MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
June 22, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Acting Chairman Bernie Anderson, at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, June 22, 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 Late/Excused
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman Absent/Excused
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. John Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken Haller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Mr. Mike Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Cummings, Nevada State Education Association
Jim Endres, Nevada State Manager for ATT
Phil Stout, Executive Director, Nevada Association
of Independent Businesses
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association
David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General,
Criminal Division, Attorney General's office
Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Mary Santini, Executive Director, Retailers' Association
Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office
Patricia Erickson, Attorneys for Criminal Justice
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark James, Senatorial District No. 8
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7
Senator Matthew Callister, Senatorial District No. 8
Assemblyman Bob Price, Assembly District No. 17
Following roll call, Acting Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on SB 192.
SENATE BILL 192 -Provides enhanced penalty for crimes committed against minors.
Senator Mark James, Senatorial District No. 8, came forward to explain the original intent of SB 192 was to enhance the penalties on crimes committed against children in the state. He related the progress of the bill and indicated it had received an almost equal amount of support and opposition.
Although a registry of sex offenders was maintained in Nevada since 1962, Senator James said there was nothing which compelled registration and there certainly was no follow-up by the releasing entity.
Besides clarifying the requirements for registration, one additional change to the current sex offender registration law, Senator James explained, was to broaden the availability of information contained in the sex offender registration from only being available to law enforcement to being available to the Board of Trustees of a county school district in which the sex offender expected to reside. Discretion would be given to the Board of Trustees to release the information to whomever it deemed necessary in order to protect children in the area. The bill also provided an immunity provision relieving the Board of Trustees of liability for either releasing or not releasing the information unless it acted with gross negligence or intentional disregard.
Mr. Collins asked why the reporting provisions were not imposed on all felons, not just sex offenders. To this, Senator James replied the committee had tried to alleviate the fiscal impact as much as possible. More importantly, Senator James pointed out children were the least element of society able to make themselves aware through news reports, etc., of these kinds of crimes. Thus, children needed this kind of protection to a greater degree than adults. Also, he said, sex offenders presented the greatest rate of recidivism.
Mr. Regan questioned the omission of a penalty provision for not registering. Senator James replied current statute specified a misdemeanor penalty, and it was unnecessary to include this in the bill.
Senator James explained the bill had been patterned after a Washington state statute, which was somewhat more stringent than SB 192. The bill was supported by law enforcement agencies, schools and school personnel, administrators, educators and by the Attorneys for Criminal Justice, he reported.
In response to another question, Senator James indicated the Washington law was presently being constitutionally tested. He did not believe the proposed Nevada law would be thus challenged, however, because there was limited release of the information to only people dealing with school children.
John Cummings, Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association, voiced support for the bill.
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill 508.
SENATE BILL 508 -Prohibits person from selling, without authority of lawful holder, code or number that can be used to obtain telephone services.
Jim Endres, Nevada State Manager for ATT, spoke in support of SB 508. He informed the committee the bill had been introduced at the request of ATT, and when heard in the Senate, it had received the full support of the industry. He explained the problems prompting the bill, and pointed out the technical changes made in the Senate which made the bill consistent with changes made in Section 1. Section 1 identified the four most often used ways in which calling card or communication fraud occurred, he said.
SENATE BILL 462- FIRST REPRINT -Makes various technical amendments to provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes.
Exhibit C was submitted and Chairman Sader told the committee SB 462 was what was referred to as the "Reviser's Bill," which was a compilation of substantive technical amendments to provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes generated during the last session.
Tom Grady, representing the Nevada League of Cities and also speaking on behalf of Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties and Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, came forward to explain the amendments.
Section 34.5.
Mr. Grady pointed out there was an amendment proposed on page 26, Section 34.5, lines 28 and 29, which would delete the "Nevada tax commission" and insert "department." He requested the present language be unchanged to continue to reflect "Nevada tax commission." Mr Grady and Chairman Sader discussed the rationale for making staff recommendations at the Commission level.
In response to Chairman Sader's request, Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, told the committee this was one of four provisions amended in on the Senate side. The Department of Taxation had requested the change in 1991 and it was agreed upon by both taxation committees, but the change had not been made. He suggested if there was a substantive argument about a provision, it should be considered by the Taxation Committees. The Chairman Sader agreed.
Mr. Grady explained to Mr. Carpenter his organization believed it was better to have a full Commission look at staff recommendations and budgets and make a determination, rather than leaving those decisions to an individual.
Sections 45 and 46
Mr. Anderson questioned language in Section 45, which appeared to change the declaration regarding withholding or withdrawing nutrients and hydration. Mr. Malkiewich remarked the Reviser's Bill made minor changes to the Nevada Revised Statutes and corrected errors which had been brought to the attention of the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff.
Mr. Malkiewich explained a number of questions had arisen concerning the language, bringing the counsel to the conclusion the language was confusing. Thus, the Legislative Counsel Bureau had attempted to clarify this language. When considered in the Senate, Mr. Malkiewich said they had amended the language to read "withholding or withdrawal of artificial nutrient and hydration may result in death by starvation or dehydration. . .". Discussion followed.
Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District 7, agreed with the explanation offered by Mr. Malkiewich.
Mr. Haller questioned how people would be aware of the change in the language. In response, Mr. Malkiewich pointed out there was a sample form shown in the Nevada Revised Statues. He assured Mr. Haller and committee members prior declarations in the previous form would still be valid.
Discussion followed, with Mr. Malkiewich explaining the Durable Power of Attorney and the Living Will.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, believed if any substantive changes were to be made, it should not be in a technical corrections bill. If there was an intent to make changes in the editorial comments, she asked for these to be separated out and dealt with more completely when people knew what they were dealing with.
Assemblyman Bob Price, Assembly District No. 17, appeared before the committee to speak regarding Section 34.5 dealing with the Nevada Tax Commission. He believed this presented a substantive change and asked the Judiciary Committee to refer the bill to the Taxation Committee before it went further. Chairman Sader agreed to amend it out of the bill and refer it to the Taxation Committee.
SENATE BILL 405 -Provides immunity from civil action for communication made in good faith to governmental entity.
Senator Titus again came forward to explain the bill and to submit Exhibit D dealing with "slapps. She said the bill was basically designed to protect well-meaning citizens who petitioned government, from being hit by retaliatory "slapps" which was an acronym for "strategic lawsuits against public participation." Senator Titus continued with a review of the exhibit. She said since SB 405 was introduced in the Senate, there had been two editorials in Nevada newspapers expressing support; these were attached in Exhibit D.
The Chairman questioned the concept of "good faith communication." He believed the good faith standard allowed a slapp lawsuit to be filed. Although the burden was high, the individual would still have to go through a costly litigation process. Senator Titus indicated the intent of writing the "good faith" standard into the bill was to discourage the notion that someone could come before a legislative body, deliberately not tell the truth and then be statutorily protected. However, Senator Titus said, if the "good faith" standard went against the main purpose of the bill, which was to stop slapp lawsuits, she invited suggestions to remedy this.
Mr. Price also indicated concern regarding the influence exerted on state employees to discourage them from testifying before the Legislature regarding their opinion on certain issues. Mr. Price submitted Exhibit E, a memo issued by Director James P. Weller early in the session, and discussed the implications of such supervisory involvement in employee activities.
Ms. Lusk declared her organization completely supported what Senator Titus was attempting to accomplish in SB 405. They did, however, have a concern regarding citizen testimony which related to some action on the part of an individual working within a governmental entity. Ms. Lusk said the situations mentioned by Mr. Price were not limited to public offices -- this occurred in the private sector as well.
Phil Stout, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Independent Businesses, submitted Exhibit F, a written copy of his testimony.
Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, indicated support of SB 405, however, she told the committee the Association's attorney preferred the simpler language of the previous bill, AB 719, over the language in SB 405. Referring to Assemblyman Price's remarks and Exhibit E, Ms. Engleman acknowledged a department head would want to know the content of testimony given before the Legislature by department employees, but when it came to agency heads trying to control private conversations with Legislators, she believed the Press Association would strongly oppose this proposition.
Senator Matthew Callister, Senate District 8, testified in support of SB 405. All too often in southern Nevada he said he saw the tendency for either the threat of litigation or actual litigation to be a devise in lieu of expressing opinion. He believed it was important to guarantee the public protection against unnecessary litigation, and urged the committee's support for the bill.
Chairman Sader requested Senator Callister's comments regarding the "good faith" provisions. Although he did not want to encourage false allegations, Senator Callister said he believed it was more appropriate to err on the side of encouraging public comment. He said he felt comfortable with the language in SB 405, but he did not make a direct comparison with AB 719. Senator Callister said if he had a preference, it would fault on the side of protecting people's right to participate. If the committee did not perceive SB 405 provided adequate protection, he urged the committee to take the necessary steps to make the bill clearer.
Mr. Scherer asked how this bill changed the existing common law with regard to communications to various agencies and government officials. Senator Callister said he hoped by codifying common law it would provide a clear expression of Legislative intent on the issue.
Further commenting on the question posed by Mr. Scherer, Chairman Sader explained clearly, SB 405 set up a "good faith" standard in all cases, and this was substantially lower than the threshold of the "restatement." If SB 405 was enacted, a lower standard would be created, which the Legislative Counsel believed was the current status of the law. Senator Callister acknowledged he had not had the benefit of Legislative Counsel discussions but if this was the case, he urged the committee to adopt the higher standard.
Supporting testimony was also heard from Joe Johnson, representing the Sierra Club. Although some members of the Sierra Club had been victims of this type of lawsuit, Mr. Johnson said the Club saw it more as discouraging people from participating in the public process.
Ed Pressley from the Home Rule Coalition, offered support for the bill.
The Chairman opened the hearing on SB 413.
SENATE BILL 413 -Makes various changes regarding civil actions.
The Chairman reviewed the progress of the bill. Paula Treat, representing the Nevada Judges' Association, submitted Exhibit G, a suggested amendment dated 6/17/93.
Explaining the bill, Senator Callister pointed out SB 413 would increase jurisdictional limits in both small claims court and justice court. The proposal was to increase the existing small claims cap from $2,500 to $3,500, and to increase the justice court cap from $5,000 to $7,500. This portion had been agreed upon in the Senate, but there was some misunderstanding as to what commensurate filing fees should be. Exhibit G was a mutually agreed upon schedule which was clearer and more in line with present filing fees in district court. Senator Callister explained claims up to the amount of $1,000 would remain at the $25 filing fee; claims of $1,000 to $2,500 would be $50; claims from $2,500 to $4,500 would be $100; claims between $4,500 and $6,500 would be $125; and claims between $6,500 and $7,500 would be $150. This would also change the present jurisdictional floor of district court which was approximately $150-$155.
Following a short break, the Chairman opened a work session.
ASSEMBLY BILL 175 - Prohibits person from threatening or intimidating public employee.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT ON AB 175.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 209 - Revises provisions relating to use of deadly force to effect arrest.
Ben Graham, representing the Clark County District Attorney's Office, explained the bill codified the standards set in a Tennessee case which had gone to the Supreme Court. This case had suggested the current statute in Nevada was unconstitutional. Thus, the proposed language more accurately reflected the language in those judicial decisions.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT ON AB 209.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 327 - Requires certain fees for analysis to be collected from certain defendants before or at same time that any fine is collected.
Chairman Sader reviewed the intent of the bill and noted there had been some budget issues to be resolved. The Senate Transportation Committee had amended the bill to allow a defendant to work off the fee at $5/hour; and the Chairman believed the testimony indicated this created some significant budgetary problems.
Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, requested the committee to not concur in the Senate amendment. He said Sheriff McGrath, Carson City Sheriff, had testified the $60 fee as specified in AB 327, would be used to pay the costs of contract lab services. Historically, the Department of Motor Vehicles contracted with the labs and paid the fees. This had changed under the new budget. All those funds had been removed and the costs for paying for forensic services rested with the individual counties. The Senate amendment created another unfunded state mandate, Chairman Sader opined.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE AMENDMENT ON AB 327.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 361 - Authorizes municipal judge to perform marriages in this state and authorizes justice of the peace to perform marriages in commissioner townships.
The progress of the bill was reviewed by the Chairman. He finally asked if the majority of the committee wished to concur with the Senate amendment to AB 361. Chairman Sader explained initially, there was a limit of five marriages a year a justice of the peace could perform. This had been eliminated when the Senate placed a cap of 20 free marriages a year justices of the peace and municipal judges could perform. It also added language requiring out-of-state ministers to be authorized to perform a marriage and placed a limit of five a year. He said the real thrust of the bill was the cap of 20 marriages per year.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO RESCIND MOTION TO NOT CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT TO AB 361.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Briefly responding, Mr. Scherer indicated the judges wished the committee to concur with the cap of 20. He said he had been told there was a potential for mischief in not placing a cap on the number of marriages which could be performed. There were justices of the peace who were willing to perform free weddings in order to generate business for another enterprise.
Statements of opposition and support were made by committee members. A roll call vote was taken.
THE MOTION TO RESCIND MOTION TO NOT CONCUR FAILED FOR LACK OF A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY. (ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, HALLER, PETRAK, REGAN, SCHNEIDER AND TOOMIN VOTED NO; ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS ABSTAINED; AND ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
The Chairman announced since the motion to rescind the motion to not concur with the Senate amendment had failed, the bill would be taken to a conference committee.
ASSEMBLY BILL 387 - Makes various changes concerning corporations and similar entities.
This was the omnibus corporations clean-up bill, the Chairman reminded the committee members. The Senate had basically accepted the Assembly version with the exception of the complicated area of numbers of shares. Mr. Scherer indicated he had chaired the subcommittee, however, he said he would need more time to properly consider the effect of the Senate amendment. Chairman Sader indicated he would hold the bill and take the issue up on the floor. He explained Mr. Fowler was not in attendance at the meeting because the Chairman had not thought there was a need for his testimony.
ASSEMBLY BILL 393 - Permits imposition of sentence without presence of defendant under certain circumstances.
David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, explained the intent of the bill was to allow a defendant to waive his physical presence in the state of Nevada for a sentencing proceeding in a district court in another area; and thereby reduce the cost of extradition. Mr. Sarnowski recalled when the Senate had heard the bill, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to add language which they believed would provide additional protections to the defendant. The additions proposed appeared on page 1, lines 10-20 of the Second Reprint. Mr. Sarnowski said the Attorney General's Office agreed with those amendments which would require a "knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver after consultation with a licensed attorney of Nevada, and a signed document to indicate the counseling and agreement."
Mr. Sarnowski asked the committee to please concur with the Senate amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT TO AB 393.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Discussion followed.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS AND HALLER VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
ASSEMBLY BILL 465 - Requires payment of restitution for expenses related to extradition.
Mr. Sarnowski again came forward to explain the progress of the bill. The original intent was to statutorily enact, and thus require, the courts to order repayment of expenses incurred in extraditing defendants to the Office of the Attorney General. When the bill went to the Senate, he said, there was some concern regarding the prioritization of collections by the government. Some protections had been written into the bill on page 2, lines 31-42, and page 3, lines 1-4. This prioritized child support and restitution to victims of crimes. Mr. Sarnowski said the Attorney General's Office concurred with the proposed amendment and urged the committee to do likewise.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT TO AB 465.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
ASSEMBLY BILL 576 - Revises penalties for violations of certain statutes governing securities and commodities.
The Chairman explained the effect of the amendment resulting in the First Reprint.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT TO AB 576.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
SENATE BILL 462- FIRST REPRINT - Makes various technical amendments to provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes.
The Chairman explained there was a conflict amendment with SB 462, so the bill would have to be amended in any event.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 462 - FIRST REPRINT, BY OMITTING SECTION 34.5 AND TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Anderson indicated he had certain concerns with portions of the language and asked for this to be noted on the record.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
SENATE BILL 192 -Provides enhanced penalty for crimes committed against minors.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS SB 192.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins stated his opposition to the bill was based on the premise if sex offenders were required to register in their place of residence, all felons should be similarly required to register.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
Mr. Gregory was asked to handle the bill on the floor.
SENATE BILL 508 -Prohibits person from selling, without authority of lawful holder, code or number that can be used to obtain telephone services.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS SB 508.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Ms. Smith was asked to handle the bill on the floor.
SENATE BILL 405 -Provides immunity from civil action for communication made in good faith to governmental entity.
Chairman Sader noted a preference for AB 719, which was currently on the Clerk's desk in the Assembly. He did not believe the provisions in AB 719 were inconsistent with the provisions in SB 405; but if AB 719 was not passed, Chairman Sader believed the Legislature would be creating a lower standard for protection of witnesses than that currently existing. He suggested the committee amend all three sections of AB 719 into SB 405, leave AB 719 on the Clerk's desk and let SB 405 go forward.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 405.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Smith questioned whether anything would be added to SB 405 dealing with employees and agencies. Although not in disagreement, Chairman Sader said he would prefer not to place Mr. Price's amendment in SB 405 as it was an issue which presented a whole new set of questions which should more appropriately be addressed in the finance committees.
Mr. Carpenter expressed concern with AB 719 in that the interpretation could allow individuals to believe they could falsely testify before the Legislature.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND SCHERER VOTED NO, ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE; ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
Chairman Sader said he would handle the bill on the floor.
SENATE BILL 413 -Makes various changes regarding civil actions.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SB 413.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Scherer explained the rationale behind his motion to indefinitely postpone, remarking the purpose of the bill was to open up greater access for people with smaller disputes to come into the justice courts. At the same time, he said, they were significantly increasing all of the justice court fees. Generally, he believed the bill contradicted itself. Additionally, he believed the more complex types of cases would increase in the justice courts and there would be additional pressure which could require more attorney involvement.
The Chairman opposed the motion. He believed the net effect would save the litigant money even though the fees were increased. Chairman Sader explained his position.
The Chairman called for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION FAILED. (ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, GIBBONS AND SCHERER VOTED YES, ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSTAINED, ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE; ALL OTHERS VOTED NO.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO AMEND WITH EXHIBIT F AND DO PASS SB 413.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SCHERER, GIBBONS, ANDERSON AND CARPENTER VOTED NO, ALL OTHER VOTED YES.)
Mr. Bonaventura was asked to handle the floor statement.
SENATE BILL 243 -Revises membership of gaming policy committee.
Chairman Sader recalled he had been absent when SB 243 was first voted upon, but the do pass motion had failed with a vote of six to five. This meant the bill was not dead, and he called for discussion.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA MOVED TO DO PASS SB 243.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Gibbons believed the intent in reorganizing government was to make it more responsible. Although the gaming policy committee was available to the Governor, it had not met in eight years. It appeared clear to Mr. Gibbons this was a committee of convenience. If it had not met in eight years, the reason for its existence was questionable. If the purpose of its existence was to establish and work with policies in the gaming industry then it should be used. If not used, it should be eliminated. Thus, he said he opposed the motion.
Statements of opposition and support were made by committee members.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MANDATE THE GOVERNOR TO MEET WITH THE GAMING POLICY COMMITTEE AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.
The motion to amend the main motion failed for lack of a second.
THE MOTION TO DO PASS CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN PETRAK, TOOMIN, GIBBONS AND CARPENTER VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
Mr. Anderson was asked to handle the statement on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 455 - Requires sworn identification to accompany lien.
In reviewing, Chairman Sader indicated this bill had amendment No. 652 attached.
Mr. Scherer explained the amendment had been devised by all the proponents of the bill. He indicated the word "owner" should be replaced by the word "debtor."
Chairman Sader pointed out the bill had been proposed by the retailers and the recorders. He asked if AB 455, as amended, was acceptable.
Mary Santini, Executive Director of the Retailers' Association, said the purpose of the bill was to make certain the liens were filed properly at the debtor level.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 455.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Noting the $200,000 fiscal cost, Mr. Toomin asked if Clark County Recorders were aware of this. Mr. Scherer replied it was his understanding the Recorders were not opposed to this idea, however, since he was not present during the meeting when discussion occurred, he was not entirely certain whether there were any objections.
Chairman Sader said most of the fiscal note would be negated by the amendments.
Mr. Toomin expressed his uncertainty whether Clark County found the bill acceptable. Chairman Sader asked Mr. Scherer to ascertain the attitude of the Clark County Recorders before the bill was voted on in General Assembly.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 667 - Makes certain changes concerning claims brought by prisoner or former prisoner to recover compensation for loss of his personal property.
Amendment 731 to AB 667 (Exhibit G) was brought forward by Chairman Sader.
Mr. Gibbons explained the intent of the bill and the amendment as applied to the bill. He said the Department of Prisons had already allowed for the funds in its operating budget.
Mr. Carpenter questioned the effective date of July 1, 1993. Chairman Sader indicated if the Legislature was still in session at that time, the bill drafters would have to adjust the date.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT 731 AND DO PASS AB 667.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Gibbons was asked to make the floor statement.
ASSEMBLY BILL 463 - Expands circumstances under which alcoholic or drug addict convicted of crime is eligible to elect treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs before sentencing.
Exhibit H, a proposed amendment to AB 463, was noted by Chairman Sader. He continued with an explanation of the progress of the bill.
Ben Graham, representing the Clark County District Attorney's Association, explained AB 463 provided for a diversionary process for first-time controlled substance offenders. As currently contemplated it would allow diversion for even lower level traffickers in controlled substances. Mr. Graham also explained the historical background of statutory provisions which would replace AB 613. He indicated these changes would also satisfy the wishes of Dorothy North.
Although Ms. North was not present, Chairman Sader told the committee, in phone conversations with her she had expressed support for the concept explained by Mr. Graham.
Patricia Erickson, Secretary and member of the Southern Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, spoke in support of the amendment to AB 463, Exhibit H. She explained the amendment would provide the court with the ability to establish a program both in the criminal context under NRS 453.3363 and in the civil commitment context under NRS 458.300.
Ms. Erickson believed the program had to, 1) include information and encouragement to the participant to cease abusing either alcohol or drugs; 2) provide an opportunity for the participant to understand the social implications of substance abuse; and 3) include alternative courses within the program which were based on the different substances and the addiction level of the participants.
Concluding, Ms. Erickson said measures reflecting the intent and effect of the bill were currently being used successfully by the courts in Clark County; and the program was related to programs in place in Florida and Oregon.
The Chairman noted the Judiciary Committee had already passed AB 463 and AB 613. Combining the two would, perhaps, help get one bill passed.
Brief discussion followed. Since the bill had already been passed, Chairman Sader noted the appropriate motion would be to amend; thereafter the bill would be placed on Second Reading.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AB 463.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
After brief housekeeping remarks, the meeting was adjourned at 10:58 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Iris Bellinger
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Date: June 22, 1993
Page: 1