The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:01 a.m., on Thursday, February 18, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Mr. Greg Brower

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Sharon Angle

Ms. Barbara Buckley

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and said there was a quorum. Ms. Angle and Ms. Buckley were excused. He asked that Mr. Nolan be marked present if he arrived in a timely manner.

Chairman Anderson said it was the intention of the chair to accept a motion of amend and do pass as amended on A.B. 38.

Chairman Anderson asked that the roll be left open in case Mr. Nolan arrived and wished to vote on the issue.

Assemblyman Nolan arrived at 8:30 a.m. and voted in the affirmative.

At that time Carlos C. Concha, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation introduced R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief Administrative Services, Division of Parole and Probation; John L. Compston, Deputy Chief of Operations; Division of Parole and Probation; and Kathy Thompson, Management Analyst, Division of Parole and Probation. During his presentation he addressed the mission, purpose, programs, and major goals of the division. (Exhibit C, D, and E)

The mission of Division of Parole and Probation was to protect and serve the public by effectively supervising offenders, programming offenders, registration of sex offenders, and providing sentencing recommendations to the court. Regarding their purpose, one of their responsibilities was to provide sentence recommendations to District Courts. Officers conducted pre-sentence investigations (PSI) on offenders convicted of felonies or gross misdemeanors and made sentencing recommendations to the courts.

The PSI report contents included:

• Offender information and arrest history

• Prior probation or parole history

• Instant offense information

• Victim impact and restitution information

• Social history

• Health & mental health history

• Substance abuse history

• Education

• Residential patterns

• Employment patterns

• Evaluation overview

• The Division’s recommendation

Other programs administered by the Division of Parole and Probation included:

• Dangerous Offender Notification System

• Revenue Officers

• Psychosexual Evaluations

• Interstate Compact

• Pre-release

• Warrants

• Improve effectiveness of supervision

• Maintain acceptable vacancy rate to keep caseloads at manageable sizes

• Increase use of electronic monitoring

• Maximize accountability and efficiency through improved sworn staff training
• Administer program of registration, community notification and tracking of sex offenders
• Maintain quality of information and sentencing recommendations to courts through cross training
• Complete and fully deploy automation project
• Reorganize pre-release unit to improve efficiency
• Staff unit with nonsworn professionals
• Centralize all pre-release activities into one cohesive unit
• Improve efficiency of inmate release after grant of parole

Chairman Anderson said one of the concerns he had regarding Mr. Concha’s department was obviously everyone with whom they dealt was a "bad guy" who had committed a crime and had been found guilty.

Mr. Anderson noted employees of the Division of Parole and Probation had complained for several years about not having the equipment to carry out the full responsibility of the job in terms of their security and being able to communicate with other law enforcement agencies while in the field. He questioned whether the agents were making the contacts they said they were and asked if the agents reported as to their whereabouts. He also questioned if they had solved their problems in providing backup in emergency situations.

Mr. Concha said they had received an appropriation for a new radio system. They hoped to purchase a number of radios in April allowing each officer in the field to have a radio and be able to communicate with dispatch. Parole and probation officers had old radios with problems, but they were trying to remedy the situation. Mr. Concha said they had received much more equipment than they have ever had in the past.

Chairman Anderson asked if he was referring to cast off equipment from the Nevada Highway Patrol. Mr. Concha said it was a one shot appropriation from the 69^th Legislative Session.

At that time John Drew, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) responded. The 69^th Legislative Session appropriated funds to allow the department to convert from a low band to a high band system. They hoped to purchase the equipment before the fiscal year ended. The department would also request additional funding during the 1999 session to complete the infrastructure for the radio system. All of the public safety divisions within the department would receive new equipment.

Chairman Anderson inquired once the equipment was in place would they be able to communicate with law enforcement agencies to obtain assistance for agents in the field without going through four dispatchers.

Mr. Drew pointed out the highway patrol would be primary dispatchers for all of the divisions. The high band frequency would allow for communication with the dispatch of every rural county sheriff’s office or police department within the state.

Mr. Anderson said basically those officers were still at the same level of exposure and risk as they were 2 years ago because their department was waiting to get a set of radio frequencies. Mr. Drew said that was correct. It took a long time to design a system of that magnitude.

Mr. Anderson said it seemed to him they had worked on the system for some time. He felt very distressed about the problem and felt the agents who did the job on a day to day basis should be protected by the state since they were put in harm’s way.

Mr. Anderson questioned Mr. Concha if the additional demands due to the growth of his department had caused increased burdens on the officers. Mr. Concha said they budgeted according to PSIs required per month, per year, and staffed for the average as required. They had requested a 70 to 1 ratio in the proposed budget instead of their current 75 to 1.

Mr. Anderson asked how the ratio regarding physical contact was determined in the different programs, sex offenders versus the "305 Program" which was based on a previous assembly bill.

Mr. Concha described the classification processes of maximum, medium, and minimum supervision was a 75 to 1 ratio. Regarding resident confinement and intensive supervision the ratio was 30 to 1. He said the 30 to 1 ratio required more contacts. In 1995/96 the S.C.R. 52 Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Raggio found in comparison to other states the State of Nevada was right in the middle. He felt with the visibility of the parole and probation officers they could deter criminal activity. If criminal activity did occur they would be there to correct it. Mr. Anderson said he was a member of the S.C.R. 52 Subcommittee formed because of the tragic death of Officer Johnson.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Concha to supply statistics so he would be aware what other states did relative to load expectations of officers who were actually in the field.

Mr. Anderson asked about staffing and if the hiring freeze would cause a greater impact on the department given the greater need of the supervisory programs. Mr. Concha said the hiring freeze had not affected their line staff and they had been allowed to fill vacancies.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if any statistics were available as to what was the average time a person would be in prison before entering the "305 Program."

Mr. Concha said he did not have those statistics. He did know once the offender was sentenced to prison they had to complete a Phase 1 Treatment Program within the system then they could apply for Phase 2 which was the Committee Supervision Electronic Monitoring Program. Application to the program could be made 12 months prior to their parole eligibility date.

Not every "305 Program" offender was placed on parole, some were denied; it was up to the parole board. He could not answer the questions as to how long they stayed on the program but said they usually stayed between 3 to 4 months.

Mr. Carpenter wondered if the "305 Program" was available in most areas of the state. Mr. Concha said there were very few areas in the state where it was not available. The program might not be available in Mina, but it was in Elko, Ely, and Tonopah. They had 90 offenders on the "305 Program" statewide.

Mr. Anderson referred to Exhibit D, page 2, a registration form for sex offenders and read number 1 of the form which stated:

He asked for clarification relative to whether a person was a sex offender, was there a requirement to report to the local sheriff when they arrived in his jurisdiction within a certain time period whether they were from the Nevada system or another state. Mr. Concha said that was correct, a convicted person from another state or the State of Nevada had to register with local law enforcement. Mr. Anderson felt there were still problems getting those people coming from out of state to comply with that requirement.

Mr. Anderson continued to refer to Exhibit D and the list of 11 locations where offenders or felons could report. He posed the question as to whether those locations were placed geographically or based upon population density. He also wondered if sufficient manpower was available in those districts. Mr. Concha said the 69^th Legislative Session appropriated funding for additional staff to do sex offender registration in Tonopah, Pahrump, Elko, and Ely.

Mr. Anderson asked if the workload of an officer at any of the remote locations was sufficient to cover those great distances. He questioned having to drive a 100 miles to get to the ranch and it was 100 miles back to the next paved road and felt it was difficult to figure from where backup would come.

Mr. Concha said distance had always been a problem in the rural areas, living in Ely and having to supervise in Eureka and the surrounding communities created a hardship on the officer and his caseload. Having 75 offenders in Ely and 50 outside of Ely did create a quandary. The greatest impact occurred in Clark County where the majority of the sex offenders were registered.

Chairman Anderson said although Nevada was the seventh largest geographical state in the United States it was one of the most urbanized with over 80 to 90 percent of the population living in metropolitan areas. He was still concerned about those officers and if they had backup.

Mr. Concha said Parole and Probation had three officers in Winnemucca, and two officers in Ely, and, at least two officers in the other offices throughout the state.

Mr. Anderson asked if there was a correlation between office locations and prison locations. Mr. Concha said no, there were prison camps in almost every area; Carlin, Winnemucca, and Ely. With the growth in the Pahrump area they added three officers. Mesquite had one officer living there and working out of a DMV office. As the population had grown officers were placed in those area.

Assemblyman Nolan commended the Division of Parole and Probation for doing such a good job. He was discouraged to hear some of the issues the committee examined each session regarding funding and manpower never seemed settled. He had questions regarding the Interstate Compact Program and was curious to know if Nevada was a net importer or exporter of our parolees.

Mr. Concha said Nevada belonged to the Interstate Compact Program nationwide and had continued to export more parolees than they imported.

Mr. Nolan said when the state imported a parolee they were required to register with the Division of Parole and Probation. Previously the exporting agency was not making initial contacts and in some cases Nevada ended up with those people in the state unsupervised, and unmonitored. He questioned if that was still happening.

Mr. Concha said in the sex offender population because of the Jacob Wetterling Act and federal mandates imposed, all states were registering sex offenders. California had registered over 50,000 sex offenders. If California had a sex offender who resided in Sacramento and moved to Reno the department would receive notification and they would in turn send a letter to the person informing him to register. Other jurisdictions may overlook someone who was not a sex offender and Nevada would not be notified. Once the offender came in contact with law enforcement he would be notified to register and contact the Division of Parole and Probation. There were still problems with Interstate Compact Program nationwide.

Mr. Nolan said he had attended a Western State Conference of Legislators and the administrators of the compact had done a presentation. He said it turned into a real firestorm over some of the exact issues previously stated by Mr. Concha. He was curious about the medication or therapy programs and how they monitored compliance with those programs.

Mr. Concha said they had a classification process of all offenders. Whether it was maximum, medium, minimum, or intensive they were required to keep in contact with the offenders treatment program and verify attendance. It was difficult to follow if there was a high caseload. Sex offender treatment programs were maintained through private programs. There were not many sex therapists registered or available, and it was very difficult to find programs especially in the rural areas.

Mr. Concha said previous legislation required sexual evaluations be done on all offenders prior to sentencing. It took approximately 9 months to find someone to apply for the job as a psychologist. One of the problems was they could make more money in private practice than working for the state. There were not many professionals willing to treat sex offenders.

Assemblywoman Leslie stated juvenile probation had a lot of trouble hiring bilingual officers, Spanish speaking specifically, and queried how many officers they had and was it sufficient for their caseload.

Mr. Concha replied in Washoe County it was especially difficult to recruit bilingual officers, it was easier in the south. They had even advertised in California, New Mexico and Arizona for bilingual officers.

Ms. Leslie asked if they had an incentive plan for people to learn Spanish or was there a higher pay rate for bilingual people.

Mr. Concha said they paid plus 5 percent for a bilingual incentive, but it was not enough. A bilingual individual with a degree who would qualify for the position could go somewhere else and make a lot more money than they could with the State of Nevada.

Ms. Leslie asked for clarification between the "305" and "317" programs and how many people were participating.

Mr. Concha said "305" was a driving under the influence (DUI) program for those individuals treated and sentenced as a result of three DUIs or a DUI which resulted in injury or death. The statute allowed them to be released to the community as inmates prior to granting parole. They also supervised approximately 90 offenders per month. The "317 Program" was an expanded program for residence confinement which included those offenders with first and second time felonies for nonviolent offenses such as check writing and burglary, so they could be released from prison as an inmate and supervised under residential confinement.

Ms. Leslie said she had seen national studies which showed up to 80 percent of the people in prison had some kind of a substance problem. She wondered if there was a waiting list for the "305 Program" because there were only 90 people involved, and were they planning to expand the program or was it sufficient.

Mr. Concha said the division accepted whatever inmates the prison gave them. It depended on the inmate, when he went into prison, and how many DUIs had occurred. If a DUI offender refused to go to a Phase I Treatment Program for 30 days, they would definitely not go to Phase II.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if juvenile probation was a part of Mr. Concha’s operation. Mr. Concha said juvenile probation was administered through the counties. The state had a juvenile parole division that administered to juveniles on parole but was separate from adult parole and probation.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked when juvenile parole would come into affect. Mr. Concha said if a juvenile probationer was sentenced to the institute at Elko or Caliente, once released they were deemed a juvenile parole offender and ordered to report to the state. Prior to sentencing if they had been adjudicated as an adult, at age 17 they would then come into their system.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if his organization interfaced with the juvenile probation officers rather than the parole officers. Mr. Concha said their only contact with juvenile probation was to obtain information regarding behavior of the juvenile while under supervision of the juvenile authorities prior to sentencing the youth as an adult offender.

Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Concha and staff for their presentation.

At that time Dennis Colling, Chief of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety referred to a letter requesting A.B. 84 be withdrawn Exhibit F.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 84 and requested a motion to indefinitely postpone.

Chairman Anderson introduced Donald L. Denison, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners. Mr. Denison had also been a member, former Chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners, Director of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and was once again serving as the Chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners after a long distinguished career in law enforcement in Clark County.

Mr. Denison reported the State Board of Parole had opened doors to law enforcement, district attorneys, victim advocates, and victims. Those groups who were in dead opposition to the board a short 3 years ago were now their strongest supporters. He said they welcomed and needed those groups and remained in constant contact with them. Regarding A.B. 80 it was brought to the board’s attention they were dealing with parolees who committed new crimes in different ways depending in which state the crime had been committed. He referred to three scenarios describing the affects of the current system, how paroles were treated under law in his written testimony attached as Exhibit G.

Chairman Anderson questioned scenario 3 and whether the cost involved for returning those people back to Nevada would become incumbent upon the state.

Mr. Denison said the bill would actually save the state money. He gave two examples:

1. A parolee who was in the State of Florida presently serving 25 years to life and owed the State of Nevada 1 to 2 years. He was presently serving 25 years to life was a situation where they wanted him off the books. They did not want to bring him back to the State of Nevada when he was 65 to 70 years old, put him in prison for 2 years and have the citizens of Nevada paying his medical bills.

2. There was another inmate in the State of California who was under a death sentence. They would have to look at depth to see what the sentence was, if he was going to stay there, and would they really want him back in Nevada.

Mr. Denison said an amendment would be required and introduced David Smith, Management Analyst, Board of Parole Commissioners. Mr. Smith referred to section 1, subsection 2, lines 8 and 9 of the bill which said "if the prisoner described in subsection 1 waives his right to a parole revocation hearing in this state, the board may:" The change would read the "the board may:"

Chairman Anderson questioned if the waiver should remain. Mr. Denison said the board had contacted Thomas Patton, Assistant Attorney General, and Joe Ward Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and they agreed with the position of the board that the waiver was no longer needed.

Mr. Carpenter requested for purpose of clarity that section 1, subsection 2, line 14 to 17 of the bill be explained.

Mr. Denison explained the section in question saying if the board wanted a parolee who had additional time to serve and whom they felt was a bad offender, they would be able to revoke parole at the conclusion of the present sentence they were serving in another state.

He said it would have the same affect of Nevada’s law that required them to serve their first sentence and consecutively serve their second sentence, it was backwards but had the same exact affect. In Nevada if a person was on parole for a crime and committed a new crime they would have to complete the first sentence before starting to serve time on the second crime.

There was still confusion on Mr. Carpenter’s part so Mr. Denison further explained if the person was in another state, their revocation would start the day their sentence in the other state expired and they would be returned to Nevada.

Chairman Anderson tried to clarify by explaining he felt they were trying to expand the ability to the Board of Parole Commissioners to make those choices relative to the prison population that was outside the state. They would be able to examine the inmate and decide what was in the best interest of the State of Nevada:

1. To allow the time to elapse based upon what was happening in the other state.

2. Not to allow the time elapsed in another state and bring the parolee back to Nevada.

Assemblywoman McClain felt the same as Mr. Carpenter regarding the way the bill had been worded "parole is revoked to be time served on their term of imprisonment in this state" was confusing and questioned if that meant it was being revoked so that only what time had been served counted.

Mr. Denison said it would work either way. It would allow them to continue to serve their sentence or freeze the sentence and then it would start at a later date.

Ms. McClain asked if it depended on the date.

Mr. Denison gave an example of the person the state would want to bring back.

They would be a sex offender who had served 13 to 14 years of a 40 year sentence and committed another sex offense in another state. A person who was a repeat sex offender and dangerous should not be allowed on the streets. If the other state ever got tired of holding that person then Nevada should bring them back and hold them.

The second example Mr. Denison gave was someone who wrote a bad check. They had 3 months left on their parole and were arrested for robbery in Arkansas. Nevada would be better off letting them stay in Arkansas, serve their time in Arkansas, and walk the streets in Arkansas than pay for their transportation back then house and feed them for 3 months and turn them loose on "our streets".

Assemblyman Manendo asked Mr. Denison to explain what their present options were.

Mr. Denison said what they were trying to do was to give the board the same options with inmates who were out-of-state that the board had with inmates in state. There were always three options:

1. The person could be continued on parole.

2. The person could be revoked for a short time.

3. Or they could be revoked for a long time.

After considerable discussion the committee decided it was a drafting question.

Assemblyman Claborn gave a scenario regarding a world famous boxer, and questioned if in some states it was mandatory once a person was on parole and convicted of a second crime, would they have to spend the rest of the time in prison.

Mr. Dennison said if that was true he was not aware of it. He said some states had done away with parole and gone to definite or determinate sentencing. In Nevada a life sentence meant life parole. In some states if a person was on a life sentence and was paroled and behaved well for 3 to 5 years the sentence disappeared. In Nevada, if a person walked the streets for 30 years and then made a mistake while on a life parole, they would come back for a revocation hearing. Their parole may not be revoked, but they were required to return for a hearing. Every state was different.

Mr. Claborn said the boxer to which he had referred had been let out of prison and had another incident and was returned to another state which said if he was convicted on that second offense he would have to spend the rest of the time remaining on his sentence.

Mr. Denison asked if Mr. Claborn had been referring to Mike Tyson. He said Mr. Tyson’s original sentence for the sexual situation was short enough that to revoke him at all would be to revoke him for the remainder of his sentence. Nevada’s limitation on revocation was 3 years, then they would have a hearing and the board would be able to deny for an additional 3 years. Three years was the maximum deniable period on sentences received prior to truth and sentencing for sentences received after July 1, 1995, the denial period would be 5 years.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A. B. 80 and said he would take a motion to amend and do pass. The amendment would be that the bill drafter examine lines 8 and 9 of the bill in section 1 at subsection 2 to shorten the introductory phrase to the abbreviated statement "the board may." He requested clarification to the concerns of Mr. Carpenter as far as language cleanup in the subsections below subsection (a) 1 and 2 and (b) 1 and 2.

Ms. Lang said she would work with Mr. Carpenter to provide the needed changes.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblyman Brower.

At that time Chairman Anderson opened the hearing of A. B. 79.

R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said the Division of Parole and Probation supervised both probationers and parolees. Under Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) 176A.850 the division was empowered to request discharges from probation either honorable or dishonorable from the district courts. Unfortunately, the same language was not contained in the statute pertaining to the parolees the division supervised.

He said A. B. 79 was basically a housekeeping bill asking the legislature to give the division the authority to discharge parolees both honorably and dishonorably from parole as they saw fit in conjunction with the Board of Parole Commissioners.

Chairman Anderson asked if those were people for which the state had failed to provide in earlier legislation and what type of felonies Mr. Lutzow was talking about.

Mr. Lutzow said they were talking about anyone who had been convicted of a felony and sentenced to the State of Nevada Prison, subsequently paroled and were coming to the termination of community supervision or parole. The past legislation did not address that particular population.

Chairman Anderson asked if it was an advantage to the state or a matter of making sure the books were closed.

Mr. Lutzow felt individuals who complied with all the terms and conditions of their parole should be differentiated in some way compared with those who just made it through their parole short of a violation. There would be some benefit to those individuals who received an honorable discharge if they requested restitution of their civil rights and pardons.

Assemblywoman Leslie questioned the idea behind the legislation and whether it would help in future employment for those who had successfully completed their parole. Mr. Lutzow said he had not thought about that, but it would not be a detriment to the individual.

Mr. Anderson asked if the honorable discharge would become part of the record in the central repository. Mr. Lutzow said they would be part of the record of the Division of Parole and Probation and would not be in the central repository.

Assemblyman Brower said he was not convinced the legislation was necessary and asked for elaboration.

Mr. Lutzow said it could be used as motivation to successfully complete parole because there was very little incentive, and it would be a positive aspect for the offender.

Assemblywoman Koivisto said if the notice of honorable discharge did not go to the central repository what was the point of the dishonorable discharge. Mr. Lutzow said the Division of Parole and Probation kept their own records and felt an employer would not be able to retrieve anything from the central repository. It would allow something positive to occur in the offender’s life and should an employer inquire the division would tell them how they had progressed under their period of supervision.

Carlos Concha said when preparing the presentencing report they would be able to research and identify if the individual had an honorable or dishonorable discharge. Dishonorable discharge would tell them the person did not do well under their supervision so why would they want to recommend probation or give a recommendation to the courts on that individual. He said law enforcement agencies looked at what type of discharge was provided to the offender.

Chairman Anderson asked if that would be an extension of the military concept. Mr. Concha said that was correct.

Ms. Koivisto asked why they needed the legislation why not just use a rubber stamp.

Mr. Concha said they probably could do that, but they already had legislation regarding what they could do with probationers. They were looking for language to clarify parole and probation’s position and to be able to determine what could be done with the other part of their population. It would be difficult for them to issue a discharge without some type of guideline or authority.

Assemblyman Gustavson wanted clarification regarding the language already in statute for probation. He was concerned about the part on restitution and whether it was included in the existing language. Mr. Lutzow said yes regarding the restitution question.

Mr. Gustavson wanted to make sure nothing would be changed in that area. He did not feel an honorable discharge should be granted if they had not completed the order of the court to make restitution. Mr. Lutzow said unless a financial hardship could be demonstrated to the Division of Parole and Probation they would receive a dishonorable discharge.

Mr. Anderson asked if section 3, lines 32 to 35 of the bill meant an automatic restoration of an individuals civil rights once they had completed an honorable discharge from the system which would include the civil rights, including serving on a jury and the right to vote.

Mr. Concha said civil rights were not automatically restored to probationers or paroles. A separate petition process would have to occur.

Mr. Brower inquired with the new language a paroled prisoner could not petition the board for restoration of his civil rights unless his discharge was honorable. Mr. Concha said that was correct.

Ms. Ohrenschall pondered if there was a mechanism in place to reestablish the civil rights of someone who had lost their rights in another state but were living in Nevada.

Mr. Lutzow said the State of Nevada was not empowered to establish those civil rights if they were convicted in another jurisdiction. They would be referred back to the sentencing court or paroling authority in whatever state.

Mr. Lutzow said the Parole Board reestablished their civil rights and sent them to the sentencing court.

Assemblyman Collins referred to page 2, lines 3, 4, and 5 of the bill and asked if once the person had completed their parole and had a debt remaining would that automatically go through the district judge or district attorney’s office to a garnishment of their wages.

Mr. Lutzow replied the process was not automatic. They would inform the victim the person was no long under the supervision of the Division of Parole and Probation and advise them to seek civil restitution if that was their desire.

Mr. Collins asked for clarification regarding victim restitution in one category, and the other category with which he was concerned was the court fines or assessments. If they had served out their time but had not completed payment on the fine it was his understanding that a probation or parole could not be completed until the fine was paid.

Mr. Lutzow said Mr. Collins was correct there were two separate issues. There was the traditional victim and then court imposed fines and fees. If fines and fees were imposed at the time of sentencing and declared a part of the special condition of their parole by the parole board then the division attempted to collect those. He wanted the committee to understand parole was a set term and the days were always moving forward. Once the offender got to the end of the parole and they had not completed paying the fees they were still subject to collection. Those individuals could be brought back and held in contempt by the district courts. The offenders would be advised they needed to make arrangements for payment with the county clerk.

John C. Morrow, Washoe County Public Defenders Office, testified on behalf of the provision of the bill referring to dishonorable discharge of parole. The dishonorable discharge would provide an additional option, shorten many of the proceedings, remove from the system those people who did not need to be in it and make a cleaner operation.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked how attractive would the honorable discharge be to the type of people with whom his office worked.

Mr. Morrow said it would be very attractive and a great incentive to perform because ultimately they would be able to be discharged from the disabilities. Regarding the dishonorable discharge a person could never be discharged of the statutory disabilities.

Mr. Brower said until he heard Mr. Morrow’s testimony he never saw the bill as providing an alternative to the incarceration of a parolee for violations of parole. It seemed to him the bill required or provided for an honorable or dishonorable determination only upon the conclusion of the sentence.

Mr. Morrow said the situation did occur where people had not yet completed a small portion of their parole, a retake order had been issued and they had been returned to the prison awaiting a revocation hearing. At the time of the revocation hearing they may only have a few months to go, or they may not be people that really needed to be in prison. If the board gave them an honorable discharge they could be done. The punitive aspect of a dishonorable discharge was the person’s civil rights could not be restored.

Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter testified in support of the restitution aspect of the bill page 2, lines 3 to 5. Their victims had trouble collecting restitution once the offender had completed parole. She liked the idea of the victims having the ability of civil liability on the books and felt it would definitely be a help to their victims.

Chairman Anderson brought the bill back to committee and closed the hearing on A.B. 79.

The bill was assigned to Mr. Brower.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Novella Watson-Lee,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: