The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:08 a.m. on Tuesday, March 2, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A was the Agenda. Exhibit B was 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

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Buckley testified for A.B. 71. She was asked to sponsor A.B. 71 by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The Committee on Judiciary handled issues dealing with traditional crimes. Identity fraud had become more of a problem because it was a newer crime. Instead of a criminal using a gun, the criminal used a victim’s social security number to impersonate and destroy the victim’s credit report. Criminals had gained access to the worldwide web to retrieve information not secured. The average person had worked over a period of time to establish a good credit rating only to have it ruined in a couple of days by a criminal.

Having been the Director of Clark County Legal Services, Assemblywoman Buckley had seen a rapid increase in victims of identity fraud over the past 2 years. From her experience, it was extremely challenging to correct and repair the good credit of an identity fraud victim. If a criminal had stolen a person’s identity, the crime would be a Class B felony under A.B. 71. Identity fraud was the same felony as robbery and theft. She had researched the web on what other states had done pertaining to identity fraud. She recommended the banning of social security numbers on court records. She felt everyone should receive one free credit report each year to check on their credit.

Assemblywoman Buckley reviewed her bill. First, a victim had the right to sue a criminal to recover attorney’s fees, actual costs, and punitive damages. Second, the statute of limitations would be extended to 2 years from the time the victim learned of the fraud. Third, creditors could not take a change of address on a new credit application. Fourth, consumers would be allowed to put a freeze on their credit report to prevent it from being made available without the consumer authorizing its release. Assemblywoman Buckley wanted the bill to balance the needs of business and protect the consumer. (Exhibit D)

Chairman Anderson stated the crime was raised to the standard of a Class B felony. He asked did Assemblywoman Buckley place the crime as a Class B felony.

Assemblywoman Buckley responded the reasoning was the dollar amount, $2,500. Most identity fraud crimes were more than $2,500. Victims had lost property and their good name.

Chairman Anderson questioned page 2, line 38, of the bill concerning restitution.

Assemblywoman Buckley requested the committee turn to page 2, line 38, which pertained to the criminal side of the law. Her amendment pertained to the civil side of the law.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the 2 year time-limit was long enough.

Assemblywoman Buckley reviewed the statute of limitation in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 11 and stated generally the limit for personal injuries was 2 years.

Assemblywoman Angle was concerned about juveniles having fake identification and how A.B. 71 handled fake identification and the person who gave the identification to a juvenile.

Section 2, line 28 of A.B. 71 stated a person who had the use of another person’s identification and caused harm to that person. Assemblywoman Buckley stated the bill did not target fake identification for being older to be served alcohol.

Assemblyman Nolan related the story of a female constituent who had going through a divorce and her husband took her credit cards and ran up a sizable debt, $30,000 or $40,000. He asked if the bill would help out the victim in a divorce.

Assemblywoman Buckley responded a couple was responsible for community property and community debt until the divorce was final. Once the divorce was final and a person ran up the debt of a former spouse, it would fall under A.B. 71.

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified for A.B. 71. He stated the department was pleased Assemblywoman Buckley had sponsored the bill. Identity fraud was an extremely sad and devastating crime. He related two stories of identity fraud. The first victim was a high school student who had a prostitute steal her identity and had charged a considerable amount of consumer debt. The young lady did not discover the problem until she began attending college and applied for a credit card and was denied three times. The college student spent 3 frustrating years correcting the identity fraud. The second victim was a college graduate who kept getting fired from each of his employers. The college student did not know a bank robber had stolen his identity. The college student spent 10 years to clear his name. Identity fraud had destroyed the victim’s life. He advised everyone to use a shredder, if a person did not have a shredder, buy a shredder and use it. He agreed identity fraud should stay a Class B felony.

Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association testified for A.B. 71. He stated the problem of the good brother/bad brother or the good roommate/bad roommate. The bad brother or bad roommate had committed identity fraud. The good brother or roommate did not know their identity had been stolen until the good brother or roommate got stopped for a traffic violation. They then learned about all the crimes and arrest warrants in their name committed by the bad brother or roommate. He was concerned the crime be covered in the bill. He wanted district attorneys to have some leverage to bring in the bad brother or roommate to resolve the situation of who committed the offenses.

Assemblywoman Leslie stated most public safety agencies were not responsive to identity fraud victims. She asked about additional training on identity fraud and being responsive to the victims.

Mr. Olsen stated Las Vegas Metro had been training its members concerning identity fraud on an informal level. The academy had begun training recruits concerning identity fraud.

Mr. Graham had a fraud and economic crimes unit with a prosecuting coordinator in the district attorney’s office. If the bill passed, there would be more training for the prosecutors. He stated criminals had changed their thinking, "Why should I rob a bank when I can commit identity fraud and not use a gun."

Assemblyman Brower had a close experience of a "good brother/bad brother" situation. He asked if Mr. Graham’s concern could be included in the bill. Assemblywoman Buckley replied Mr. Graham’s concern could be amended into the bill. The good brother/bad brother crime would possibly be an Class E felony.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Graham for his suggestion concerning the language for the amendment.

Mr. Graham stated "to avoid prosecution" could be the language of the amendment.

Jim Nadeau, captain, Washoe County Sheriff Office testified for A.B. 71. He had experienced problems with identity fraud in Washoe County and added there was an increase in the number of identity fraud cases in Washoe County.

John P. Sande, attorney at law representing the banking industry, in one sentence stated he strongly supported A.B. 71.

John C. Morrow, chief deputy, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, supported Mr. Graham’s amendment as a lesser felony, possibly an F felony.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing for A.B. 71.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED FOR AN AMEND AND DO PASS FOR A.B. 71 WITH THE LANGUAGE FOR THE GOOD BROTHER/BAD BROTHER FOR A LESSER FELONY AS OUTLINED BY MR. GRAHAM.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Gustavson had heard on the news about criminals stealing mail from residential mailboxes in the northern part of the state to commit identity fraud.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson checked on the progress of five subcommittees. The subcommittee for A.B. 52 chaired by Assemblywoman Leslie needed more time to hear additional testimony. The subcommittee for A.B. 18 chaired by Assemblyman Claborn had been waiting for additional information. The subcommittee for A.B. 121 chaired by Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was scheduled to meet on March 4, 1999. The subcommittee for A.B. 155 chaired by Assemblyman Anderson also needed more time. The subcommittee for A.B. 158 had been waiting for A.B. 315 to be added soon.

Chairman Anderson opened the discussion on A.B. 16.

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst, reviewed the history of A.B. 16 for the committee. The committee had requested Ms. Lang write the proposed amendment for the bill.

Having been directed by the committee, Ms. Lang drafted a proposed amendment to A.B. 16. The proposed amendment was located in Exhibit C in the white section. "in addition to any other action authorized pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 176.064, if a fine, administrative assessment, fee, restitution or other charge is imposed upon a defendant for a violation of a law, a regulation or an ordinance in this state and the defendant is the only registered owner of a motor vehicle or has a driver’s license issued by the State of Nevada…." Section 15. NRS 484.444 was hereby amended to read as follows: "1. If a person who is the only registered owner of a motor vehicle or a person who has a driver’s license issued by the State of Nevada fails to pay any civil penalty [or criminal fine] or any other charge imposed against him for a violation of."

Assemblywoman McClain wanted to know why the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was authorized to make exceptions, and not the courts.

Ms. Lang responded the DMV would be able to have a more immediate response than the courts. It would be easier on the family to appear before a hearing at the DMV as opposed to a court date.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked Ms. Lang about changing the word "may" to the word "shall."

Ms. Lang agreed changing the language from "may" to "shall" was an improvement. She stated the courts would still retain their authority.

Assemblyman Carpenter agreed with Assemblywoman Leslie’s language change. He hoped the amendment would do what the committee wanted to accomplish.

Chairman Anderson informed the committee the last audit indicated the courts collected only 60 percent of misdemeanor fines. The purpose of the bill was to improve the compliance level to 90 percent.

Assemblywoman Buckley felt more comfortable supporting the bill. She asked if there could be a special notification on the envelope from the DMV. Ms. Lang responded a special notification could be on the envelope. Currently, DMV sent a 60-day notice before revoking a vehicle’s registration.

Chairman Anderson mentioned the courts believed a notice to revoke would receive more attention if the notice came from the DMV as opposed to the courts.

Assemblyman Gustavson stated the purpose of the bill was to avoid an undue hardship on a one-car family. He mentioned just going to the DMV to ask for anything was an undue hardship.

Assemblywoman Angle had the same concerns as Assemblyman Gustavson. She mentioned the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office collected room and board from some prisoners and had a good record for collecting the fees. She was curious if there was a better way to collect the money.

Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to look at a monetary threshold of $500 or $1,000

Chairman Anderson wanted to know if on page 2 the $500 would be the threshold to have.

Assemblyman Brower mentioned the budget problems of the state. He was concerned about the state bending over backwards for citizens who owed the State of Nevada money and refused to pay.

Assemblyman Collins disagreed with Assemblyman Carpenter concerning setting a limit and agreed with Assemblyman Brower to make people pay what they owed the court.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if the bill was for misdemeanor crimes. Ms. Lang responded the bill was for all fines, restitutions, or other charges owed to the court.

Assemblywoman Buckley wanted to know if the state was going to get any money from the courts for the collection of fines. Ms. Lang stated the fines were not going to the state because there was not a court order to pay the fine. The bill was an additional mechanism for the courts to use. The bill did not make that method of collection mandatory.

Assemblyman Carpenter had been concerned about people paying their debts. His concern was with other members of the family in jeopardy of losing their only means of transportation.

Chairman Anderson reviewed two or three suggestions to improve the bill. First was the $500 threshold. Second was the DMV shall adopt regulations for limited exceptions. Third was to put in a sunset provision until 2003.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH ` THE WORD "MAY" BE CHANGED TO "SHALL" AND A $500 THRESHOLD.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE.

THE MOTION FAILED.

Chairman Anderson stated the motion had failed to have a majority vote. There was not a substitute motion.

Chairman Anderson opened the discussion of A.B. 50.

Mr. Williams reviewed the bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Buckley for the Second (Washoe) and Eighth (Clark) Judicial Courts. The bill ensured the procedures in family courts were applied as uniformly as practicable.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MADE THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 50 TO MAKE IT A UNIFORM APPLICATION TO THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT SYSTEM.

ASSEMBLY MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned Assemblywoman Buckley to present A.B. 50 to the Assembly.

Mr. Williams reviewed the history of A.B. 51. The legislation required the chief judges of the Second and Eighth Judicial Districts to submit to the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau the written report chief judges were required to submit to the clerk of the Supreme Court each month. The reports dealt with the number and type of cases assigned, considered, submitted, and decided by each district judge appearing in court or in chambers to perform his or her judicial duties.

Chairman Anderson stated necessary information about the courts and the court cases was not available. The need for this information was one of the key reasons for the bill. He suggested the information go to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) first and then to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Ms. Lang stated an amendment could be drafted to have the information go to accomplish that.

Chairman Anderson wanted the reporting of court cases to apply to all courts not just family courts. He wanted the AOC to present an annual written report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau containing any additional data the Nevada Supreme Court may have requested.

Assemblywoman Buckley agreed with Chairman Anderson. She stated getting a strong chief judge was the first step in getting the courts to be more accountable.

Chairman Anderson stated the Nevada Supreme Court needed to know exactly what information the legislature wanted in the annual report. The information would come from the AOC to the Legislative Counsel Bureau rather than from the Nevada Supreme Court.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 51 "THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS SHALL SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU COMPILING THE INFORMATION REPORTED UNDER THIS SECTION AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS CONCERNING THE OPERATIONS OF THE TRIAL COURTS FOR EACH 12 MONTH PERIOD, JULY THROUGH JUNE. LEGAL WAS TO REMOVE THE PROPER NOUN REFERENCE AND CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING APPROPRIATE. LEAVE A THROUGH E IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO A.B. 51." ADD CATEGORY F TO READ, "AS THE COURT FEELS RELEVANT."

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to present the bill to the Assembly.

Mr. Williams reviewed the history of A.B. 52. A subcommittee was formed with Assemblywoman Leslie as the Chairwoman and Assemblywoman McClain and Assemblyman Nolan as members. Senator Maurice Washington had requested the legislation. A.B. 52 stated the courts must take certain actions against a person who had filed a false affidavit to obtain a Temporary Protective Order (TPO).

Assemblywoman Leslie stated the subcommittee had received testimony both for and against the bill. Senator Washington had testified for the bill. The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence and the Committee to Aid Abused Women testified against the bill. The subcommittee recommended to indefinitely postponed any action on A.B. 52. Assemblyman Nolan opposed the subcommittee’s recommendation. Several amendments had been proposed following the subcommittee meeting. Dick Gammick, District Attorney for Washoe County, suggested that lying on a TPO should have the same penalty as lying on a police report.

Chairman Anderson stated he had received faxes concerning amendments to A.B. 52 and invited suggestions from the committee.

Assemblyman Nolan felt pressed for time during the subcommittee meeting. He wanted more time to evaluate the additional amendments. He supported Assemblywoman Leslie’s request for more time for an additional subcommittee meeting.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 52

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated she would like the subcommittee to have additional time to study the issue because several people had taken the time to make amendments to the bill. The amendments should be considered.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS WITHDREW HIS MOTION.

Assemblywoman Leslie felt she needed more than 10 days in which to hold a subcommittee meeting. Chairman Anderson mentioned the committee had 3 full days of hearings on family issues. He stated considerable time had been taken up by people testifying because those people were on the losing side in family court.

Assemblyman Manendo supported the efforts of the subcommittee. He asked Assemblywoman Leslie why the amendments were presented to her after the subcommittee meeting.

Assemblywoman Leslie had asked all interested persons to submit amendments in writing before the subcommittee meeting. During the subcommittee meeting, trial lawyers had given oral amendments. Subcommittee Chairwoman Leslie had requested written amendments be submitted within 2 days after the hearing.

Assemblyman Collins stated the Assembly was rushing through legislation and the legislature would not be able to fulfill the wishes of every person in Nevada.

Assemblywoman McClain stated A.B. 52 was a poor bill with a chilling affect on the victims. People took advantage with every law. She would remain on the subcommittee, but she did not feel the bill could be fixed.

Chairman Anderson mentioned the problem with committee members serving on subcommittees was it took time from the Committee on Judiciary as well as time from other committees on which members served. He would allow additional time for the subcommittee to meet and it could make its recommendation to the full committee at a later date.

Mr. Williams reported A.B. 86 was heard on February 23, 1999, but no action was taken. The current statutes were located in Exhibit C on the green sheet.

Chairman Anderson had requested research on the projections of population increase up to 2002. He said the bill would be limited to Henderson and North Las Vegas because of population growth in Clark County and no other county would qualify.

Assemblyman Collins stated the volume of cases could be handled if the number of judges were increased from one justice of the peace for every 100,000 to one justice of the peace for every 50,000 persons.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 86.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated if a justice of the peace had a high volume of cases, the justice had little time to conduct research. An inexperienced justice of the peace would be overwhelmed. She felt that was an issue of local control.

Assemblyman Nolan believed his responsibility was to offer the most qualified people for the office in the best interest of Nevada.

Assemblyman Gustavson stated he was opposed to A.B. 86. He stated there were many well qualified justices of the peace throughout the state who would not be able to move to Clark County and run for justice of the peace in the urban areas because they were not an attorney.

Assemblyman Brower echoed the comments of Assemblyman Nolan. He felt it was a local issue. It was a limited bill.

Assemblyman Carpenter said he had contemplated long and hard about A.B. 86. He had always tried to do what the people wanted him to do. He did not hear anyone from Clark County testify against the bill.

Assemblyman Collins had been in favor of local control. He had felt the justice court had always been "the people’s court." He believed voters had the right to choose the best candidate.

Chairman Anderson observed justices of the peace and municipal judges who were not attorneys and had done an excellent job because they followed the letter of the law. Non-attorney justices of the peace had fewer reversals in comparison to attorney justices. He stated justices tended to have common sense. Common sense was important for the system to work.

Assemblywoman Buckley was instructed to present the bill on the floor of the Assembly.

Mr. Williams stated A.B. 165 was heard on February 26, 1999. Various members of the committee expressed concern with section 3 of the bill. Assemblyman Carpenter proposed an amendment that would remove section 3 and remove or reword the use of the term "without limitation" in section 2, page 2, line 28. Chairman Anderson requested legal counsel to draft an amendment to reflect Mr. Carpenter’s proposal. Please refer to Exhibit C, the last white page.

Ms. Lang explained the proposed amendment. Photos of children were to identify the child as part of criminal investigations. Subsection 4 of section 2 of the bill was to read as follows:

"4. A child who was in custody must be photographed for the purpose of identification. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the photographs of the child must be kept in the file pertaining to the child under special security measures which provide that the photographs may be inspected only for the purposes of conducting criminal investigations and photographic lineups. If a court subsequently determines that the child was not delinquent, the court shall order the photographs to be destroyed." Section 3 was deleted.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 165.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblywoman Angle would present the bill to the Assembly.

Chairman Anderson asked committee members to be aware of getting their bills presented to the floor. He stated he wanted to be informed if a scheduled bill would require additional time to guarantee all those who wished to testify would have time to testify for or against the bill.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:26 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: