The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 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

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:

Chairman Anderson announced there were three Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) for committee introduction:

• BDR 3-1293 – Revises provisions concerning use of alternative methods to resolve certain disputes (A.B. 392).

• BDR 16-454 – Makes technical corrections to statutes concerning credits against sentences of certain prisoners (A.B. 391).

• BDR 16-452 – Revises provisions governing consideration of prisoners for parole (A.B. 390).

Chairman Anderson explained his interest in sponsoring the bill. He opined if a child had committed an offense such as cruelty or torture of an animal, the chance of the child becoming a repeat offender was remarkably high. By early intervention, he hoped to eliminate recidivism.

Chairman Anderson introduced Pete Bachstadt, Director of the Carson/Eagle Valley Humane Society, and pointed out A.B. 221 was drafted upon his recommendation.

Reading from his prepared testimony, Mr. Bachstadt noted violence and abuse occurred in many forms; child, domestic, elderly, and animal abuse. His written testimony was attached as Exhibit C. Each instance should be taken seriously regardless of the age of the offender. Mr. Bachstadt expressed his hope by focusing on children, the provisions of A.B. 221 would prevent future abuse from occurring.

Referring to paragraph 7 of Exhibit C, Assemblywoman Angle asked if Mr. Bachstadt believed the topics of bestiality and satanic rituals should be addressed in the bill. Mr. Bachstadt replied it was not necessary now, but at some point the state should consider it. He stated Louisiana had good legislation regarding satanic rituals. On the other hand, legislation in Florida was declared unconstitutional.

Ms. Angle further asked for clarification of the cruelty to animals provision, specifically in regard to hunting. Mr. Bachstadt responded A.B. 221 did not address hunting; it addressed a criminal offense. He recognized hunting was a legitimate act but expressed concern "that we are teaching kids to kill things."

Chairman Anderson clarified section 2 required probable cause of a commission of an offense before a child was taken into custody. A peace officer or probation officer would be required to determine whether the animal was killed for a reason other than a legitimate reason. He recognized that discretion was problematic but noted a threshold was established.

Dr. Richard Simmonds, Director of Laboratory Animal Medicine for the University and Community College System of Nevada, disclosed his testimony represented his own opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the organizations with which he was involved. Dr. Simmonds presented prepared testimony in support of A.B. 221. It was attached as Exhibit D. He reiterated the importance of preventative medicine, emphasizing animal abuse by children correlated with family violence.

Referring to page 2, lines 3 through 7, Assemblyman Nolan questioned if the child would remain in custody for that entire period of time. Dr. Simmonds replied a child could remain in custody up to 72 hours during which a judicial officer would have to determine probable cause.

Dan Prince, Manager, Spring Mountain Youth Camp, Clark County Family/Youth Services, articulated support for A.B. 221. He opined the issues involving the proliferation of guns and young people were cause for concern. In regard to young people involved in criminal offenses, the need existed to look beyond the immediate issue and assess what was troubling the child. He reiterated there were usually serious ramifications to that type of behavior. Mr. Prince pointed out A.B. 221 would have an impact on his department, given the present overcrowding in the detention facility and the strain the psychological services unit was presently under. He explained the facility was approximately 100 to 150 kids beyond design capacity. He suggested the bill be assigned to a work session in order to address his concerns with the amount of time allowed for an evaluation of the child to occur.

Chairman Anderson recognized questions had been raised in regard to the time provided for an evaluation to be performed.

Assemblyman Carpenter inquired if Mr. Prince’s facility currently evaluated the children. Mr. Prince replied they did, particularly with the more serious offenses such as gun offenses. He reiterated the facility had a psychological services unit and youths booked on weapon charges or other serious offenses were evaluated by psychologists. He noted there was the ability to contract out with other psychiatrists if more extensive workups were needed.

In response to Assemblywoman Leslie, Mr. Prince expressed uncertainty whether all cases were automatically referred to the psychological services unit but believed there were few exceptions. He commented, "The issue may be how soon those psychological services are provided as opposed to if they are provided." Mr. Prince explained all youths brought in on gun related charges were automatically held until the detention hearing, but due to the time requirement, they might not have had the chance to be evaluated by the psychological services unit. He noted because those charges usually involved further adjudication and a probation officer would have to prepare a full dispositional report, a referral would definitely be made.

Ms. Leslie further questioned if there was a waiting list for services and if kids were released from the facility before they received mental health treatment. Mr. Prince replied with few exceptions, a child brought in on gun related charges would be referred for either psychological or counseling services. He acknowledged, however, due to the seriousness of offense there was a growing need to provide more comprehensive psychological services. His concern rested with how the bill would impact that need.

When asked by Ms. Leslie about kids who had been charged with cruelty to animals, Mr. Prince stated it was a relatively small number, but that behavior would be treated as a serious offense.

Chairman Anderson commented on the theory of "the sociopath triangle" (pyromania, cruelty to animals and bed-wetting) and the cost involved with the evaluation. Mr. Prince articulated his facility treated children involved in cruelty to animals as a serious crime. He stated the child would be referred for psychological services or visited at the detention facility by someone from the psychological services unit. He noted the facility could absorb the cost associated with those referrals because of the small number of incidents. Due to a higher number of incidents and therefore more resources needed, his primary concern would involve children charged with weapons offenses.

Mr. Carpenter noted the bill required a hearing to be held within 10 days after the child was taken into custody. He asked if Mr. Prince believed that to be a reasonable time limit. Mr. Prince stated he believed it was. He elucidated anxiety existed because of the logistics involved with the first probable cause hearing and making sure the child had been evaluated within the 72 hours. By logistics he meant moving kids, bringing in staff to provide security, and getting kids to and from the courtroom.

Leonard Pugh, Director of Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, testified in support of A.B. 221. He commented the bill made the current practice legal and unchallengeable. He opined when a child was involved with an offense involving a firearm, they posed a threat to the community and should be detained. In addition, Mr. Pugh commented legislation regarding automatic counseling was an excellent addition to the statute and had been long needed. Mr. Pugh remarked A.B. 221 would not have much of an impact on Washoe County although the Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators was concerned it could impact other portions of the state that were not as equipped to provide the necessary services. He testified currently in Washoe County, 95 percent of the juveniles brought in for firearm offenses were detained until a psychological evaluation was completed and the results were presented in court before a decision was made regarding their release. Agreeing with Mr. Prince, Mr. Pugh’s concerns rested with the time frames established in the bill, specifically the 72 hour requirement including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. He believed the inclusion of those days would impact the courts and would require those offenses to be handled differently than other offenses such as sexual assaults and trafficking of drugs. He suggested the issues be discussed in a work session.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if that was the only concern of the Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators in regard to the bill. Mr. Pugh replied the overall consensus was support of the bill and its intent but reiterated a desire to address the issues which created an extra burden on the system.

Responding to Ms. Leslie’s question, Mr. Pugh confirmed a qualified professional would be anyone listed on page 4, lines 5 through 15.

Chairman Anderson further added the broad definition was used in order to address access in the rural areas.

Susan Asher, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society, testified one of the main jobs of the humane society was to investigate cases of alleged cruelty, abuse, and neglect of animals. While there had not been an overwhelming number of reports of children deliberately or maliciously harming animals, it was her personal feeling acts of that nature would increase over time. "The thing that bothers me most is that our society appears to be headed towards an utter indifference to the final consequences of an act and unfortunately, I see that we will have more of that with the children in our area because that is where the problems seem to show up first." She expressed support of the bill because it indicated the community was taking animal abuse and neglect seriously. She agreed with Dr. Simmonds and Mr. Bachstadt that deliberate harm of an animal indicated other problems and also agreed that early intervention could mitigate any future threat for both humans and animals. Her handout was attached as Exhibit E.

Replying to Assemblyman Nolan, Ms. Asher stated she could provide him with statistics involving acts of cruelty to animals by children.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 221. He reiterated his support for the legislation but stated in deference to Mr. Prince’s and Mr. Pugh’s request for additional examination of the bill, the committee would not yet take action.

Assemblyman Manendo shared with the committee an incident he saw and reported, noting how it disturbed him. He would support the bill.

Ms. Leslie said she strongly supported A.B. 221 but expressed sadness that it appeared children had to get involved with the juvenile justice system before they could receive mental health care. She pointed out if the kids were getting care earlier they might be kept out of the system.

Mr. Carpenter expressed a concern with the term "possession" used on page 1, line 5. He wondered if that was too ambiguous.

Responding to Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Lang explained both "possession" and "threatened use" would apply to somebody who had a gun although it would be a factual issue the court would decide. She noted if a child was taken into custody, it would have to be egregious and serious.

Assemblywoman Buckley further reiterated the possession would have to relate back to the commission of an offense. If a child was merely in possession of a gun, it would not be a prohibited act under the bill.

Mr. Carpenter was satisfied with Ms. Buckley’s clarification but repeated his suggestion in regard to the cost of the counseling. He offered it would have a deterrent effect and hopefully lessen the impact on the counties.

Chairman Anderson agreed holding the parents financially responsible would raise their awareness in regard to the behavior of their child, which they may not have perceived to be out of line.

In response to a concern raised by Assemblyman Collins, Ms. Lang clarified neither of the new sections created a new offense. The child would be brought into the juvenile system as a result of violating an existing law and if a violation occurred involving either a firearm or cruelty to animals, there would be additional consequences.

Chairman Anderson asked those who wished to provide more information to submit it by Thursday of next week.

He opened the hearing on A.B. 229. In order to attend another hearing, Chairman Anderson handed the Chairman’s gavel to Vice Chairman Manendo.

Leonard Pugh, Director of the Department of Washoe County Juvenile Services, testified he would not oppose A.B. 229 because it was enabling legislation and was also discretionary on behalf of the county and the courts. He emphasized it would be their decision as to whether or not they wanted to order a child into such a program. He pointed out one note of concern of the Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators was the language on page 2, section 3, lines 13 through 28. He noted good programs existed that covered the majority of the items listed but not each and every one.

Ms. Leslie questioned why the legislation was needed if the programs already existed. Mr. Pugh replied it was a good question because as he had previously stated, the ability of the courts to order children and their family into those programs did exist. If the legislation was specifically addressing the content of the programs, he believed a more generic approach to the language should be used.

There being no one else present who wished to testify on A.B. 229, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing.

Ms. Buckley remarked the committee should hold the bill in order to allow the Attorney General’s Office to address the bill.

Chairman Manendo stated that would be his intent. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: