MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 19, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on February 19, 1993, in Room 201 of the Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, 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 Mike McGinness

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Ernest E. Adler

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused)

Senator Ernest E. Adler (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Maddie Fisher, Primary Secretary

Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Charles T. Collenberger, Member, Families of Murder Victims

Carolyn J. White, on behalf of Gregory Warre

Phil L. Halsey, on behalf of Gregory Warre

Brenda Kennedy, Member, Nevada State Parent Teachers Association

Lois M. Olson, Member of the Public

Sandi Levy Barbero, Social Worker, Southwest Passage and

   National Association of Social Workers

Camille J. Crawford, Member, National Association of Retired       Persons

Lindsey Jydstrup, Member, Nevada State Education Association

Glinda Bullock, Member, National Association of Social Workers

Jesse D. Scott, Member, National Association for the Advancement

  of Colored People

Jan Allison, Member, Nevada Legal Services

Coa M. Calhleager, Member, Families of Murder Victims

Gilbert F. Mullen, Member, National Association for the  

  Advancement of Colored Persons and National Alliance

  Against Racist and Political Oppression

Steve Dahl, Member, Clerk, State of Nevada, Office of the Public    Defender

Deborah Owen, Public Defender, State of Nevada, Office of the     Public Defender; Member, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Randy Oaks, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Ted Farrell, Risk Manager, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police          Department

John Redlein, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office    of the Attorney General

Chris Christoff, Member, West Side Tax Payers

James Tate, Member, National Alliance Against Racist and           Political Oppression

Ben Graham, Member, National Defense Attorneys Association

Richard Wright, Member, National Attorneys for Criminal

   Justice

Reverend Chester Richardson, Member of the Public

Helen Rivera, Member, CCSN

Charlotte Fuller, Executive Secretary, National Alliance Against     Racist and Political Repression

Frank Hawkins, Councilman, representing the City of Las Vegas

Walter R. Cannon, Counsel for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police        Department, Clark County and North Las Vegas

Christine Javier, Member of the Public

 

 

Senator James called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m., and advised Senator Jacobsen was not present in Las Vegas during  the adjournment as he was sitting on the Senate Committee on Finance in Carson City.  Senator James further advised Senator Adler was called back to Carson City on other business.  He stated the committee would proceed to consider the measures before it and take testimony.  When the committee meets again in Carson City it will again review these measures, take any additional testimony, and vote.  He stated anyone from Clark County wishing to present additional testimony on these bills will be welcome to do so via videoconferencing.  Senator James advised the order of the hearing for February 19, 1993 would be Senate Bill (S.B.) 192, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 79, Senate Bill (S.B.) 178, and Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 9.

 

The hearing was opened on S.B. 192.

 

SENATE BILL 192:  Provides enhanced penalty for crimes committed against minors.  (BDR 15-1675)

 

Senator James advised since he was the preliminary sponsor of S.B. 192, he would explain what he wished for it to accomplish, and that there were a number of cosponsors as well.  S.B. 192 would enhance the criminal penalties for all crimes committed against children which are not already enhanced by some other area of the criminal code.  He said Nevada had adopted similar laws in other areas, dealing with other groups.  Notably, recent legislation had enacted penalty enhancements for crimes, committed against the elderly, as a result of gang activities, near schools or on school buses, relating to the selling of drugs to children, against police, using armour-piercing bullets, using deadly weapons in the commission of a crime, and others.  He felt Nevada had not yet made an across the board policy statement to enhance the penalties for crimes committed against our most vulnerable classification of citizens, the ones with the weakest voice in the political system, the ones without voting power, without the ability to contribute to political campaigns, our children.  This was the group most in need of this kind of protection. 

 

There was a strong perception which Senator James believed was correct that our streets were no longer a safe place for our children to play.  He referred to the streets of the city, the neighborhoods and the cul-de-sacs in which people lived, which were no longer safe for our children.  He felt the shopping malls where we shopped and the school yards where our children went to play were unsafe.  The senator related a story which happened to a friend of a friend, in the Meadows Mall in Las Vegas.  This man was a father with two children, a boy and a girl.  They were at the mall shopping on a Saturday.  He took his eyes off of his five-year old daughter for a couple of seconds to look into a window with his son, turned around and his daughter was gone.  He turned around quickly enough to see his daughter being carried away down the mall by an unknown man. The girl's father ran after her.  The brazenness and audacity of the unknown individual was such it took two security guards, which the father summoned by screaming, and the father himself, to subdue the stranger and get her back into her father's arms.  It was very difficult for the senator, as he believed was true for many other parents in Las Vegas and all across the state, to open the paper or a magazine and read about another child who had been kidnapped,  abused, or killed.  The legislature had made this policy statement elsewhere, the belief in the deterrent effect of enhanced penalties. He stated a message now needed to be sent to those people in our society who would commit crimes against our children that they would be dealt with under the full force of the law, and if they did commit such crimes they would be going to jail for a long time. 

 

Senator James advised S.B. 192 is not a panacea.  This is a problem he identified, a problem which he believed is nothing new, everyone was aware of the problem.  He stated crime was far too prevalent in our society in general.  This bill was directed at the most vulnerable victims of crime.  He felt there were other ways the legislature needed to address this problem.  Senator James invited people at that meeting to relate other ways to protect children from crimes such as domestic violence, abuse and neglect.  He stated some might say in those situations if offenders are put in jail, that offender might be the primary provider of financial assistance for the child, for example a father or mother.  Senator James wanted those people to know this committee would welcome any suggestions and/or requests for a bill draft request to address those situations, whether it be through the need for additional treatment or release programs, or probation programs for those types of crimes.  At the same time, he felt the step taken if this legislation was enacted was to say the problem is acknowledged, and the law needed to take a bold step to try and protect our children.

 

Senator James stated his belief that every politician running for office runs on a strong law enforcement, law and order platform.  He stated he was no exception, and believed when talking about children, we are not saying they suffered any more from some type of pain inflicted by virtue of a crime, but they were more vulnerable.  He felt not only did the children suffer, but society suffered because the imprint was left on that child for the rest of his or her life.  He could not imagine, himself being the father of two children, a situation more anguishing than to have ones child kidnapped, no matter who the kidnapper might be, and not to know the health, well-being and the whereabouts of your child, thinking every day you would never see them again.  He stated there was a whole class of people living in our society who are in just that situation.

 

Senator James did not want to take full credit for the idea behind S.B. 192, and recognized the Nevada Parent/Teachers Association, ( Nevada State P.T.A.) who had as part of its legislative agenda, a resolution to adopt enhanced penalties for crimes committed against children, which is what this bill would do.  Senator James invited Brenda Kennedy from the Nevada State P.T.A., to speak to the committee.

 

Ms. Kennedy advised her organization represented approximately 30,000 members through the State of Nevada.  She said at their last state conventions, their delegates voted to include in their legislative platform the following resolution,

 

            "Crimes Against Children.  WHEREAS, the safety and welfare of children in a concern of the Nevada PTA; and WHEREAS, children should have a safe environment and feel secure traveling to and from school within their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the incidence of violence against children in Nevada is increasing; and WHEREAS, current penalties against offenders have not been effective in reducing the incidence of violence against children in Nevada; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Nevada PTA recommend the Nevada Legislature pass legislation to increase penalties against persons committing violent acts against children, and be it further RESOLVED, that this legislation be in the form of an 'enhancement' or an 'additional penalty' similar in nature to the current legislation regarding crimes committed against seniors." 

The P.T.A. Resolution is Exhibit C hereto.  She stated as advocates for all children, the Nevada P.T.A. strongly supported S.B. 192 and urged the support of the committee.

 

Senator James understood the resolution she read was part of a national agenda which the P.T.A. across the country was pursuing. 

 

Ms. Kennedy did not know, but assumed the national P.T.A. also had a similar resolution.

 

Senator James asked Ms. Kennedy to tell the committee the nature of the process whereby the resolution was adopted.

 

Ms. Kennedy advised the P.T.A. had a state convention every year, and every other year on non-legislative years, they pass their legislative platform.  The continued in that process the P.T.A. units in schools submit resolutions to the Nevada State P.T.A. for consideration in the platform.  The convention delegates decide to amend, oppose or support those resolutions which were voted upon as what would be included in their platform. 

 

Lindsey Jydstrup, member, Nevada State Educational Association presented testimony in support of S.B. 192.  Ms. Jydstrup stated as an organization of legislators, everyone was all too well aware our children were growing up in an increasing violent society.  She felt it seemed more and more of that violence was being directed against our children.  The statistics were alarming; according to the Children's Defense Fund, reports of child abuse or neglect were up 147 percent since 1979.  For the year 1989, a total of 2.4 million children were reported abused or neglected.  During each of the past 4 years an average of at least three children per day had died as a result of some form of maltreatment.  Homicides had replaced motor vehicle accidents as the number one cause of injury-related deaths among children younger than 1 year.  Homicide was then the second leading cause of death among all adolescents and young adults.  It was the number one cause among black youths.  She stated that looking at the situation in Nevada, the Center for Social Policy reported only one state and the District of Columbia had a higher teen death rate.  Ms. Jydstrup confirmed that, even more alarming than the statistics were the incidents seen every day on television and read in the newspapers about child abuse, neglect, kidnapping, drive-by shootings and gang warfare.  She stated all parents knew only too well, as Senator James had eluded to earlier, the sense of panic felt any time they lost sight, even for a few seconds, of their children in a grocery store or a crowded mall.  She felt this was not the way things should be in our society.  She said his violence could only be stopped through education, prevention and stiff penalties for those committing crime against our youth.

 

Senator James agreed the statistics quoted by Ms. Jydstrup were powerful, and asked that her testimony be included as Exhibit D.

 

Jan Allison, Directing Attorney for the Las Vegas Office of Nevada Legal Services testified.  She advised Nevada Legal Services worked with the Clark County pro bono project. They put one of their paralegals, Lana Perry, in direct contact with families impacted with abusive or violent parents.  Unfortunately,  Ms. Perry could not provide direct testimony due to illness.  For the record, she was available should the committee need or desire her direct impact at a later time.  Generally, Ms. Allison could tell the committee that Ms. Perry, in the course of her work, saw the effect of plea bargaining on those families she dealt with, particularly with families left with mothers and children living in fear when a perpetrator was prematurely allowed to go back to the streets.  On the other hand, as part of her responsibilities, Ms. Perry saw the economic devastation visited on families when the wage earner was locked up and kept out of the work force for an extended period of time.  Such action required a family to rely more heavily on the welfare system to get by.  She stated, generally families who suffered physical and emotional abuse were then left to deal with economic hardship as child support obligations go unfilled due to prolonged incarceration.  Those were two sides of a very important issue.  Ms. Perry directly dealt with both issues in her work and was extremely concerned about these devastating effects both in terms of the emotional impact of crimes on the families she dealt with as well as the economic hardship.  By way of possible solutions to help deal particularly with the economic impact, Ms. Allison could only suggest the legislature at some point look at legislation dealing with enhanced probation programs or treatment programs. She felt perhaps enhanced work programs within the prison system requiring perpetrators to continue with their family support obligations while doing some sort of work in serving out their prison times.  This would allow the stream of income to come back to the family and support the children left in the wake of a father being incarcerated.

 

Senator James asked if Ms. Allison perceived those two objectives of enhancing penalties for crimes against children and pursuing alternatives such as she mentioned for domestic violence-type crimes as necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

Ms. Allison replied she would not view this in that way.

 

Senator James stated he and the committee encouraged  Ms. Perry, when she was feeling better, to put together whatever suggestions along those lines she had and submit them to Senator James.  He would then ask the committee for votes to make those bill draft requests, which the committee would be happy to pursue as an additional agenda.

 

Further testimony was offered by Sandi Levy Barbero, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, with credentials in several states and certified by both the juvenile and adult courts in several states as having expertise in the area of childhood sexual abuse for both the survivors and the perpetrators.  She spoke on behalf of her corporation Northwest Passage, a non-profit organization particularly addressing the needs of families for whom domestic violence and chemical dependency had become a problem.  She also was speaking on behalf of the National Association for Social Workers in Nevada.  Her organizations believed very strongly in and support S.B. 192.  They not only believe in enhanced penalties for perpetrators of crimes against children but in addition had problems with the issue of plea bargaining.  She stated when crimes were plea bargained down, their organization did not want that to mitigate the possibility of enhanced penalties against the perpetrator.  Additionally, it was felt the perpetrators required extensive probation and parole, as well as extensive treatment. Their organization was looking at the possibility of a disciplinary treatment team, including the District Attorney's Office, Probation and Parole and the police department, so that everyone worked on the same wavelength and services were not fragmented to the entire family.  She felt part of the family could not be looked at if the whole picture is not viewed.  She stated they were asking for extremely enhanced penalties, lengthened probation and parole or a private agency such as hers being able to track and monitor the perpetrators for the purpose of the safety of the community and of other children, and extensive treatment. 

 

Glenda Bullock, licensed clinical social worker in the State of Nevada, and an administrative specialist with the Clark County Schools testified. She represented the National Association of Social Workers.  She stated she moved to Nevada from California approximately 2-1/2 years previous and part of her training was working with children who had been physically, sexually and verbally abused by their parents.  She stated she and the National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, support S.B. 192.  Ms. Bullock advised child abuse was said to include the physical, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse of an infant, child or adolescent.  As a former Child Protective Service ( C.P.S.) worker, she could tell the committee child abuse was much more.  She said that definition did not include the night cries of children who continued to have nightmares 5 years after their parents decided to make an ashtray out of their small bodies, or the 5-year old who did not come to school because he bottom was too sore to sit in a seat, due to nightly visits to her bedroom by her father.  She felt hundreds of thousands of children were exposed to that kind of punishment each year, and she wished to underline punishment, while the perpetrators go virtually unpunished.  She believed the best way to  make the members of the committee aware of how unjust the system of punishment is for child abusers was to relate the story of a former student of hers. This was one of Ms. Bullock's last cases before leaving C.P.S.  She related that Brenda was a bright fourteen-year old who was very sad because she was being sexually abused by her natural father.  He was very physically abusive to her and often when she would come through the door from school he would attack her, raping her in the middle of the living room before she could even get to the bedroom.  Brenda told her mother but her mother refused to believe her, which was not unusual in those cases.  Brenda was finally referred to Child Protective Service by the mother of a friend.  She testified against her father who was found guilty and when he appeared for sentencing the judge asked how much vacation time he had.  Brenda's father said he had 6 weeks, at which time the judge sentenced him to 6 weeks of treatment in a private mental health facility.  Ms. Bullock stated Brenda came to her angry and crying asking why, if she was not guilty of anything, she was the one being punished.  She testified as she had been directed to and as a result was hated and abused by her mother who had never believed her from the beginning.  Ms. Bullock stated Brenda was removed from the home and from all the people and surroundings she knew because her father, the perpetrator, was allowed to remain in the home while he received treatment.  Brenda felt guilty.  She was ostracized by her parents and because no matter how confidential these things were and because she told and confided in a friend, people found out.  Ms. Bullock asked, "where is the justice."  She advocated stiffer penalties for child abusers along with mandatory treatment for not less than 6 months, and better enforcement of the mandatory reporting laws.  She also advocated training for those mandated reporters, such as educators and other health professionals who were not experienced in this area. This would provide them with more than cursory knowledge of what to look for and how to make child abuse reports.  Ms. Bullock was a social worker in her school, knowledgeable of what questions to ask because of her training, but she was in a special program which most social workers in schools are not.  She stated she had made it a habit to report to Child Protective Services if she had the slightest belief or feeling there was something happening with a child.  She was a firm believer in the old adage "it is better to be safe than sorry" and our children would be much safer if we were not so sorry.

 

Senator James asked if Ms. Bullock, having dealt with many of these cases, felt there was a perception, on the part of the people who commit these child abuse crimes that they were not going to be punished.

 

Ms. Bullock answered the ones with whom she had experience only got a slap on the wrist.  She said there had been very few given long prison terms, and cited some cases had been terrible.  For example, there were burned children, and one man attempted to have sex with an infant, someone who could not protect themself at all.  She felt some of these people literally got away with murder, and additionally, received much shorter prison terms than someone who killed an adult.

 

Ms. Barbero added in the course of treating approximately 350 juvenile and adult perpetrators she had never had a perpetrator come to her who was not required to come under the law, through the probation or parole officer and the court system, and had never had one stay in therapy.   She said without the leverage of the law there would not be protection in the community. 

 

Senator James asked if that was court ordered therapy, in lieu of a sentence.

 

Ms. Barbero replied it could be in lieu of a sentence, post-discharge from the prison system or jail.  The probation and parole officers had the latitude to order this but usually probation or parole is not long enough to make a difference.  She emphasized the perpetrators only came as long as ordered; not one second longer.

 

Ms. Bullock had never known anyone to seek treatment unless they were made to do so.

 

Ms. Barbero added part of the therapy telling the perpetrator to imagine him or herself back in prison, and as soon as they felt the urges, to close their eyes and do this exercise.  Sometimes that was the only effective treatment available.

 

Senator James asked affirmation that in treatment of child abusers they utilized the portent of going back to jail as part of the therapy.

 

Ms. Barbero considered the legal system an essential part of treatment.  She also worked in the Utah State Prison with sex offenders.

 

Senator James agreed that was an important point, and thanked Ms. Bullock and Ms. Barbero for their testimony.

 

Charles Collenberger, representing Families of Murder Victims, and a member of the Citizens Committee on Victims Rights, the National Organization of Victim Assistance and the National Victim Center testified in support of S.B. 192.  He stated in his work with families of murder victims he knew only too well the strength of one blow could mean death instead of a spanking.  He said he had worked with too many families who had lost a child.  When he first started working with the local rape crisis team he raged against the well-known stranger waiting in the shadows for the children.  He was awakened to the fact it was not the stranger our children had to fear, but the people they are supposed to trust, their own families and friends.  He felt crimes against children did not take many pages in the Justice Department's source book, as crimes against children were normally kept a dark secret.  If these crimes became known they were normally handled within the family, sometimes with the church or therapists stepping in.  The outcome of the secret was runaways and other kids doing anything to stay alive in the real world.  He stated of the runaways, 41 percent admitted they ran away to escape the emotional, sexual and physical conflict at home.  These were the few getting some help.  He stated most children trapped and abusive situations grow up feeling this is normal and in turn tend to abuse their own children.  He felt during the past few years an awakening of the fact of abused children had occurred.  Many people were finally speaking out.  Listening to them cries were heard for stopping the crimes against children.  Mr. Collenburger stated S.B. 192 would be a step in the right direction, but there should be a possibility left for the abusers to turn themselves in for help.  He said truly, some of the offenders do not know of any other way of life.

 

Steve Dahl, attending on behalf of the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Clark County Public Defender's Office testified in opposition to S.B. 192.  He stated, lest anyone think he was a heartless public defender, he was the father of five children and was just as concerned as anyone else regarding what could happen to them.  The concern his office had was not so much with the sentiment of the bill but with the manner it which it attempted to be enacted.  He stated it was modeled after the enhancements for crimes committed against persons 65 years of age or older, and he would suggest the first approach of the committee would be to look at that law, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 193.167 to see how that was handled.  That statute listed specific crimes for enhancements.  There had been two approaches in Nevada for victims 65 years age or older. One law was created and the crimes listed.  With children, laws had been dealt with individually.  He felt most of the things talked about in this meeting were already enhanced.  Sexual assault on a minor was already an enhancement; it doubled the penalty.  Lewdness with a minor was a specific crime which enhanced the penalty.  Selling drugs to a minor doubles the penalty.  Most of the crimes were already on the books and what would be created by S.B. 192 would be to double and possibly triple enhancements, creating great confusion in the statutory scheme.  It would be trading confusion with child abuse, for example, which by definition was committed on someone under 18 years of age.  Would this be doubled now?  He said child abuse was a crime, there were penalties for it, and it was on the books.  He felt as a statutory scheme the bill did not make sense, and was probably unconstitutional due to doubling something which was already a crime, as opposed to enhancing because of a status.  He said the laws were on the books, with the possible exception of kidnapping, which of course was a concern.  He suggested if the committee wanted to do something, to amend the kidnapping law and be specific.  He felt the way S.B. 192 read "any person who commits a crime in which the victim was a person under 18 years shall be" essentially doubled punishment. The way it read, if someone stole a car and the car happened to be 17 years old, he was going to get a double enhancement.  If a 19 year old had a fight with an 18 year old or a 17 year old and there was some kind of injury, that would result in double enhancement.  Even minors against minors would result in double enhancements if they were certified up as adults.  The minor who committed the crime would be facing a double enhancement.  He believed the sentiment was to protect children, but looking at the statutes, this is already there in all major crimes except possibly kidnapping, which he did not research and did not know if there was an enhancement for someone under 18.  He felt if the laws were not strict enough, the committee would be better off looking at that as opposed to enhancing a status crime.  Enhancements were not going to make detection work any better.  Child abuse or other crimes would not be found because of enhancement of the penalty.  The fiscal impact showed this would cost money for resources in prison for longer times and other things.  He felt the resources would be better used for detection and enforcement, finding those problems and doing something about them rather than spending the money to get possibly a 2 or 3 more years in prison.  He expressed the focus should be specific crimes such as sexual and physical abuse and other very serious crimes which should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to a broad statute which made anything conceivable against a minor a double penalty.  He did not believe the intent of the bill was to punish someone double for stealing a car from a teenager or stealing the purse of a teen-age girl as opposed to someone older. 

 

Senator James asked Mr. Dahl to look at section 2 of S.B. 192.  The first subsection was a statement that anyone who is already subject to an enhanced penalty pursuant to one of the other laws was not subject to a subsequent enhancement by virtue of S.B. 192. 

 

Mr. Dahl had looked at the NRS 193 sections and none of those applied to these circumstances.

 

Senator James asked if Mr. Dahl was saying additional sections needed to be included to avoid doubling of the sentence.

 

Mr. Dahl replied, for example, enhancement for sexual assault with a minor was within the sexual assault law itself which he believed was in the 200s in NRS.  Lewdness with a minor, for example, was a separate offense, as was selling drugs to a minor with an enhanced penalty.  Those enhancements did not cover all enhancements which already existed.  The specific crimes would have to be looked at, to find which within them contained enhanced penalties.

 

Senator James asked what the enhanced penalties were.

 

Mr. Dahl replied they doubled the penalty.  For example, sexual assault he believed was 5 years to life; sexual assault on a minor was 10 years to life. 

 

Senator James affirmed the penalty was doubled that would exist if that same crime was committed against an adult.

 

Mr. Dahl stated that was correct.  It is doubled and made more serious in drug sales, sexual assault, and others.  The various crime would have to be examined to see if enhancement was already in place for commission upon a minor.

 

Richard Wright, Member, National Attorneys for Criminal Justice, concurred with Steve Dahl's comments and would also agreed with the sentiments and feelings being expressed by everyone testifying.  His opinion was that constantly doubling potential penalties was only a feel-good approach not addressing the problem.  He stated we already had probably the most severe penalties in Nevada as any other state, and already incarcerated more of our citizens than any other state in a country that incarcerated more of its citizens than any other county in the world.  In the last session a gang bill was introduced to put enhancements doubling punishments to stop the gang problem, and  with the senior citizens to stop problems relating to them.  Mr. Wright had not seen, with all the doubling statutes coming up, a drop of the incidence of crime in those areas.  The penalties in Nevada were so severe to begin with, and he was not arguing whether they should or should not be, that for example the penalty for sale of 1/8th ounce of cocaine carries a life sentence.  Referring to Senator James' question regarding perception among criminal violators and child abusers that they would not be punished or sanctioned resulting in the crimes,  Mr. Wright stated in all defendants he had represented in all types of offenses throughout his career, the only ones he had ever seen who were really cognizant of potential penalties and weigh that option before they decide on a criminal act, was in the white collar area such as taxes and so forth.  He did not believe a child molester, or the person in the mall who was going to grab a child was thinking about whether he would get one life sentence or a double life sentence for the crime.  He had never seen those thought processes take place in those people.  As to kidnapping, he would even correct Mr. Dahl.  Kidnapping a minor was already taken into consideration in the kidnapping statute.  That was what made it first degree as opposed to second degree.  To take a minor away from a parent or a person was first degree kidnapping with the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  His problem was with seeing this type of bill, session after session, for more doubling statutes.  If S.B. 192 passes we would have double penalties for everyone except those 19-64 years old unless a gun is used, or the crime is committed on a school ground or on a school bus.  These enhancements had been added without knowledge requirements meaning the perpetrator did not have to know the victim was a minor or a senior citizen or that the crime was being committed within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.  The result is ridiculous.  For example if the crime of stealing a bicycle is committed, the penalty would be doubled, based on whether or not the owner was a minor under S.B. 192.  The supreme court had held that was the way it was with senior citizens.  Theoretically if the desired result was to protect senior citizens, the statute should say whoever commits a given offense against someone over 65 knowing that they are over 65 then double the punishment.  With no knowledge element, there was one statute for the doubling of penalties for any offense committed at a school, and so forth.  There was a statute for committing a crime within 1,000 feet of a video arcade, and another for committing a crime within 1,000 feet  of a school bus stop, and if the crime was committed from 1 hour before school starts to 1 hour after, even with no knowledge there was a bus stop.  If someone sold 1/8th ounce of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop at 4:00 p.m., they would face two life sentences.  But if that person waited and sold the cocaine 1 hour later they would face one life sentence.  He stated those were nonsensical distinctions, and the way he read S.B. 162 it was nonsensical due to no element of knowledge that a person would have to know and intend to commit the crime against the child. 

 

Senator James stated Mr. Dahl thought there were a lot of enhancements for crimes against children existing in the statute.  Mr. Wright pointed out a number of places where distinctions were made.  Senator James asked Mr. Wright if he did not see this was more fair since no distinctions were being made, nor were they talking about an existing law where you were not within a school area or within an hour of school.  These were not before the committee, and things Mr. Wright had said already existed and were nonsensical.  Senator James stated he did not agree nor disagree, but assuming that to be the point, this bill made a single classification of children and said if the victim was a child the penalty was enhanced.  It did not matter if a person was on a school bus, next to a school bus and so forth, the Senator said frankly did not know whether he felt that was such a great idea.  He believed if the child happened to be walking home from school and was 2,000 feet away from the school it was just a heinous and as deserving of the maximum penalty as if the child was leaving the schoolyard or whatever the temporal time was.  He asked was it not more fair to classify a group, and put the public on notice this was a classification perceived vulnerable, and the penalties would be enhanced for crimes against this group across-the-board.  This was what the bill sought to do.

 

Regarding the point made as to whether the person commits the crime had notice, and could be proven as part of the element of the crime, Senator James agreed that was something for consideration. 

 

Mr. Wright thought the committee should start by determining the penalties already in place for those offenses, for example first degree kidnapping.  At that time that offense, committed against a minor, carried a life penalty. 

 

Senator James advised he would ask Mr. Neilander to research that issue.  S.B. 192, which the Senator requested, was based upon research showing there was an across-the-board need.  The committee would find where that was directed.  Possibly it would be appropriate to make amendments to other areas of the criminal code, to consolidate the definition and enhancement in one place, thereby making it more fair, which would address some of the distinctions made by Mr. Wright. 

 

Mr. Wright felt if there were to be a great deterrent effect arising out of the bill, with double punishment for over 65  already in effect, and now this will apply to 18 and under, why not just double it in between as well, resulting in less crime in society.  He did not believe it followed, because it did not flow out of those double punishment bills in his opinion.  He believed it needed to be addressed when it was minor on minor committing crimes.  The way S.B. 192 was currently written, if two 17-year olds could get in a fight, one would be certified as an adult and would get double punishment because the other person was 17-years old.  He did not believe that was the intent of the bill. He stated the bill read in the first section, " . . .any person who commits a crime in which the victim is a person who is under the age of 18 . . .," and suggested that be changed, something to the effect, "any person who commits a crime with knowledge that the victim is under 18-years of age".  Also, he would not say any crime, as that included misdemeanors and so forth.  Several of the enhancement statutes were limited to felonies, and some said crime.  S.B. 192 included any crime, which would be a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, petty offense, and felony in Nevada.  The bill would literally double traffic offenses, except for the fact there would be no victim.  He believed, as with the senior citizens, specific statutes which are the thrust of the intent should be listed, if the minors were not already protected by existing laws.  He believed the national cry of the P.T.A. to get tough on crime against young offenders took place without analysis of the statutes of each state which already existed to see if that state was tough already.

 

Senator James stated regarding deterrents and Mr. Wright's statement that he had ever represented a criminal defendant where a sentence had come into the defendant's mind at the commission of the crime, Senator James believed the debate could go on forever and went all the way back to Bentham and Kant and their debates over the goals of punishment and the effectiveness thereof.  He asked if there was not a basic assumption, at least made in Nevada and other states, that penalties did have a deterrent effect and that effect raises commensurately with the severity of the penalty.

 

Mr. Wright agreed that had been an assumption and was afraid there would come a time when Nevada would realize as more prisons were built, that possibly that assumption was wrong.  He believed Nevada incarcerated more than any other state; or Nevada was first and currently the District of Columbia might have taken Nevada's place.  Yet with this rate of incarceration, Nevada still had a high crime rate.  If the theory of deterrence was correct, the state should have one of the lowest crime rates.

 

Deborah Owen, Public Defender, Clark County Public Defender's Office presented oral testimony.  She advised a member of her office received the following figures from  Joe Evers, Clark County Detention Center:  currently there were 1,630 people incarcerated at the detention center, 100 of whom were in holding, meaning there was no place in the jail for them.  She felt S.B. 192, if passed, would have a definite fiscal impact upon Clark County as well as the rest of the state.  First, someone facing an enhanced penalty was less likely to be released on his or her own recognizance, and much less likely to get bail.  One might say they should not get bail, and possibly that was true, but was not the issue she was trying to make.  In any event, that person would be incarcerated.  This would add to more people being incarcerated in a detention center already overcrowded.  That would invite more federal litigation because people were filing claims because the detention center was overcrowded.  That might not be something everyone agreed with, but the claims were being filed and had to be defended in federal court, which again costs money.  She kept hearing we had to be tough on crime.  Nevada did have very strict penalties. Child abuse and neglect, if treated as a felony, was punishable by up to 20 years in the state prison.  The district court had the discretion, by looking at the facts of the case, to decide how to sentence someone.  If that judge felt severe punishment was warranted that person could be punished by up to 20 years.  It was not as if these people were walking, although that might happen in some instances.  Not only would S.B. 192 have a fiscal impact in Clark County, but the treatment proposed also costs money.  There were cutbacks across the board occurring at that time.  This situation would have such an effect that new prisons, jails and so forth would have to be built to accommodate the results.

 

Senator James stated he was hearing two different things.  From Mr. Dahl's, Mr. Wright's and Ms. Owen's testimony, he was hearing the state did not need this bill because we already have enough enhanced penalties which were strict enough.  Yet there would be a tremendous fiscal impact which we should be concerned about, as well as federal court litigation.  He asked, if we really were not enhancing that much nor adding that much not already in place as far as protection for child victims, where is the fiscal impact going to come from.  He had a fiscal note prepared which essentially stated the state and localities would incur costs of incarceration in the prison system in an unspecified amount.  Also, he thought it an interesting policy question if we believe this was an appropriate way to try to protect a group in need of protection that we say we had done it for senior citizens and the police and gang victims, but were not going to do it for 3 and 4-year olds who were kidnapped or molested or abused.  If that is the policy statement being made on the basis of an unknown fiscal impact, that really concerned him.

 

Ms. Owen believed Mr. Wright and Mr. Dahl, when speaking of the crimes already enhanced, were speaking of child abuse, sexual assault with a minor, and first degree kidnapping concerning a minor.  The other thing this statute would deal with Mr. Dahl brought up.  If an 18 year old stole a wallet with some degree of force but no weapon, amounting to a robbery, that 18-year old would be facing 15 years.  If the victim was under 18, the perpetrator would be facing 30 years.  That was something which would not be covered; no weapon was used, it was not sexual assault, nor child abuse.  But it would still fit under this statute. You would be enhancing something and in that way, say you had other sexual assault defendants already incarcerated, this was adding to that situation.  Mr. Dahl spoke to the other statutes where it is already enhanced.

 

Senator James asked affirmation Ms. Owen was speaking of the ones Mr. Dahl identified as, in his view were the important ones to enhance.

 

Ms. Owen agreed, and also the ones the speakers there talked about. 

 

In response to Ms. Owen's question, Senator James repeated his final question regarding whether the policy put forward several times with other groups was to stop here.

 

Ms. Owen understood and wished, in defending the people she does, people would decide what the penalty would be.  Many of the defendants would not commit the crime, but the reality was they do not.  She said a policy already had a policy protecting these people.  Possibly we need to work within the system and deal with that rather than creating new things.

 

Senator James advised Mr. Wright he would be happy to entertain suggestions for amendments along the lines of Mr. Wright's discussion.  This bill would be heard again and he would appreciate Mr. Wright's input.  He wanted anything passed to be as constitutional as possible, which would not be challenged, defeating its purpose.

 

The hearing was closed on S.B. 192.

 

Senator James advised he had wanted to take up Assembly Bill (A.B.) 79 at this time, as it dealt particularly with crimes against children, and the way in which the testimony was handled in court.  He knew a lot of people were present for S.B. 178, having identified themselves to the chair.  Therefore, S.B. 178 would be heard at this time, and the committee would hear A.B. 79 later in the meeting if time permitted, or in the alternative, when the committee was back in Carson City.

 

The hearing was opened on S.B. 178.

 

SENATE BILL 178:  Prohibits certain actions by                    court and makes voidable provisions of settlement agreement which conceal information regarding civil action against law enforcement agency.  (BDR 3-523)

 

Senator Neal, representing Senate District 4, the prime introducer of S.B. 178 presented oral testimony.  He stated

the essence of this bill was to make public tortious conduct leading to some sort of court action.  The reason he was opposing such a measure was in the past there had been many lawsuits and settlements of the same, particularly in Clark County, where the citizen either did not know the cost of the suits or what was involved in terms of what was needed to settle the suits.  S.B. 178 was designed to get at that type of action and prohibit the court from entering into a judgment where tortious action of a law enforcement agency is involved.  He believed if an agency such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department can go forward year after year and put before the people bonding issues to build stations, more jails, to hire more policemen, and on the other side the public should be made aware as to what those actions are actually costing them.  This would put into prospective for the public the type of work that particular agency or others of that sort within the state were performing.  The state of North Carolina had such a law on its books.  It had a statute  prohibiting a government agency and its officials or employees from entering into confidential agreements to settle or resolve suits.  Nevada did not have such a law.  Nereby, the state of Oregon had put such a law on the books in 1991. Nevada had protected our law enforcement officials from various things in our statutes.  The statute currently on the books governing information which is sent to the repository was such a statute which governed release of certain information.  Senator Neal decided it was time the public be made aware of what these lawsuits are actually costing the state.  In 1992 approximately $1,300,000 was expended in lawsuits, their settlements, and attorney fees.  The attorney fees were very high, over $800,000 for that year.   He had requested information to obtain a picture from 3 or 4 years back, but was only able to obtain information dealing with 1992.  He was told, however, in 1991 lawsuits were settled for a total of $1,700,000.  Of those funds, $1,200.00 went to attorneys to settle these suits.  If the public is going to pay the salary and the bonding issues coming before them, they need to have this information in order to judge whether or not that police force was doing what it is supposed to do in terms of protecting the rights of the citizens.  Therefore, S.B. 178 had been presented to the committee for consideration to put some type of check on this particular problem. 

 

Senator Neal requested leave of the chairman and the committee to go through the bill to expalin what it contains.  Section 1 deals with the amendatory language setting forth the title which the bill will amend, Title 3 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).  Section 2 defines the meaning of law enforcement agency as used in section 2 to 6 inclusively.  Section 3 has an exception that if there is no specific statutory proviso, the court shall not enter into an order or judgment which has the effect of limiting public access to records, or if of a civil nature, relating to the tortious conduct by a law enforcement agency.  This also includes agreement and settlement that might be involved in the same action.  In subsection 2, public access is not allowed if the information is privileged or irrelevant to the action at hand.  Section 4 of the bill deals with agreements by private parties to civil suits and the court may void those agreements if it finds public access relates to tortious conduct of a law enforcement agency; and secondly that the information is relevant to the tortious action and is not privileged.  Section 5 of the bill uses the phrase "any substantially effective person."  This phrase allows the exception of the news media justiciable issue to bring a lawsuit.  This particular language prevents the frivolous action by any and every person.  The bill itself would give primacy to the newspapers or the news media to bring these actions.  Section 6 allows the court to hear hearings in camera on any motion filed pursuant to section 5.  If anyone under section 5 feels he or she has a justiciable issue to bring an action to the court, under section 6, would allow this action to be discussed in camera and make any ruling upon it there.  All persons of record must be notified of any person attempting to limit access and to show the information is irrelevant to the action or it is privileged.  This is the rule which would be set out by this bill to allow the court to determine the basis for any individual to bring an action to open up these particular records.  Sections 5 and 6 also places the burden upon those individuals who seek to limit access to public records.  It is a good bill.  It could have been more strict in terms of language, but the only thing the proponents are seeking is to be sure the public is made aware when tortious conduct is committed by law enforcement agencies and that tortious conduct, if it results in a lawsuit, should be made public and the public should know how much was paid to settle that suit. 

 

Senator Titus noted S.B. 178 had a lot in common with the "sunshine bill" from the 1991 legislative session, which attempted to bring public access to records in cases involving a public hazard.  She asked if S.B. 178 would not do the same thing for cases involving the police.

 

Senator Neal agreed it would, in a very limited way.  S.B. 178 is restricted to opening of records in the an action of tortious conduct committed by an officer or law enforcement agency.  It would not allow any and every individual to bring a lawsuit; only those who are affected by the action.  The press has the written authority within the bill to bring any action if they feel they have been denied the information.

 

Senator Titus asserted the principal behind S.B. 178 and the "Sunshine Bill" would be the same.

 

Senator Neal agreed.

 

Senator James asked regarding the reference to North Carolina enacting a similar law which Senator Neal described as preventing the law enforcement agency from entering into agreements which would sequester information about civil action, if this was encompassed within section 4 of Senator Neal's copy of S.B. 178.  The bill which the committee had did not contain this.  He asked if Senator Neal considered drafting a bill which would address the problem by just prohibiting the law enforcement agency or a person in that agency to entering such an agreement, as opposed to the bill in the committee's hands, which directs the court not to issue these orders unless there are certain circumstances.

 

Senator Neal stated they thought it would be better the way in which the language is set out in his copy of the bill.  As he indicated, S.B. 178 places the burden upon the individual who wants to keep the record private.  He or she must go forward and convince the court as to the reason.  This has set a standard by which the court can review and make a judgment as to whether or not these records should be open.  The other thing attempted with the bill was to sidestep the Nevada Supreme Court decision involving the Bradshaw case, settled recently, which talked about banishing the interest of the individuals.  In drafting the bill a new path was set in terms of trying to reach this particular issue of holding this information secret as to how much was paid out for the lawsuits, and to make the information available to the public based upon the rules and parameters set out in S.B. 178. If the information is not private in nature and is relevant to the tortious conduct, they can let that information go public.

 

Senator James stated he recognized the objective.  The reason for his question was because whenever he sees the words "a court shall not enter an order" in a bill, it sets off separation of powers in his mind, and the question arises whether the legislature can tell the courts what kind of orders they can and cannot enter.  It appeared North Carolina approached the issue a different way, staying away from the judiciary and making it unlawful for the law enforcement agency to enter into that type of agreement.  Senator James' concern was separation of powers between the executive and legislature, but in the case of North Carolina, it seemed less problematic. 

 

Senator Neal stated the legislature has the authority, as long as they go forward and set the standard by which the court is to make its judgment.  S.B. 178 is saying the court should not enter this judgment unless certain types of things are found.  This can be done.  Without qualifying this with the language in the bill, there would be a problem with separation of powers.

 

Senator James asked regarding subsection 3 of section 3, Senator Neal had indicated the provisions of this section do not modify the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP).  Rule 26, NRCP, allows the court to enter a protective order. Senator James believed under the eight things those protective orders can cover, one is to sequester records brought before the court.  He believed Senator Neal ought to look at that, as he was not sure if this language is in the bill, whether he would be accomplishing what he wishes.  NRCP does allow the court to enter just such an order which Senator Neal was trying to restrict.

 

Senator Neal stated he had the same question when he received the bill draft and asked the legal advisor what it meant when they put the modification in the bill, which involves the NRCP.  He was told it would not have an affect upon the language set out in the bill, but advised he would ask his legal advisor again to be certain.

 

Senator Neal read from a memorandum received from the Legislative Counsel Bureau's research division regarding North Carolina's statute.   "The state of North Carolina has a statute that prohibits government agencies, officials or employees from entering into confidential settlements to resolve suits in connection with their official duties or responsibilities."

 

Senator James reaffirmed this appeared a different way to approach the issue with less possibility for constitutional challenges. 

 

Senator Shaffer asked regarding the Oregon statute mentioned if Senator Neal had copies of that statute, or if he was familiar with it.

 

Senator Neal stated Oregon passed that bill in 1991.  He did not have the statute, but did have the citation.  The statute prohibits confidential settlement by government agencies and employees unless a court authorizes such a settlement to protect interests of a private individual.  The law also requires a full and complete disclosure to the court of the terms of the settlement.  Senator Neal did locate a copy but advised it was a faxed copy which was not clear.  He advised he would obtain a clear copy and supply it to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, after the adjournment.

 

Charlotte Fuller, Executive Secretary, National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (NAARPR) testified in support of S.B. 178.  On behalf of the alliance, Ms. Fuller thanked Senator Neal and the members of the judiciary committees for allowing her the opportunity to speak on behalf of S.B. 178.  It was clear from recent events in Las Vegas as well as from protracted history of the past 11 years that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) serving Las Vegas had a problem with the discipline and attitudes of its patrol personnel.  On multiple occasions, citizens had been injured or killed by Metro police officers when there was little or no justification for the actions on the part of the officers.  This type of activity, while it may not lead to indictments in a criminal justice system which is blatantly biased in favor of the police officers, has lead to multiple civil suits in which the Metro has had to fold its tents and sneak silently away in the night.  According to her organization's best information, in 1991 Metro paid out in excess of $500,000 in claims settled out of court, and paid an additional $1.2 million to one law firm which represented the majority of their cases.  The total of these payments is close to $1.7 million which the taxpayers of Clark County and indirectly the state of Nevada have had to pay out for the abuse and excesses of Metro.  She stated her belief it is time for those activities to come to a halt; and time to bring Metro back under the control of the people who pay its bills and who the department is chartered to serve.  She further stated it is vitally important the people obtain legislation requiring Metro to disclose the amount of money and the circumstances under which a case is settled.  She believed it was clear that once the taxpayers of Clark County understand what is going on with Metro in terms of forced payment of monies due to their misdeeds, the taxpayers will demand those misdeeds terminate.  She also believed to deny this information to the citizens of Clark County and the state of Nevada is at best, shortsighted and at worst, conspiratorial, when an organization is clearly out of control.  The argument that reviewing the settlements Metro is forced to make will somehow endanger the rights of the plaintiffs is an attempt to circumvent the issue.  Even cases settled under seal can be included in the total amounts paid out by the organization.  The argument that Metro advances regarding this issue is clearly an attempt to throw up as many blockades of passage of this legislation as they possibly can, with no regard as to logic of the arguments being advanced.  There can be no justification for super-secret, irrational, unprofessional and dangerous organizational activities to continue to go unchecked.  The new buzz-word, as coined by this group, "gang-related activity" is a term which the group should know well.  The most dangerous gang which has come out of this issue is the Metropolitan Police Department.  It is time to make that gang responsible for its misdeeds. 

 

Senator James thanked Ms. Fuller for her testimony, and affirmed there were no questions from the committee.

 

Phil Halsey testified in favor of S.B. 178.  He stated he is neither a lobbyist, nor is he running for office, but is a concerned citizen.  He advised he had tried to reach the mayor's office and the sheriff's office to determine where to go to be heard in regard to the matter occurring a couple of weeks before where a man was murdered by the police department.  He does not believe it is right, regardless of a person's color, race or creed.  Mr. Halsey could not believe a man who was surrounded by police officers and a dog could not be subdued without killing him, and that something needs to be done.  If neither the sheriff's office or the mayor's office will do nothing, he asked this committee to do something.  He agreed no one wants people to be shooting at our police department when they are out of patrol, yet this things keep going by and people are expected to keep taking it, and somewhere it has to stop.  He believed there were 52 or 53 other instances wherein the police department had been upheld in shootings that had taken place.  He could not believe those shootings were all justified.  He asked something be done to straighten out this problem and take control. Apparently the powers in control presently cannot or will not do anything.

 

Senator James thanked Mr. Halsey for his testimony.

 

Jesse D. Scott, Pastor, Second Christian Church and the President of the Las Vegas branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), had some serious concerns regarding whether or not our government can continue in Clark County.  He believed our government is one of the people, by the people and for the people.  By state statute, the legislature has been mandated to listen to the people, and are the people's lobbyists, the ones to listen and be concerned.  The concern and oversight of the legislature goes beyond the concern and oversight of any group of individuals in the state.  Therefore the people expect the legislature to look at the concerns expressed today.  Mr. Scott believed there would be people testifying that every time someone says something they are bashing the police, and do not want to be governed by law and order.  He believed S.B. 178  would cover only a small portion of the misconduct which needs attention in Clark County.  People will say police work is dangerous, and a man or woman leaves their home in the morning not knowing if they will get back.  This is true, but it comes with the territory.  The officers knew that before they chose that profession.  The people will never have a society where people will have mutual regard and respect for one another until citizens respect police officers and police officers respect the citizens.  At the current time, everyone is taking matters in their own hands and doing what they want to do.  If somehow what is being said and what the police officers are doing happens to be different or contrary, one to the other, he asked the truth be known and not have anything hidden.  He further stated this country has survived 200 years of the jury system where people sit in judgment over the right or wrong of the acts of another citizen, and the country has done very well.  If the government is to remain of the people and by the people, the legislature is expected to look at all issues brought forth and legislated accordingly.  The court interprets the law, but the law is made in the legislature, and is made within the framework which is good and fair for the general welfare of the people.  He stated he would not be at this hearing were it not for some serious concerns that things have gotten completely out of hand and no matter what the press or the police department says, a citizen should be able to stand up and say he thinks this is wrong.  This government was born out of the circumstance that the people stood up and said they thought the government was wrong.  His organization believes protest is a thing people should do.  Anarchy is not needed, nor do others need to take things out of the people's hands.  What is needed is for people to stand up and say they want a government and regulations fair to all sides.  He and the NAACP will continue to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong, no matter how badly it might characterize.  In his lifetime he has seen things get out of hand, such as desperation in the form of Duvalar in Haiti and Hitler in Europe.  Those men exercised more and more power and finally it was evident they had no respect nor regard for anyone.  The people of this country do not need this form of government.  He asked the legislature act now not only for the people of his generation but for the children he ministers to every day, to give them hope in their government, so they will not have to take government into their own hands, feeling things will never get any better. 

 

Senator James thanked Reverend Scott for his testimony, and affirmed there were no questions from the committee. 

 

Senator James asked if there was anyone present to testify regarding Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.9), other than Senator Neal, the presenter of the resolution.  There being none, Senator James asked if Senator Neal would have objection to hearing the resolution upon the committee's return to Carson City, as the hearing had run so long and there were still many people to testify.  Senator Neal had no objection.  Senator James further advised the committee would be meeting again on Saturday, February 20, 1993, beginning at 9:30 a.m., to consider S.J.R. 5 to amend the constitution to adopt an appointment system for selection of judges.

 

Chris Christoff, member, West Side Tax Payers, testified in favor of S.B. 178.  He stated he lived in the West district, an area claimed by Metro to be one of the worst in Las Vegas.  He believed there was a valid reason for S.B. 178, and thanked Senator Neal for assisting the requesters by presenting the bill to the legislature.  As a taxpayer, Mr. Christoff is also concerned.  He stated there had been much dialogue with Metro and the sheriff over the past 4 or 5 years on the openness and candidness toward the community in general.  Several representatives of Metro made these statements but never really sat down with members of the community with a full dialogue of openness and understanding.  Metro and Metro's lobbyists say constantly in the overall response to the legislature Metro has open doors.  However, when taxpayers call during working hours to request information pertaining to budget costs or certain things regarding behavior or management of Metro they are looked upon as problem children.  As the Reverend Jesse [Jackson] said, as well as Senator Neal, Russia, Germany and now the U.S.A. are getting into a situation where the people should not know what is happening within their communities or public agencies.  When the problem exists, so does resentment.  Metro will be asking the taxpayers for a large amount of money in 1994; $50 to $60 million.  Yet the public in the past 6 months had asked many questions pertaining to money. They would like to know where that money is going.  The people want to know what services the money requested will pay for, and how will it be designated.  They want to know if there will be designations to secure schools, neighborhoods, and other metropolitan areas secured by Metro.  Metro repeatedly states they have a plan.  People need to know on a daily or weekly basis where and how things are going to happen.  The city council and county commissioners state they do not know when or what will happen.  Mr. Christoff stated he is a consumer investigator who listens to many different sides.  He does not draw conclusions nor point fingers, but simply compiles information and provides it to certain interested representatives.  He felt a strongly defensive attitude with the general public, in Metro's case in management, exists in the way they conduct themselves in matters of money.  They seem to hold a certain secrecy through the district attorney's office on matters similar to S.B. 178, and look down on the taxpayers as if to say it is none of their business.  Mr. Moran, the Sheriff, has made it clear over the years he has an open-door policy.  Yet that door has been closed since 1987.  When asked why he does not have the open-door policy of information, Mr. Moran states he does not have to answer to the community.  His staff also uses this remark.  Mr. Christoff further pointed out that Captain Randy Oakes is involved with the airport, but on that day was attending the hearing as a lobbyist.  Nine people on the Metro staff work full-time as lobbyists.  Mr. Christoff had never seen these people in the field in the sense of combatting crime, because he does not follow them, but statistics and information show there are too many people lobbying, representing Metro on secrecy, when they should be working diligently with the legislature and the justice department to bring people together to gain the truth, whether it be money given on settlements or whatever the case may be.  There is no review board which can say a person should not be entitled to a fair trial, receive a fair amount of money for damage or hardship encountered, but there is a back-door attitude with the district attorney and the sheriff's office regarding settling these problems which the officers perform in the field and claim is their duty.  The case ends up in court and the judge says the person has no chance and should settle out of court.  A review board, broad-minded in the sense of problems such as those Senator Neal mentioned, is needed, so the legislature and the public may scrutinize the behavior of this problem.  If this initial responsibility is not taken, people see that we have a bunch of lobbyists wheeling and dealing for the interests of compounding money and secrecy to the taxpayers.  Economically we are living in hard times; everyone must tighten their belt.  The $55 million figure quoted is what Metro is asking, and they will not provide a break-down of how it is to be used. 

 

Senator James thanked Mr. Christoff and confirmed there were no questions from the committee.

 

Carolyn White, a concerned citizen, testified in support of S.B. 178.  She stated she had lived in Nevada for close to 40 years and her children, now grown adults were raised here.  She was prompted to testify not only because she supports S.B. 178 but because of the killing of Gregory Warre and the verdict which came down.  It was Ms. White's opinion and that of others she knew that there had been too many of such verdicts over the past 14 years.  She felt if the people do not speak to the legislature, no one will listen.  She has attempted to talk to the sheriff's and the mayor's office and has been told the best thing to do is write to them and they put the letter on file. No one will listen.  She and others are concerned about their children; if something is not done now, their children's children will be in the same predicament when they grow up.  Metro's laws need to be changed or the taxpayers' money needs not to be used for Metro's faults.  Private citizens pay for their own faults, and they should also.  She believed taxpayers' money especially should not be used for cases such as the recent one where 5 police officers and a dog could not subdue an individual. 

 

Senator James thanked Ms. White, and confirmed there were no questions from the committee.

 

Reverend Chester Richardson testified in support of S.B. 178.  He stated he is a resident of Las Vegas, formerly from Reno, and contrary to popular belief he was not run out of town; the police department was kind enough to put him on the bus.  He is the chairman of Sheriff John Moran's Police Community Relations Committee, a committee made up of citizens throughout the city of Las Vegas who meet with the sheriff to discuss issues of concern and address policies, practices and procedures of the department.  The committee meets once a month, but in the case of emergency, can call a meeting within 48 hours.  Reverend Richardson also serves as chairman as the Las Vegas Weed and Seed Steering Committee with the U.S. Attorney.  That committee addresses President Bush's initiative to look at the rising crime rate in our communities, effectively weeding out the criminal element and seeding in social programs to take their place.  Reverend Richardson stated what was unique about his working on these committees was when he initially came to Las Vegas it was to address the growing tension between the minority community and Metro. To his surprise, in the process of getting involved, he and his group were able to make some things happen.  He was in favor of S.B. 178, with the possible exception of 1 or 2 points which need to be refined or worked out, but he felt the spirit of the bill is good practice for any government agency, and should not be limited to law enforcement.  He had spoken with the undersheriff who initially agreed with the spirit of the bill.  He believed in opposition, the committee would hear concerns regarding the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) report and perhaps keeping informant names confidential, but those things should not negate the impact this bill will have in restoring confidence in our law enforcement agencies.  He believed the committee would find this bill is indicative of an overall problem which a lot of citizens have.  He does not believe open disclosure to many citizens is a bad policy.  He asked if there is opposition to S.B. 178 the committee identify the specifics of that opposition and address those as opposed to killing, ignoring or tabling the entire bill.  He believed this will go a long way to improving community relations. 

 

Senator James thanked Reverend Richardson and confirmed there were no questions from the committee.

 

Captain Randy Oakes of Metro, Sheriff John Moran, Ted Farrell, Risk Manager for Metro, and Walter Cannon, Counsel for Metro, Clark County and North Las Vegas provided oral testimony in opposition to S.B. 178.  Captain Oakes stated Mr. Cannon would provide much of the testimony, inasmuch as this is not a criminal law matter but has to do with civil litigation. 

 

Mr. Cannon stated his understanding of S.B. 178 is it contains two principal provisions.  The first prohibits a confidentiality agreement struck as a result of civil tortious litigation.  The second provision talks in terms of record disclosures in conjunction with civil lawsuits.  With regard to the confidentiality agreement, Mr. Cannon did not believe this kind of bill was necessary.  Nevada has a statute, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 139, the public documents law, which Metro has been following since it became self-insured in 1986 requiring the same thing.  Pursuant to NRS 139, every settlement Metro had made for the past 7 years had been noticed on an agenda item, gone before the fiscal affairs committee, with not only the background but the amount of money requested.  Metro acts through its fiscal affairs committee, which is an open hearing.  The committee is comprised of two county commissioners, two city councilmen and one independent third party.  That party approves or disproves the settlement entered into by Metro.  The committee's agenda is public, the press frequently attends, the cases which are going to be talked about and requested for approval or settlement are listed, along with the amounts of money involved.  Therefore, Metro has been doing exactly what S.B. 178 requests since at least 1986.  This has been done pursuant to an opinion either from the attorney general's office or from the district attorney's office that advises Metro they must do this in order to comply with the open meeting and public document laws. 

 

Senator James asked if the discussion in that committee was substantive regarding the terms of settlement.

 

Mr. Cannon confirmed the discussion was substantive.

 

Senator James wondered if that does goes to what the proponents of the bill are talking about, which is access to the information engendered through the discovery process in a civil action.  If one provision of a settlement agreement is that the discovery remain sequestered, the existing committee review would not address the issue.

 

Mr. Cannon stated he had represented Metro, the North Las Vegas Police Department and the County of Clark in civil litigation for periods of time ranging up to 17 years, and had never recommended, approved, drafted or consented to a settlement agreement which would restrict all the records in a federal case or a state civil case.  To his knowledge, that has never been the practice.  Basically, the only time he had seen confidentiality agreements used were in conjunction with other cases, not public entity cases.  Under the public entity law as interpreted by the civil division, public entities are prohibited from entering such agreements.  As a consequence, he knew Metro had not done anything which had not been put up on a public agenda, did not believe the county had either. 

 

With regard to the second provision of S.B. 178, Mr. Cannon stated he shared Senator James' concern raised earlier when the bill's sponsor said that section 3, number 3 did not modify  NRCP, which it does.  The courts, be they state or federal, had power to enter orders prohibiting the disclosure of information, and that power is derived through NRCP 26.  This bill if enacted would, in Mr. Cannon's opinion,  attempt to modify that provision.  Regarding other practical considerations, he did not believe this is similar to the Sunshine Bill.  S.B. 178 goes much further, and would tell 16 district court judges they do not know what they are doing, are abusing their power, in entering into sealing records.  Under the law passed long ago, those judges were given the power in any cases they deem fit within the parameters of the statute to enter an order for either the defendant, the public at large, or interested parties.  If S.B. 178 is passed, the legislature will be effectively telling those judges they do not know what they are doing at least as relates to public entities and tortious conduct.  He also pointed out that approximately 95 percent of all civil rights actions, which are the actions frequently brought against the police department, are brought in federal district court, not in Nevada state court.  He was not sure this law, if passed, would be binding upon a federal district court judge or magistrate.  If that is the intent, most of that litigation is in federal district court.  The other problem he had with the records portion of the bill is relevance in discovery is different than relevance in trial.  In discovery, anything reasonably calculated to the discovery of physical evidence is relevant, whereas in trial, that is not the case.  Mr. Cannon cited a hypothetical situation to illustrate the problem which would occur under those circumstances.  If the Clark County Detention Center is sued as a result of having an inmate in a holding cell get beaten, and there were 30 other people in the cell at that time.  A case is file against Metro and  Metro defends.  The first request for production of documents counsel gets is a list of the names of all people in that holding cell. These people potentially could be witnesses.  If Metro, without asking for a protective order to protect those people's names until such time as it can be determined they do not have relevant information, is forced to disclose their names, there are potentially 30 people who have not been convicted of a crime who could be written up as being in the Clark County Detention Center.  He does not believe anyone wants that type of scenario to happen.  His suggestion was the spirit of the bill as told by its author is give the public the right to know what Metro is doing and how it is defending its lawsuit.  That mechanism exists, and is called the Agenda of the Fiscal Affairs Committee Meeting, which transpires on the last Friday of every month.  The documentation is available at that meeting and has been available for nearly 7 years.  He believed S.B. 178 was duplicitous of that meeting, and the bill was not needed.  With regard to provisions of the bill requiring additional notifications, you are telling a federal magistrate he has to tell the press when he will enter an order.  Mr. Cannon was not against this per se; he does not believe it is appropriate in the first instance, but what it will do to the cost of litigation concerned him.  Each time additional parties are added, additional briefs filed, and argument occurs regarding what is and is not relevant, more and more lawyers are involved, and he believes common thinking today is the more lawyers, the more expensive something is, which is probably true.  He did not believe it would be appropriate to enact this portion of the legislation either. 

 

Senator James agreed with Mr. Cannon's concern regarding federal courts.  He believed a federal court must abide by state substantive law, but must not abide by anything but its own procedural law.  Therefore, he would like staff to research whether the legislature can say what a court can order, and additionally the question as between a state court and federal court.  The issue with the state court judges is whether there is interference with the judicial functions.

 

Mr. Cannon believed this bill, if enacted would cross over the separation of powers.

 

Senator James stated he did not know if this was the case, but did want to raise the issue.  Referring to Mr. Cannon's statement when gathering evidence in discovery, it is a broader sweep than relevance.  He asked if this bill, the way it is drafted, did not deal with that; it did not allow the viewing of anything not relevant.

 

Mr. Cannon asked what standard of relevance Senator James was referring to-- "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

 

Senator James answered that is not "relevant" evidence.

 

Mr. Cannon replied it was relevance under the discovery standard.

 

Senator James believed that was only a semantic distinction.  The law says you can have only relevant information, a term well understood in the law as being only relevant information; not information reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence, which is the separate discovery standard.

 

Mr. Cannon stated this issue comes up in discovery, which is where this information will be requested.  In discovery, the discovery commissioner will first be asking if the evidence is relevant within the parameters of NRCP 26.  The standard of relevance within NRCP 26 is reasonably calculated to lead; not relevance as we know it in the courtroom.  He further stated there is a big difference between the two and that is the context in which the 30 pre-trial detainees could have their names released even though they may subsequently be determined not to be relevant.  Mr. Cannon stated he would not bring up the IAB question addressed by the last proponent of the bill; he was sure from prior hearings everyone was aware of that issue.  However, he pointed out he did think the issue of whether the legislature can tell a federal magistrate what to do is very real and secondly, in federal district court where 85 percent of these lawsuits are filed, every pleading filed requires a copy  pursuant to federal court directive.  The copy is put in what is called the mail drop slot for the newspaper.  Very few documents in federal district court have ever been sealed, and those typically relate to IAB records which might have gone back 35 years and had to do with uniform violations as opposed to anything else.  Other than that, the federal district court judges take a very broad based approach on relevancy and there are very few orders.  He believed statistically he could provide the information on the number of protective orders sealing the kinds of records at issue here, and the number would probably be non-existent. 

 

Senator James disagreed on the issue of relevance.  S.B. 178 says " . . .information that is relevant to the action and not privileged" is the information that can be sought.  It is not discoverable or any Rule 26 standard, only relevant.  He believed that was something which could be addressed.  Referring to the part of the bill limiting the type of agreement an agency could enter into, Senator James advised the bill sought to say that an agreement that seeks to sequester information relevant to the action is one which would be voidable.  He asserted Mr. Cannon indicated all of this is flushed out in the Fiscal Affairs Committee, and Senator James accepted that as true, but asked what is flushed out in that committee; the information gathered which was relevant to the action or just the provisions of a settlement agreement, which can be two very different things.  A settlement agreement states whereas the parties have decided they are going to settle, this will be done and that will be paid, and the claim will be dismissed.  That is really all the information gathered from a settlement agreement.

 

Mr. Cannon did not want to mis-speak, and hoped he had not misled the committee.  He advised the agenda of the Fiscal Affairs Committee included the amount of the settlement, a basic description of the case, and why Metro thinks the case should be settled.  This information comes before the committee members, what they are briefed on and what their package of information states.  All depositions, requests for production of documents and answers to interrogatories are not, in the general course, presented to that committee.  If the committee wants that information, counsel provides it.  However, counsel does not, as a matter of practice, and Mr. Cannon did not believe any federal judge nor probably a discovery commissioner or state court judge would seal an entire file.  That has been public record since day one.  Nevada has a different statute than does North Carolina, and in Oregon and in fact have a totally different statutory scheme.  The legislature has recognized for a long time with its open meeting law and public records doctrines that public entities cannot do that and have not been doing that.

 

Senator James asked Mr. Cannon to affirm if information regarding an action against the police department, under existing law and the practice of Metro in settling those cases,

is available already.

 

Mr. Cannon stated that is a public document which had been on the fiscal affairs agenda, and looking at those agendas will show what cases came up and when they were heard.

 

Senator James asked about the information concerning the claimed tort.

 

Mr. Cannon replied there is a general description in the agenda.

 

Senator James asked about whatever was generated in the litigation.

 

Mr. Cannon replied that is obtainable through the court file; it is a public document.

 

Senator James asked what would happen in the case of an agreement withdrawing that information from the record or to sequester it.

 

Mr. Cannon reaffirmed in the cases in which he has represented Metro, the county and the City of North Las Vegas, there had never been a case where an attempt had been made to have a court seal an entire court file with regard to a lawsuit.  They have never done this in a state court system.  To his knowledge, this had never happened, and he believed a federal judge would never allow it to happen.

 

Senator James asked if there was selective sealing of records.

 

Mr. Cannon replied sealing of records had occurred.  He gave an example which had been made public.  The last record he knew was sealed by a federal court magistrate was when he had reached a tentative settlement agreement on a portion of the Bush case.  He went to the federal magistrate, put on the record what

they hoped the Fiscal Affairs Committee would approve.  The federal magistrate said given the fact the agreement was there he would seal the record until such time as the Fiscal Affairs Committee had met and ruled on the propriety of the agreement.  The Fiscal Affairs Committee was then given all of the information; it was recommended it settle under those terms and conditions.  Mr. Cannon testified at that Fiscal Affairs Committee meeting as to what the terms and conditions were, the press was there, and that afternoon it was in every newspaper Mr. Cannon saw.  That is typically the sealing procedure.  He mentioned it was not uncommon to have a plaintiff's lawyer request the documents be sealed.  In one case a woman had been raped, and claimed Metro had not properly watched out for the particular location.  A settlement was reached in that case and that woman did not want the settlement made known so she would get notoriety due to the fact she was raped.  This type of request occurs.  Mr. Cannon further stated the way S.B. 178 is worded it indicates every time Metro settles a case it wants to hide under a blanket.  He did not believe that was true, either in practice or in theory.

 

Senator Neal asked if Metro would be willing to have the Fiscal Affairs Committee issue, each fiscal year, a compilation of all suits filed which were settled, and the costs of those suits. 

 

Mr. Cannon believed that could be brought to the Fiscal Affairs Committee and they could answer.  This is a public document, anyone could go there and ask them.  Mr. Cannon reiterated the identity of the members of the committee.  He further advised if Senator Neal wished, he could contact the committee and asked this question be put on the agenda.  He could not speak for them.

 

Captain Oakes advised if Senator Neal's request is in fact a request to the committee he would be happy to take it back to his staff and have a response for the Senate Committee on Judiciary at the earliest possible time.

 

Senator James stated if Captain Oakes would be willing to do this the committee would be glad to have the information.  If this was something Senator Neal was suggesting could be solved with an existing agency charged with these matters, and not necessitate legislation, it should be pursued.

 

The hearing was closed on S.B. 178.

 

      * * * * *

 

The hearing was opened on A.B. 79.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 79:                   Restricts use of videotaped deposition at criminal trial.  (BDR 14-516)

 

 

Senator James advised A.B. 79 amends the law dealing with the use of videotaped depositions in lieu of the deponent's testimony at trial, specifically to deal with the situation of children who are witnesses at trial.

 

Ben Graham of the Nevada District Attorneys Association and John Redlein, Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Nevada Attorney General's Office, presented oral testimony.  Mr. Graham referred to testimony offered in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary in Carson City regarding A.B. 79, and that Mr. Redlein was before the Senate Committee on Judiciary to represent the attorney general's agency. 

 

Mr. Redlein stated he was contacted by the chief of his criminal division in Carson City and asked to make an appearance on this bill.  As the submission with the bill draft indicates there have been some United States Supreme Court decisions which cast some question upon the current statutory scheme and the capability to have it sustain a critical review if it is implemented exactly as the statute provides.  Some new standards regarding the use of testimony which insulates a charged person from the witness suggests the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is going to require a different standard be utilized, which is set forth in the new bill.  He did not know whether other hearings would be scheduled on the bill, but in the limited time he had to review it, he was concerned about the existing portion remaining with the minimal changes.  He referred to NRS 174.227.  His reaction which will require more study and conferencing with the attorney general's northern staff suggested to him possibly that entire section ought to be deleted.  He did not know why that continued to exist when the italicized new section 1 to be added to Chapter 174 was written as it was.  To point out the pertinent portions to the committee, Mr. Redlein referred to the new italicized language of A.B. 79 in section 1 under a requiring a finding that use of the testimony is necessary to protect the welfare of the victim, and in b, a specific finding that the presence of the accused in the same room at the time of the testimony is being given would inflict trauma that was more than minimal upon the victim.  He advised those were the deficiencies found by the supreme court when they looked at conduct of the insulated testimony given in a fashion formerly permitted in Nevada.  The judge made a finding it would be better for the child to testify in the other room.  The finding needs to be a bit more positive than that.  The way Mr. Redlein reviews these cases and the language in section 1 of A.B. 79, seems to fit the bill perfectly, but he believed more study would be necessary in regard to the modification of NRS 174.227.

 

Mr. Graham agreed Mr. Redlein had very well stated there is some confusion due to recent decisions which had clouded the procedures, and rather than making it more difficult to videotape the young victims it is the intent of this legislation to establish a procedure whereby it can actually happen to protect the victim when necessary, while yet guarding the rights of the accused.  There was considerably testimony in the assembly, and no opposition from the defense bar, and basically he was urging the committee to take a favorable reflection of their goal at that time and continue the discussion to go over the matter Mr. Redlein brought up, and also to possibly to hear further testimony in Carson City. 

 

Senator James stated he would be happy to comply with that request.  He agreed with Mr. Redlein's concern over whether NRS 227 needed to be modified or eliminated, given the nature of the change.  He did not understand when first reading the bill whether the bill sought to make it more difficult for the child to testify via video deposition.  He would think the legislation would seek to make it more available in the judicial system given the real trauma children would have to go through to repeat something which has happened to them when they were victims of crime.  Senator James asked for affirmation that the United States Supreme Court made a decision that a conviction based upon testimony not offered in person might not stand because it did not have these type of findings, and the intent is to make these findings mandatory, such that they will hold up on appeal. 

 

Mr. Redlein affirmed that was correct.

 

Senator James asked the title of the decisions.

 

Mr. Redlein advised the best citations to look at were Maryland v. Craig, 110 Sup. Ct. 3157, 1990 and the one which to him is rather troubling, Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1988.  In the Coy case, quite literally when a prosecutor asked the Iowa trial court to arrange a screen in the courtroom with the jury, judge, the defendant, and the defense attorney all present in the same room so that the child would not have to look into the face of the defendant, with the room darkened on one side of screen and the witness lit so the witness could not see through the screen. But because of the lighting on the witness the defendant was able to see the little child's face quite well.  To go back to the thinking, which is practically ancient in the law, that people are less inclined to lie when they can see the person's face about whom they are talking.  The only way to get around this would be to get a finding that it would be genuinely hurtful to the witness and the finding is based on substantive facts.  That is the type of language presently contained in the two subsections under one which he referenced necessary to protect the victim, and a specific finding that having them in the same room together is going to inflict trauma which is more than minimal upon the victim.  The United States Supreme Court says that is what is needed to get away from this, and is particularly pointed out in Maryland v. Craig, the most recent decision.  Mr. Redlein got onto these defending in federal court on writs of habeas corpus, district attorney convictions where they utilize the current technique, and probably are going to fail.

 

Mr. Graham advised he would get a copy of the cases to Mr. Neilander. 

 

Senator James advised when A.B. 79 is heard in Carson City, the committee would look at this. 

 

The hearing was closed on A.B. 79.

 

The hearing was reopened on S.B. 178, at the request of Mr. Redlein and Mr. Graham.  Mr. Redlein had wanted to speak in opposition to  S.B. 178.  He had spoken to Major Hammock, the commander of the southern Nevada unit of the highway patrol and Nick Lombardo, an agent from the Nevada division of investigations.   They had been directed to appear specifically at Director Weller's request to oppose the bill or at least express concern.  Their concern related to the narcotics-type of activity or investigations in which those agencies get involved.  There have been a couple of high-profile narcotics seizures effected by the Nevada Highway Patrol in recent months, and the Nevada Division of Investigations has as its principal business, narcotics investigations.  Mr. Redlein proposed a scenario predictable in a narcotics arrest; if things go bad and there is a shooting or a beating or whatever occasions civil litigation afterward.  It is very often the case these agencies get involved in the investigation if not the actual arrest as a result of a confidential informant.  If, in discovery over civil litigation, a request was made to give up the name of the confidential informant leading the agencies to the scene of the arrest, and all of the file indicating the sort of information given by that confidential informant, Mr. Redlein believed the way they would currently handle it would be to ask the court for some sort of protective order, review the material in camera and release only the part necessary.  Both Major Hammock and Agent Lombardo expressed concern to Mr. Redlein that sources would dry up, people could get hurt, citizens (not professional informants) would decline to cooperate or give information if they knew they could not be protected.  S.B. 178 addresses not just the judgments, the concern over which he can understand, but the intermediate orders which would be issued by a judge.  If the judge is incapable of issuing a sealing order, those agencies would have trouble doing their business.  He also pointed out he had reviewed many files coming from confidential informants and intelligence units because of litigation his office was involved in, and the one thing which impresses him the most is how full of gossip they are.  If a rumor is heard, it goes in the file, not the kind of thing normally found in police report where there are observations, measurements and statements repeated.  That gossip is the kind of thing police agencies feel confident they can put in those files, as they guard them closely.  If that information cannot any longer be guarded closely, as might be the case if S.B. 178, the nature of intelligence work will change.

 

Senator James again closed the hearing on S.B. 178, and adjourned the meeting at 4:28 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                              RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                      

                              Sherry Nesbitt

                              Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                 

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                           

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Judiciary

February 19, 1993

Page 1