MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
February 3, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 3, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Maddie Fischer, Primary Secretary
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
SENATE BILL 45: Regulates solicitation of elderly persons.
Senator James indicated a great deal of interest in the bill had been expressed by businesses dealing in solicitation which might be affected by the legislation. He stated he has received written testimony from different parts of the county, as well as the State of Nevada, and expects to reschedule additional hearings on S.B. 45 in the future.
Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe Senate District 3, briefly outlined the bill as it is now written, but indicated the legislation is different than was originally requested. Senator Raggio said he would speak only to the concept of the bill at this time. He stated: "This is not an attempt to limit valid business...or to limit in all respects the right of people to solicit on a legitimate basis." Senator Raggio indicated he had requested the drafting of the legislation because there are "...many, many cases throughout this country of elderly people...who are being exploited by unscrupulous individuals...." He said S.B. 45 was modeled after bills introduced and subsequently passed in 1992 in the State of Maryland. Senator Raggio indicated the legislation in Maryland prohibits a solicitor for an organization from accepting donations of $200 or greater at the time of their visit with an elderly person. He stated there was also a "right to rescind" provision in the Maryland law. Senator Raggio said there have been many cases of elderly citizens who have donated a large portion of their life savings to organizations because of high pressure tactics. He stated: "I feel the state has a compelling interest to be aware of these cases and to attempt to do something within a reasonable manner...without limiting the constitutional right of association."
Senator Raggio reiterated the need for "major changes" to S.B. 45 as it is now written. Senator James indicated he had received mail in support of the measure from several sources, one of which was the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Senator Raggio said he believed the present language of the bill was "...so broad that it interferes with obviously very legitimate endeavors...." Senator Shaffer asked if the problem could possibly be addressed by local ordinances. Senator Raggio stated he did not believe it could. Senator Adler indicated the concept was good, and asked Senator Raggio if the legislation could be expanded to include fraudulent seminars which urge senior citizens to invest money. Senator Raggio stated there would be many situations which could be included in the bill, but "...historically it is door to door...or telephone solicitations which have resulted in tragic results...." Senator Titus indicated she was working on legislation this session which would address Senator Adler's concerns.
Senator James stated he would hold consideration of S.B. 45 until the bill had been redrafted, and further hearings could be held.
WORK SESSION
SENATE BILL 2: Provides United States marshal and his deputies certain authority to arrest persons without warrant.
Senator James reminded the committee of his question regarding liability with respect to the state entity upon whose behalf the United States marshal would be executing a warrant. Mr. Neilander stated his research showed the only additional exposure which would be involved, was if the county named an incorrect person in a warrant. He added that was the same exposure which exists now for peace officers. Senator Adler stated his experience showed a "paperwork foul-up" resulting in a mistaken arrest generally does not generate liability to the arresting entity.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 2.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 5: Makes various changes relating to prisoners in local facilities for detention.
The chairman indicated the bill dealt with the administration of money which is accepted from a prisoner at the time of incarceration, by the sheriff of a county. Senator James stated he was concerned about the language in the original bill which stated, "...may accept money and valuables which belong to the prisoner...," which he believed may indicate "anything" which belonged to the prisoner, rather than just what was on her person. The chairman pointed to the amended language in section 2 of the bill.
Mr. Neilander explained the remainder of the amendments to the committee. Senator Adler questioned the language in section 2 which stated, "...the sheriff shall permit withdrawals...." He said he believed the mandatory language presented "a real threat to the safety of a prisoner who has a substantial amount of money." Senator Adler stated he did not believe "...we should be telling sheriffs they have to transfer money to an outside person...." Senator James agreed the word "may" should be substituted for "shall" in that section.
Mr. Neilander asked the chairman if the word "may" should apply to "withdrawals for expenditure," in addition to the "transfer" provision, and Senator James agreed it should.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO S.B. 5.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 6: Requires department of prisons to pay costs of detaining parolee in county jail for violation of condition of parole.
Mr. Neilander explained Amendment No. 6 to S.B. 6, in particular the language in section 3(3), regarding when an inquiry must be held. Senator Adler, referring to the words "within 7 days...," asked if this language referred to seven calendar or working days. Senator James stated he believed it would be "seven working days," but agreed that language should be added. Senator James indicated there was a fiscal note attached to the bill, so the matter should be rereferred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND, DO PASS, AND REREFER S.B. 6 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 7: Provides for transfer of person arrested on misdemeanor warrant from local detention facility to law enforcement agency that obtained warrant.
Mr. Neilander reviewed Amendment No. 7 to S.B. 7. There were no questions from committee members.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 7.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 8: Requires operator of jail to be made party to action for change in conditions of confinement of prisoner.
Senator James stated the original legislation raised a constitutional question regarding whether one branch of government could prospectively void an order of another branch of government. He said Amendment No. 8 to S.B. 8 will require the sheriff, chief of police or town marshal to be made a party to any action in which a prisoner seeks to change the condition of his confinement. Mr. Neilander said in all civil matters, the court is never the entity charged with serving notice, rather the opposing party is charged with such service. He said S.B. 8 "...followed that line of reasoning...and provides that these cases would have to be served pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure."
Senator Adler stated he had difficulty with the idea a judge could "order a sheriff do to something...without having evidence, which I think this contemplates...." Senator James reminded Senator Adler of the testimony on the bill, which did not include any objections regarding that point from law enforcement representatives. He said the major issue was that of notification.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 8.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 43: Limits time certain warrants of arrest remain valid.
Senator James reminded the committee the bill, sponsored by Senator Neal, would "give an expiration date to a misdemeanor warrant." He said the legislation would cover any misdemeanor, not just traffic offenses, which was the particular case which brought the matter to Senator Neal's attention. Senator James asked Mr. Neilander if other states limited traffic offense warrants in the manner set forth in S.B. 43.
Mr. Neilander indicated he had checked all statutes in the western states and several eastern states, and was not able to find any state that provides any limitation on warrants. He said the only state with any limitation is Colorado, which has a provision establishing a statute of limitations on misdemeanor actions of 18 months, and "...what that statute hinged on was the filing of the information or complaint.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 43.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Hofmann,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
February 3, 1993
Page 1