MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
March 23, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:05 a.m., Tuesday, March 23, 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. 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:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Joe Evers, Director of the Clark County Detention
Center
Mr. Frank Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Mr. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office
Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
OTHERS PRESENT (Con'd):
Deputy Chief Richard Winget, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department
Mr. Robert Hilderbrand, Nevada Department of Transportation
Mr. Fred Novak, Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Mike Chapman, Deputy Attorney General,State of Nevada, Department of Transportation
Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association
Ms. Laurel Stadler, MADD Lyon County
Ms. Marlen Schultz, Department of Motor Vehicles &
Public Safety
Ms. Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Chiropractic Association
Chief Bill Yukish, The Nevada Highway Patrol
Following the roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on SB 7.
SENATE BILL 7 -
Provides for transfer of person arrested on misdemeanor warrant from local detention facility to law enforcement agency that obtained warrant.
Mr. Frank Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified as representative of the requesting agency for SB 7.
Mr. Barker stated the purpose of SB 7 was to make a positive impact on the population in the Clark County Detention Center and to streamline the current operation of the jail. Mr. Barker introduced Mr. Joe Evers, Director of Clark County Detention Center to assist in the presentation.
Mr. Evers explained the purpose for SB 7 was to move out in a more timely fashion those inmates being held for other jurisdictions. Mr. Sader asked Mr. Evers to clarify what SB 7 would accomplish. Mr. Evers revealed SB 7 mandated inmates housed in Clark County on warrants from other in-state jurisdictions to be removed timely and set the statutory time frames for this to happen.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Evers where it said the language on page 2, section 1, subsection 3, lines 3 through 6 of SB 7 was effective after 72 hours. Mr. Evers replied by reading page 1, subsection 3, lines 22 through 25 and page 2, subsection 3, lines 1 through 6 to the committee. He noted the process occurred after 72 hours. Mr. Sader stated he interpreted the language indicated the time started the moment a person was placed in the jail cell, not 72 hours later. Mr. Evers said this was not the intent of the bill. Instead the intent was, after all charges in Clark County were resolved, to notify the Sheriff of the other jurisdiction. Mr. Sader interjected this bill would give financial incentive to get the prisoners out in a timely manner. Mr. Evers agreed with Mr. Sader's comment. Mr. Sader said an amendment was needed because the current language did not support Mr. Evers' intent.
Mr. Sader asked how the fee was set. Mr. Evers explained the cost was approximately $64 a day for housing a prisoner. Mr. Barker added Washoe County's figures were in the mid 50's so there possibly would be a different charge depending on the cost in separate counties.
Mr. Collins questioned Mr. Evers concerning the language on page 2, line 10, "after they received a certified letter." Mr. Collins stated, "That would not be at the beginning or after 72 hours either one. That would just be the guy would say well I got the letter. When you get certified letters is the time written on them or is it just a signature?" Mr. Evers explained thia was done by time and date. Mr. Collins inquired if a prisoner had been in jail for 72 hours but a certified letter was not received, was the prisoner still held. Mr. Barker explained paperwork would be expedited, but if the other jurisdiction did not respond within 72 hours from the time the prisoner was placed in jail, he was released.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on SB 7.
Mr. Sader suggested an amendment to the language regarding the reimbursement aspect of the bill. He stated the amendment would apply when the law enforcement agency responsible for picking up a prisoner failed to do so within a prescribed period of time at which point charges would be incurred for the prisoner's confinement. Mr. Sader recommended on page 2, line 4, concerning the payment of a prisoner's confinement, inserting the identical language found on page 2, lines 11 and 12.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 7.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE BILL 8 -
Requires operator of jail to be made party to action for change in conditions of confinement of prisoner.
Mr. Frank Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified as representative of the requesting agency for SB 8. Mr. Barker explained SB 8 was the result of actions brought from defense attorneys who wanted to change some of the conditions of their clients while in the jail. On several occasions this had created a hardship for the police department to meet those conditions. The Legislative Counsel Bureau drafted this legislation to make the Sheriff's Department a party to these type of actions in order to meet those requirements in a timely fashion.
Mr. Joe Evers, Director of the Clark County Detention Center, testified in favor of SB 8. Mr. Evers identified circumstances in the past where problems occurred when prisoners made special requests. Mr. Evers said for instance, medical assistance where manpower was necessary to take these prisoners out of prison for this purpose; special contact visits ordered by the courts where staffing was necessary to ensure those contacts were monitored to maintain the security and procedures in the building. Mr. Evers said when such court orders came to his office he had to meet with the Assistant District Attorney who represented the division and request a hearing which became very time consuming.
Mr. Sader said the change SB 8 provided was the Sheriff's Department would become a party to the action. Mr. Sader asked Mr. Evers, "In those situations in which you are not a party to the action, who is?" Mr. Evers replied the inmate or the attorney representing the inmate.
Mr. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, testified on SB 8. Mr. Graham explained he occasionally had seen ex parte orders or oral motions made without prior notice when a person appeared for a bail hearing or an arraignment. The judge in these instances tried to go along with whatever the inmate wanted. Mr. Sader asked in this context was it state versus prisoner on some charge and the prisoner stated in open court he had a problem with his detention. Mr. Evers explained if this bill became law the judge would have the obligation to set the matter down for a hearing within a timely period, so all parties could be heard on the order. Mr. Evers felt a more consistent procedure should be established.
Mr. Sader asked in what situations this occurred, what would be required to bring this action for the court and how did it differ from the procedure today. Mr. Graham requested 2 or 3 days to provide examples of when such situations occurred.
Mr. Porter commented, as Mr. Graham explained earlier, the majority of the time this circumstance occurred was at an arraignment during a custody situation. Mr. Porter emphasized who would be available in six different departments in Clark County on arraignment calendars to handle these kinds of things. Mr. Evers answered these courts did not occur at any particular point in the process. He said, "These orders could be brought to his desk as a result of an attorney getting with a judge in chambers and saying my client says he was not getting sufficient telephone access and I get an order mandating the inmate be allowed 25 calls a day, each call being of 5 minutes duration. In fact I would like to be able to do is go in front of the court and indicate to the court that there are sufficient telephones and each prisoner gets at least a 10 minute period twice a day which the court may or may not know but if I don't have an opportunity to tell the court that, they're never going to know."
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Evers if most of these people were not adjudicated as guilty and were they denied the opportunity for medical treatment for which they had standing medical appointments. Mr. Evers explained Clark County Detention Center had a fully staffed medical facility and medical care was predominately handled within the facility. Mr. Anderson asked what was being accommodated with this new language. Mr. Evers stated, "What was being accommodated was when a prisoner said he needed specialized care which was not prediagnosed or prearranged and also when a prisoner simply said I don't feel I'm getting the therapy that I should have."
Mr. Anderson commented this would be a state law and therefore would apply to every jurisdiction. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Evers if other county jails had law libraries and medical facilities 40 hours a week, and did Clark and Washoe Counties have these facilities. Mr. Evers replied he was not very knowledgeable about other facilities in the state.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Evers when he disagreed with a court order was there an opportunity to go before the judge to present his reasons. Mr. Evers answered he had this opportunity but SB 8 cleaned this process up.
Mr. Regan asserted the whole bill was explained in section 1, subsection 2 (a) and (b), "that the Sheriff or Town Marshall must be made party of the action and all legal processes must be served in subsection b." Mr. Regan emphasized all the jailer asked for was what the prisoner wanted.
Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, testified in support of SB 8. Lieutenant Nadeau explained SB 8 provided the opportunity to address in court, prior to a court order being issued, the situation a prisoner requested.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on SB 8.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONED SB 8.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Carpenter emphasized SB 8 would clutter the court system and 90 percent of such cases could be handled through telephone conversations.
Mr. Toomin believed there would be a fiscal impact with this bill so he was in favor of the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN, SCHERER AND SADER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLY BILL 321 -
Revises fees for certain court-appointed attorneys in criminal proceedings.
Mr. Sader referred to a letter submitted by Mr. Kevin Kelly, Legislative Chairman of Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, who was not able to be present to testify in favor of AB 321 (Exhibit C). This bill was requested by the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. He explained AB 321 would effect a change which would increase the fees rather dramatically for court appointed attorneys in criminal cases. He further communicated these fees were paid partly by the county and partly by the state causing a significant fiscal impact for these kinds of proceedings. Mr. Sader noted the bill needed to be sent to the Committee On Ways and Means because of the state impact.
Mr. Sader explained Mr. Toomin had contacted the fiscal department and found the fiscal note on AB 321 was not completed but would be substantial. Mr. Sader stated this bill needed to go to the Ways and Means Committee before the Judiciary Committee could process it since it was a fiscal issue.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 321.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA MOVED TO REREFER AB 321 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER ABSTAINED ON THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 346 -
Makes confidential written reports of accidents made by police officers.
Mr. Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, testified as the representative of the requesting agency for AB 346. Mr. Graham explained his civil division represented the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in a number of areas. Mr. Graham explained the basis for the bill was to protect the public from unscrupulous people who obtained police accident reports. Mr. Graham addressed AB 346 line 11 proposing an amendment to insert "authorized" before "legal representative" because there were people, for instance members of MADD, who assisted victims.
Deputy Chief Richard Winget, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in support of AB 346. Deputy Chief Winget explained this problem began about one year ago when his office was contacted by a chiropractor from New Mexico who was interested in obtaining addresses and telephone numbers of people involved in traffic accidents in Las Vegas. This chiropractor did not want copies of the report, he just wanted names, addresses and telephone numbers in order to solicit business. Deputy Chief Winget reviewed Exhibit D to explain why AB 346 was necessary.
Mr. Sader asked Deputy Chief Winget if the New Mexico chiropractor got the information. Deputy Chief Winget answered no because his department's position so far had been based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office which was annotated in the public record's law which discussed the fact the director of records could restrict access if it was deemed the motive for the access was improper. Mr. Sader asked Deputy Chief Winget if this was the case, why was AB 346 needed. Deputy Chief Winget said his department's position was it needed to be strengthened with legislation.
Mr. Mike Chapman, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Department of Transportation, testified in favor of AB 346. Mr. Chapman introduced Mr. Greg Novak, Federal Highway Administration, and Mr. Robert Hilderbrand, Nevada Department of Transportation, to assist in the presentation. Mr. Chapman stated the Department of Transportation received federal funding and some state money to analyze safety and to determine where safety improvement projects might be needed in the state. Mr. Chapman said the raw data was now sent to his department on a voluntary basis by law enforcement agencies throughout the state. He further stated information was not retained but put into a computer to rank by way of safety concerns. He explained the original language of AB 346 prohibited information from being sent to the Nevada Department of Transportation. Mr. Chapman discussed a suggested amendment and he provided to the committee Exhibit E. Mr. Chapman presented and further explained to the committee section 409 of the United States Code (Exhibit F). Mr. Sader asked Mr. Chapman if the amendment was proposed to protect the Department of Transportation's right to access. Mr. Chapman replied primarily this was the purpose of the amendment.
Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, testified in opposition to AB 346. Ms Engleman said her agency appreciated the amendment suggested by Mr. Graham's office but her agency still had problems with this bill. Ms. Engleman brought to the committee's attention Mr. Porter had, along with the introduction of a number of bills as a result of the interim study on public records, requested an additional interim study on the exemptions of which there were almost 400. Ms. Engleman said during the interim study a number of complaints surfaced concerning access to information in various police departments which was supposed to be public. Ms. Engleman stated it was determined because of so many aspects a separate interim study was needed to review the exemptions and this might be an issue which needed to be discussed at that time.
Ms. Laurel Stadler, MADD Lyon County, testified in opposition to AB 346. Ms. Stadler said MADD was concerned with the limit of the accident report to the legal representative of the person and with Mr. Graham's recommended amendment to add "authorized." Ms. Stadler questioned if the word "authorized" included verbal authorization from the victim, or if representatives of MADD came with a verbal authorization from the victim to get the report, would it be valid. Ms. Stadler said MADD had many victims from out of the area.
Ms. Marlen Schultz, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified against AB 346. Ms. Schultz provided written testimony to explain why AB 346 should not be passed in its present form (Exhibit G).
Mr. Bill Yukish, the Chief of Nevada Highway Patrol, testified in favor of AB 346. He expressed the concerns of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. He explained chiropractors came into each of the Highway Patrol Offices and requested accident reports with names and addresses. He said his agency told such persons the records were available if the persons were willing to pay. He stated no one had taken his office up on the offer. He also wanted AB 346 to be amended because, if the bill passed in its present form, the Highway Patrol Department would lose access regarding commercial vehicles accidents and as a result the Highway Patrol Department would lose federal funding.
Ms. Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Chiropractic Association, testified in opposition to AB 346. Ms. Tyler illuminated AB 237 was proposed by the Nevada State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Section 6 of AB 237 established unprofessional conduct and made it grounds for review of licensure for chiropractors.
Mr. Sader stated, "It should be added as well the practice of lawyers, as soliciting clients is unethical and prohibited by standards and a lawyer can be subject to disciplinary proceedings as well for such conduct." Ms. Tyler said section 6 of AB 237 was patterned after the State Bar Association's unprofessional behavior guidelines.
Ms. Smith asked if AB 346 would apply to people out of state, ie. the chiropractor from New Mexico and the attorneys from California.
Ms. Tyler said this legislation would not affect people from out of state because the Board of Chiropractic Examiners in Nevada had authority only over Nevada licensees.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 346.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 346.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins was against the motion because he had read a newspaper article on the opinion page where an individual was very upset about the police releasing information which allowed people's homes and property to be bothered after they had been in an accident. He felt the bill had some merit.
Mr. Scherer agreed with Mr. Collins' comment and expressed someone's privacy should not be invaded simply because he had been in an accident. Ms. Smith concurred with Mr. Collins and Mr. Scherer and believed with some amending the bill had value.
Mr. Porter spoke in support of his motion. He explained privacy exemption could be argued for almost every single document generated on taxpayer time. The big picture was public access to documentation produced through taxpayer funded mechanisms.
Mr. Sader supported the motion since he was not convinced there was a real problem. He stated testimony showed, even in the instances where people requested information for unethical purposes, they did not receive it.
Chairman Sader asked for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 346.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER, GIBBONS, GREGORY, HALLER, PETRAK, PORTER, REGAN, SCHNEIDER, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS, SCHERER AND SMITH VOTED NO.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of the following bill draft requests: First, BDR43-438 from Clark County Metropolitan Police Department which makes various changes relating to procedures for determining percentage of alcohol in a person's blood, urine or breathe; second, BDR7-548 from the Secretary of State which makes various changes concerning corporations and similar entities; and third, BDR14-1185 which makes various changes to provisions governing administrative assessments for misdemeanors.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUESTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Sader held the bill draft request from the Sheriff's and Chief's Association which created the crime of stalking because AB 199 was already being processed which addressed the same issue.
Mr. Sader requested drafting of a bill for the committee introduction from Mr. Bible of the Gaming Control Board, regarding cashless wagering systems.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER ABSTAINED ON THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader requested drafting of several bills for committee introduction from the Southern Nevada Estate Planning Council, relating to estate planning dealing with homesteads, notary public depositions of certain types of property trust situations.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUESTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Carpenter welcomed the members of the Sparks Chamber of Commerce who were in attendance at the hearing.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
March 23, 1993
Page: 1