MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-Seventh Session

      March 19, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:06 a.m., Friday, March 19, 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. John C. Carpenter

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. Ken L. Haller

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. John B. Regan

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. William D. Gregory      Absent/Excused

      Mr. Scott Scherer      Absent/Excused

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Denice Miller, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police    

        Department

      Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office

      Mr. Terry Hubert, Classification Analyst for Department of       Prisons

      Mr. Rich Wyett, Department of Parole and Probation

     

OTHERS PRESENT (Con'd):

 

      David Sarnowski, Chief of the Criminal Division of the

        Nevada Attorney General's Office

      Pete English, Department of Parole and Probation

      Bob Bayer, Department of Parole and Probation

      Mr. Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy of the Nevada State

        Attorney General's Office

 

Following roll call, Chairman Sader began the hearing on SB 5.

 

SENATE BILL 5 -

 

      Makes various changes relating to prisoners in local facilities for detention.

 

Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the requesting agency testified on SB 5. He stated SB 5 was brought by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to extend the same privileges the state of Nevada prison system has with regard to their inmate accounts.  This bill would allow the deduction from a prisoner's account for the cost of property willfully damaged or destroyed by the prisoner.  Captain Oaks explained although the state had the ability to recover those funds from the inmate account, up until now there had been no statutory provision for local governments such as  the cities and counties running detention facilities to collect.  Captain Oaks explained the purpose for the language in section 1 and 2 of SB 5.

 

Mr. Collins asked Captain Oaks if SB 5 provided a community service in the instance where an individual was arrested and he had the house payment money in his possession, his spouse could come and pick up the money.  Mr. Oaks replied yes, this was covered under section 2, line 16 or 18 of SB 5.

 

Mr. Bonaventura asked Captain Oaks if there was an alleged destruction of property and an inmate's administrative hearing was pending, would the money be frozen immediately or did they wait until after the hearing.  Captain Oaks explained on page 2, section 3, lines 7 and 8, before any money could be deducted, the prisoner must be given a reasonable notice for the administrative hearing.

 

Mr. Porter questioned Captain Oaks regarding section 3, subsection 2 as to who would conduct the administrative hearing.  Captain Oaks stated it would be conducted by the jail administrator or director of detention, and there would be a report filed as a result of the hearing which would not necessarily be a recorded hearing.  Mr. Porter additionally inquired if there was a minimal procedural due process which was guaranteed before private property could be deducted from someone's account. Captain Oaks stated he regretted not being accompanied by his jail administrator who could explain this issue, but he admitted the bill was vague in this area.

 

Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, spoke in support of SB 5.  Lieutenant Nadeau stated, as far as the due process aspect of SB 5 was concerned, it would be handled similar to good-time and work-time hearings.

 

Mr. Carpenter felt strongly if a person had to go before his accuser, this was not due process. He stated if someone really tore up a jail why not charge him with another crime.  Lieutenant Nadeau said in many cases an individual would be charged criminally.  Presently under the system if any good-time or work-time credits were taken away from an inmate, he was provided a due process hearing within the jail system.  Lieutenant Nadeau stated the situation described in SB 5 was  similar where there was an impact on an individual and he was provided a hearing to give his side of the story.  Mr. Carpenter disagreed because property rights were involved.

 

Mr. Sader interjected, "These inmates as we all know have ready access to the state and federal courts for motions and writs alleging improprieties in the jail. Since they have a lot of time on their hands and full access to a law library, they tend to file these things with great frequency.  I would rely on the ability of the prisoner to seek judicial review to ensure that the due process rights set up for these hearings will be fair because if they are not, you can be sure there will be writs on it immediately."

 

Captain Oaks responded further to Mr. Carpenter's question about due process by saying, "What we're striking at here is not just another charge against a prisoner to keep him in that facility longer, but to recover the costs the county is going to have to pay to replace or repair the damage they have done.  Keep in mind that the state prison system currently has that ability so there is some administrative hearing process that is pretty firm in the state system.  As Mr. Sader said if the prisoner does not feel he had adequate or fair treatment in that system, then he may appeal to the court for a review.  So I do believe the safeguards are there."

 

Ms. Smith asked Captain Oaks how much money the average person who destroyed a jail had and was it limited only to his cash.  Captain Oaks explained it was limited to the property a person had on hand when he was arrested.

 

Ms. Smith asked Captain Oaks if money was generated from the interest to make it worth tracking these funds.  Captain Oaks stated already upon entrance money was taken and upon exit it was given back; only the ability to use this money for damages was not permitted presently.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Captain Oaks if SB 5 was limited to money or could other valuables be taken.  Captain Oaks answered all valuables were returned, only money was seized.

 

Mr. Haller asked Captain Oaks what amendments were made to SB 5.  Captain Oaks said there were minor verbiage changes made.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Captain Oaks if a prisoner had very little money but completely tore up his jail cell would he walk scot- free as it stands right now.  Captain Oaks explained the individual would be charged with the destruction of county property but this did not guarantee recovery for the damages.  Mr. Petrak additionally questioned Captain Oaks regarding page 1, section 2, lines 13 to 16 which discussed a full and accurate account had to be submitted to the county commissioner's about the money and any actions taken.  Captains Oaks stated for practical purposes the account would be a statistical account which showed the amount of money taken in and the amount of money extended for damage.

 

Captain Oaks answered Mr. Anderson regarding lines 21 and 22 of SB 5.  He explained if money was brought by a family member for use by a prisoner in the commissary, these funds were also subject to be used by the Sheriff's Department.  Captain Oaks said Mr. Anderson's comment was correct.

 

Mr. Bonaventura asked Mr. Oaks regarding SB 5 page 1, line 21 was the interest which went to the commissary account pursuant to NRS 211 an account for the commissary itself or was it an inmate's account.  Captain Oaks stated the account was for use by the commissary, and this account could be used for a number of things:  first, to provide hygiene items for indigent prisoners who could not afford to purchase them; and second, for other sorts of things in the jail such as television sets in common areas. 

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on SB 5.

 

Mr. Collins commented there already were laws necessary to cover repairs in the jails so he would not support the bill.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SB 5.

 

The motion died for lack of a second.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS SB 5.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Gibbons discussed the issue brought up by Mr. Porter on the procedures and adequate notice being required for the administrative hearing.  Mr. Gibbons asked if it was appropriate or not to establish some type of requirements in this bill in section 3, subsection 2.

 

Mr. Porter interjected he raised the question to show for the record the Police Department was fully aware of the procedural due process requirements under the constitution.  Mr. Porter stated the Police Department assured the committee it had an internal mechanism and it was working.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

SENATE BILL 11 -

 

      Clarifies provision relating to continued detention of paroled prisoner under certain circumstances.

 

Mr. Rich Wyett, Chief of Department of Parole and Probation, the requesting agency, testified on SB 11.  Mr. Wyett supplied and read Exhibit C to the committee.  He explained the purpose of the legislation was to allow the continued detention of the parolee until the board of parole commissioners could conduct an administrative hearing and find facts either to cause the revocation of parole or to return the parolee to his former parole status in the community, sometimes with additional program requirements.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on SB 11. 

 

 

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS SB 11.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

SENATE BILL 151 -

 

      Allows offender to be returned to custody of department of prisons pending completion of inquiry concerning alleged violation of terms or conditions of his residential confinement.

 

Mr. Wyett, Chief of Department of Parole and Probation, the requesting agency, testified on SB 151.  Mr. Wyett furnished the committee with Exhibit D and explained AB 151 effected a change in the wording of NRS 213.410 in order to make the statute more precise and accurate and clearly outline the process and agency responsibilities in reviewing allegations a person in residential confinement had violated the terms or conditions of his confinement.

 

Mr. Terry Hubert, Classification Analyst for the Department of Prisons, spoke in favor of SB 151.  Mr. Hubert stated his agency placed DUI offenders in residential confinement programs where an inmate who had been classified under this program was known as a community trustee.

 

Mr. Hubert proposed if there was reasonable belief an inmate violated the program of residential confinement, the department of Parole and Probation would bring him to the nearest prison and a hearing would be conducted.  Basically the Department of Prisons tried to keep DUI offenders in a minimum custody setting but where some escaped they were no longer eligible for minimum custody and would remain at medium or above.  Mr. Hubert stated SB 151 would assist in this process.

 

Mr. David Sarnowski, Chief of the Criminal Division of the Nevada Attorney General's Office, testified in support of SB 151.  Mr. Sarnowski stated his agency was in support of the same amendments as the Department of Parole and Probation and the Department of Prisons. 

 

Mr. Sarnowski stated the enactment of AB 305 of the 66th Session created a gray area for the Department of Parole and Probation and the Department of Prisons.  Mr. Sarnowski revealed, as Mr. Wyett had noted, there was an inference which existed in the present statute that nothing could be done about returning a home confinement prisoner to the Department of Prisons until a final adjudication of an alleged violation was completed.  The Criminal Division of Nevada Attorney General's Office believed both agencies needed the leeway or latitude to conduct a preliminary inquiry to make initial determination whether there was a reasonable cause to believe there was an offense.  If it had occurred then the prisoner could be returned to the higher custody level, as Mr. Hubert mentioned.

 

Mr. Sarnowski supported this legislation because it gave the necessary latitude to the agencies involved with classifying offenders initially and with protecting the community's safety while not tying their hands on the issue of due process, protection provided already by the Department of Parole and Probation and the Department of Prisons who both conducted inquiries.

 

Mr. Sader stated when somebody was out on parole under the law he had some rights emanating from the constitution.  He explained if there was to be a revocation, the parolee had some rights to due process before taking him back into the prison system and revoking his parole.  Mr. Sarnowski said Mr. Sader's statement was correct.

 

Mr. Sader explained the situation discussed here was different.  In the last few years a category was created to allow a prisoner to be out in the community but not on parole. Such as residential confinement where a prisoner had an ankle bracelet or some other type of supervision but was in the home and allowed to  work, or where a prisoner was in a restitution center where he came in at night but was working in the community during daytime hours.  In these categories people were not on parole but were considered to be prison inmates.  Mr. Sader stated SB 151 addressed inmates who were in this type of minimum security status and provided the ability to process them back into the prison system at a higher level.

 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Hubert if these minimum custody inmates under the current law had liberty interest.  Mr. Hubert answered, "Yes, there was a certain amount of due process rights inherent no matter what an inmate's custody status level was raised from to."

 

Mr. Sader asked what was presently done with these minimum custody inmates when found in violation.  Mr. Sader further inquired if they were put back in a high custody status as this bill suggested or were they held in some other type status until a determination was made.

 

Mr. Pete English, Department of Parole and Probation, spoke in favor of SB 151.  Mr. English explained to Mr. Sader when an inmate violated the conditions of residential confinement, he was arrested and placed under custody of a county jail facility.  Mr. English revealed within 48 hours the Department of Parole and Probation conducted an inquiry hearing to determine if the inmate in fact violated the conditions of the residential confinement. If, as a result of the hearing, it was determined he did in fact violate those conditions he was returned to a prison setting.

 

Mr. Sader clarified SB 151 would put an inmate into the prison system as opposed to the county jail before a decision was made.  Mr. English agreed and stated if there was reasonable suspicion or belief an inmate had violated a condition, in essence the Department of Parole and Probation would be able to book, conduct a hearing, make a determination of fact, all from the prison setting as opposed to the county jail.

 

Mr. Porter asked Mr. English if a person had a trial, had been found guilty and the judge imposed a sentence, was it within the court's province to determine whether or not the person should be sentenced to residential confinement as opposed to custody in the jail.  Mr. English responded these individuals had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and after they satisfied some legal obligations, one of the conditions was to fulfill or complete a residential and treatment program within the confines of the prison. It had to be within one year of expiration of their prison sentence or within 1 year of parole eligibility at which point they could be considered for release into the community under residential confinement.

 

Mr. Porter asked Mr. Sarnowski what if, hypothetically, an inmate was ten minutes late to work due to a legitimate excuse but the Department of Parole and Probation came by according to NRS 213.380 and found the inmate absent, would the Department of Parole and Probation take him back in before it found out whether or not there was a legitimate excuse.

 

Mr. Sarnowski said he understood Mr. Porter's point and explained the agent who made the initial determination was in a position to hear the prisoner's side of the story at the preliminary inquiry hearing.  If the agents had made an initial determination and there might be reasonable cause, then when a full-blown administrative hearing was conducted, the prisoner was once again given the right to explain his side of the story.

Mr. Sarnowski explained the Department of Parole and Probation had a way of inquiring into the whereabouts of an inmate without sending a person to the Criminal Division of the Nevada Attorney General's Office to be prosecuted.

 

Mr. Porter told Mr. Sarnowski there was no flexibility in NRS 213.380 and if a prisoner was not where he should be, based upon Mr. Sarnowski's definition, the word "may" in line 7 on SB 151 had to be utilized by a rational probation officer who believed there was a legitimate excuse and the prisoner was not taken into custody.

 

Mr. English responded to Mr. Porter's question by stating the supervising officer would be notified if an inmate was not where he was suppose to be.  The officer then investigated the circumstance; if there was a legitimate excuse then this was documented.  Mr. English further expressed before the officer initiated any actions, the case went through supervisory review.  The officer if confronted with a violation might detain the prisoner, but before the prisoner was arrested and booked into a facility it required supervisory approval and the officer had to make the supervisor aware of the circumstances and conditions of the arrest and the violations.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Hubert if the bracelet program created a circular motion where prisoners came out of a bracelet program back into the prison and was additional time able to be added to their sentence.

 

Mr. Hubert responded if these prisoners violated the terms or conditions of residential confinement, they would be returned to the institution to complete their original sentence and there would be no additional sentence imposed.

 

Mr. Anderson again asked Mr. Hubert about the high cost involved in incarcerating a prisoner before his adjudication.  Mr. Hubert stated since the inmate was already known to the system, he only needed a blood test to be reentered into whatever classification status was appropriate.  Mr. Hubert further replied while a new prisoner might be locked up for 3 weeks, an already established prisoner remained for only several days, long enough to take a blood test and to reclassify him.

 

Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Sarnowski why there was a fiscal note on SB 151 and commented the last line of the fiscal note where it said "the amount was almost too small to determine" was confusing.

 

Mr. Sarnowski explained the costs dealt with the immediate apprehension and confinement of a prisoner.  It would relieve the county jails of the cost and allow confinement directly at the Department of Prisons pending a final adjudicatory hearing.

 

Mr. Bob Bayer, the Department of Parole and Probation, spoke in favor of SB 151.  Mr. Bayer addressed Mr. Toomin's question regarding a fixed dollar amount in the fiscal note.  Mr. Bayer explained he did not know about the fiscal note on SB 151 as it was added later.  Mr. Bayer said the lost would be for a very short period of time when the Department of Parole and Probation had to book a prisoner into jail but the counties suffered the cost for several days.  Mr. Bayer said the matter had to be researched and he would get back to Mr. Toomin. 

 

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Hubert and Mr. Sarnowski if the purpose of SB 151 was to cut out the middle man by taking the prisoner directly back to the Department of Prisons instead of the county jail.  Mr. Hubert and Mr. Sarnowski concurred with Ms. Smith's comment.

 

Mr. Bonaventura asked Mr. Sarnowski could the court sentence an offender to the house arrest program specifically or did the first court have to sentence the offender, then the Department of Prisons determined where he went.

 

Mr. Sarnowski explained the courts had the ability to sentence persons to confinement.  It was the province of the executive branch to operate the prison system which included classification of inmates where it deemed appropriate.

 

Mr. Bonaventura was concerned when an offender violated his terms of residential confinement and an inquiry was being performed, there was no time limit set on the inquiry.

 

Mr. Bayer explained there was a code of penial discipline where time frames were set to charge an inmate for any type of violation of misconduct.  This bill had a 48 hour deadline.

 

Mr. Carpenter stated this was a bill of false economy.  Mr. Sarnowski responded this dealt with prisoners who were not in prison.  Mr. Sarnowski stated there had been any number of instances where there were allegations of violations.  Mr. Sader clarified there was a rather large number of individuals who failed in residential confinement or in restitution systems and needed to go back into a higher classification.

 

Mr. Carpenter asked if it would be less expensive if a determination was made in 48 hours from the county jail as rather than from the Department of Prisons, especially in the rural areas.  Mr. Wyett explained the inmate residential confinement program was not presently available in the rural areas.

 

Mr. Sader clarified the three different ways an individual could be placed under residential confinement.  First, under the state prison system, secondly under the local municipal or county courts for felonies and third, for misdemeanors as an aspect of parole or probation.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on SB 151.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS SB 151.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Mr. Sader asked for committee approval of the standing rules revised March 19, 1993.  The revision changed rule 3 from a 14 member committee to a 15 member committee and rule 5 was revised to a the two-thirds (2/3) majority requirement for certain votes because of Assembly Standing Rule 49.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF THE REVISED STANDING RULES.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Mr. Sader discussed a request from Mr. Sam Bellford, an attorney in Washoe County, for the committee to draft a bill on domestic relations suggesting a provision similar to California law which dealt with making false accusations of spousal abuse a misdemeanor.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA MOVED FOR COMMITTEE DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 73 -

 

      Provides for reporting and punishment of abuse of patients.

 

Mr. Sader explained AB 73 was postponed for any further action until the subcommittee completed its investigation.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 80 -

 

      Revises definition of value as it relates to eminent domain.

 

Mr. Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Nevada State Attorney General's Office, spoke in favor of AB 80.  Mr. Hutchins supplied and explained to the committee Exhibit F which was a suggested amendment to AB 80.

 

Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association, testified in support of AB 80.  Mr. Graham said the amendment presented was what was initially discussed a few weeks ago in the hearing but had taken a considerable amount of time to work on the language (Exhibit F).

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 80.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Regan questioned section 2, subsection 1, line 12 would the word "value" be covered under market value price. Mr. Hutchins responded this language would remain the same. He clarified it was not a change in the law but this language was moved from page 2, section 3, subsection 3, lines 13 through 16 to page 1, section 2, subsection 1, line 12.

 

Mr. Schneider requested an additional amendment to AB 80.  He wanted an amendment to include what was done with tenants of a building in this circumstance.

 

Mr. Hutchins responded there was a federal Uniform Relocation Systems Act which was followed by the Department of Transportation and there were provisions to protect tenants.

 

A brief discussion followed.

 

Mr. Sader suggested Mr. Schneider request a bill draft regarding tenant relocation rights instead of inserting it into AB 80.

 

Mr. Carpenter stated, "I think that I just do not like it.  What it does is it takes away the value of a man's property.  I think we're guaranteed under the constitution that under eminent domain we should get the fair market value of that property, and if this changes that definition of the Supreme Court I really have a problem with it."

 

Mr. Hutchins agreed this amendment did change the definition as stated by the Nevada Supreme Court's case Wheeler vs. State Department of Transportation which was discussed in a letter from Mr. Dan Reaser.  Yet this bill did not change the fact the owner still obtained market value (Exhibit G).

 

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER OPPOSED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Schneider requested the drafting of a bill draft request which pertained to lease hold interests.  Mr. Sader stated tenant lease hold interest should be a consideration in eminent domain.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 77 -

 

Prohibits loitering and narrows definition of vagrancy.

 

Mr. Graham testified in support of AB 77.  He provided the committee with Exhibit H and explained the bill pulled out of the statute matters which were found to be unconstitutional.

 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Graham to justify why the committee should pass this amendment.  Mr. Graham explained there was a need for local communities to be able to address the loitering and vagrancy issues.

 

Mr. Sarnowski stated, "The state statute which was declared unconstitutional respectively by one federal district judge, and upon his certification to the Nevada Supreme Court the other portion was also declared unconstitutional by our own Supreme Court."

 

Mr. Sader suggested AB 77 be amended and heard again at a later date. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER AB 77 TO COMMITTEE.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 89 -

 

      Revises criminal provisions relating to owning or keeping vicious dog.

 

Mr. Sader announced he was no longer the chairman of the subcommittee on AB 89.  Now Mr. Toomin was the chairman.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 298 -

 

      Strengthens rights of grandparents to visit grandchildren.

 

Mr. Sader commented after the hearing on AB 298 the sponsors Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District 41 and Assemblyman Rick Bennett, District 16, approached Mr. Sader and agreed it was inappropriate to set up a different standard for grandparents. Mr. Sader discussed Mr. Spitler's and Mr. Bennett's suggested amendment to AB 298 which deleted the new language (Exhibit I) .

 

Mr. Sader stated, "The only change the bill would effectuate which they still wanted to see happen would be to change "may" to "shall"; then the two relevant portions here which were found on page 1, line 16, the new language says 'that the district court shall grant grandparents the right to visit" and on the next to last page of the bill, page 6 line 1, you see the same language there "may" to "shall."  If we do that it does not mean the court automatically has to do it.  It means the parents still must qualify under the current standard which is the best interests of the child.  So what we are deleting here is, of course, discretion to consider other factors other than the best interests of the child."

 

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 298.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Carpenter requested Mr. Sader clarify page 6, line 3 of AB 298  which stated "If qualified under NRS 125A.340 and may grant such a right to other children ....".  He asked if this set up a standard where they did not have to follow the established  factors.

 

A discussion followed.

 

Mr. Sader clarified Mr. Carpenter's concerns by making the statement, "This bill would delete the requirement of the court to consider the factors on page 6, lines 8 through 29 and takes out parents and children in such a way that the factors listed from line 8 to 29 are considered for children of either parent for sibling visitation, but it deletes it for grandparents, and the old statutes required grandparents to be considered under these statutes too. As this bill is amended, as Mr. Porter and Mr. Carpenter were saying, you would not consider these factors anymore.  The only factor would be the best interests of the child whatever is shown to the court on the evidence to be there, not these factors as well."

 

Mr. Haller would not withdraw his motion.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS AND HALLER VOTED YES ON AB 298.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 141 -

 

      Prohibits resale or advertisement for sale of ticket to athletic event or entertainment at price in excess of original price of ticket.

 

Mr. Gibbons explained the bill was on the chief clark's desk pending clarification. The original amendment had two problems when it came out of the committee.  Two amendments were proposed to correct these problems.  The first amendment addressed the restriction on scalping to a distance of 100 feet by deleting the distance limitation.  The second amendment was a combination of the two and reflected the request of the Nevada Press Association which wanted the restriction on advertising to be deleted.

 

Mr. Gibbons requested the committee discuss and approve this second amendment in light of the revised language.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #110.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Mr. Sader postponed the discussion of Exhibit K which addressed the topic of stalking until next week's work session.

 

There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      CHANDRA PENDERLAND

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

March 19, 1993

Page: 1