A.B. 225.
Mr. Collins opposed the passage of A.B. 82 with the stand he would be against the invasion of privacy.
Mr. Bonaventura reiterated Mr. Porter's and Mr. Collins' opposition to A.B. 82 and stated he would vote against the bill.
Mr. Regan said the intent of A.B. 82 would be justified particularly with the information provided in testimonies heard both in the Assembly and Senate Chambers in reference to the State Industrial Insurance System. Mr. Regan would vote for passage of A.B. 82.
Mr. Sader stated he would be on record supporting A.B. 82. He contended the bill only expanded the ability to request of a court the authorization to have a pen register or trap and trace device installed. The bill extended this authorization to certain investigators in the Attorney General's Office and the District Attorney's Office. He understood the power to do this would be given to specified individuals investigating crimes. This would not be a significant expansion of the bill although it would be a logical expansion for authority to those who needed the authority under certain circumstances to use the devices.
Chairman Sader called for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, COLLINS AND PORTER VOTED IN OPPOSITION. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS NOT PRESENT.)
Mr. Anderson would handle A.B. 82 on the floor.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 225.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
Chairman Sader informed the committee A.B. 66 would be held pending further analysis of other requests in other bills for changes in the filing fees.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 68.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Ms. Smith would handle A.B. 68 on the Assembly floor.
********
Chairman Sader presented two committee requests for introduction.
BDR 43-1184, sponsored by the Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, would revise provisions regarding the collection of fees for chemical analysis in cases of DUIs.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR43-1184.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
BDR 1-1757, sponsored by the Nevada Supreme Court, provided the number of years of service required for a justice of the Supreme Court or a District Court judge to qualify for a pension which would be the same as for other public employees.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 1-1757.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
Jessie A. Caple
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
March 8, 1993
Page: 1