The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, March 12, 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

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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, District 2, Clark County

Senator Mark Amodei, Capital District

Assemblywoman Leslie, District 27, Washoe, County

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office

Abbi Silver, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County District Attorney’s Office

Tammi Warren, private citizen

Colleen Warren, private citizen

Keith Carter, Sergeant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

Jennifer Ruhberg, representing the National Alliance For the Mentally Ill (N.A.M.I.) of Nevada

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on S.B. 96.

Raymond C. Shaffer, Senator, District 2, Clark County, informed the committee the bill was prompted by some of his constituents who had problems when they purchased land from a private owner and that person carried the mortgage on the property. After the property was paid the new owner discovered several years later there was still a lien on the property because the seller had never removed it. He noted it became very burdensome to the buyer if they wanted to use the property as collateral or wanted to develop the property. The buyer had to locate the seller after a period of years had passed and try to get the property clear, and the buyer had to bear the cost of legal fees.

Mr. Shaffer concluded his presentation by explaining the bill allowed a buyer, once the obligation had been met, to have the lien on the property removed within a reasonable period of time.

Robert Barengo, representing the Nevada Consumer Finance Association, indicated the provisions in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 107 which were the deed of trust provisions were being placed in NRS 106 which was a real mortgage section. He explained the change that was not brought over was 21 days, so in order to conform the two sections they suggested that both should state 21 days rather than one read 7 days and one read 21 days.

For clarification, Mr. Barengo explained Nevada was a deed of trust state which meant when a house was purchased, it was purchased on a deed of trust which was in NRS 107. What S.B. 96 considered a true mortgage was where there was a mortgage between two individuals who made the transaction. He pointed out what happened was the person who held the mortgage refused to deed it over to the person who purchased the property after payments had been made. He reiterated the bill conformed the two sections of the statute because they had exactly the same language and same procedures.

Assemblyman Collins questioned if the bill was only dealing with parties who went outside of the title companies and Mr. Barengo responded that was correct.

Assemblyman Carpenter questioned in the section that referred to deed of trust, if it was recorded after October 1, 1991, was it the same thing as a mortgage year or did it go back for a longer period of time where there was an absolute duty to release the lien.

Mr. Barengo tried to explain the difference in the amount of provisions found in sections 106 and 107 of the NRS, but it was not clear to the committee.

Chairman Anderson clarified what Mr. Carpenter was trying to ask. He thought the question related to the timeliness of section 4 of the bill and what the implications would be. He understood Mr. Barengo’s statement meant the only part of 107 to be changed was in section 2 and section 3 of the bill which changed the fine from $100 to $500.

Mr. Barengo called attention to section 4 pointing out it would not apply to anything that occurred prior to October 1, 1991.

Mr. Carpenter responded he was trying to clarify the date because he wondered if a current mortgage would be affected.

Mr. Barengo explained, if a mortgage was paid subsequent to October 1, 1991, and a demand was made to record it per the new language, then that language would be operative.

Mr. Carpenter asked for an explanation of the language found on page 2, lines 30 and 31 that stated "a title insurer who improperly causes to be recorded a release of a mortgage." He wondered how a title insurer got into that situation and under what circumstances could that person be held liable.

Mr. Barengo answered if he was involved in a comparable situation, he would require a title insurer to give him a good title. As he understood the bill, if two people decided to contract and draw up a real mortgage, one of the individuals might want to go to a title insurer anyway to make certain the title was correct and there was insurance on the title.

Mr. Carpenter reiterated his concern regarding the liability of the title company, and who initiated the action asking the title company to record the release of the mortgage.

Chairman Anderson responded the provisions in NRS 107 covered the responsibilities and duties of a title insurer.

Mr. Barengo explained there was an ability under deed of trust after the mortgage had been paid, but if it was not properly recorded, a person could show documents to a title company proving payment, and the title company could file a deed of reconveyance. The same procedure currently applied in NRS 106 and indicated before the title company followed the procedure and actually filed the discharge of the mortgage, they would have to satisfy themselves that it had been properly paid and handled correctly. He noted most mortgage companies with which he had dealt in the past were very cautious, so if there was any problem at all, they would not do it, and that lowered their liability.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 96 and opened the hearing on S.B. 30.

Mark Amodei, Senator, Capital District, testified the bill sought to increase justice court jurisdiction to $10,000 and small claims court jurisdiction to $5,000. He pointed out one of the benefits was it kept house on the statutory values that were established for those courts and might increase access to the dispute resolution processes commonly associated with small claims and justice courts. Some of those processes were cost effectiveness, timeliness, informality, and the lack of the need to "lawyer the disputes to death."

Mr. Amodei indicated the bill had been submitted at the request of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA). He noted he had spoken to Judge Tatro, Justice of the Peace for Carson City, and he expressed concerns about potential jury trial aspects and fees. He told Judge Tatro he would be happy to reserve a Bill Draft Request (BDR) for the next session, in the event, after testing the bill for 2 years, there needed to be some adjustments. He told the committee he would he happy to coordinate with them should they want to introduce a BDR along those lines.

In describing the bill for the committee, Mr. Amodei pointed out section 1 dealt with fees for justice court and section 2 dealt with the justice court jurisdiction statute found in NRS 4.370. Section 3 was a result of the small claims chapter, which stated what the jurisdictional restriction was for matters handled in small claims court. Section 4 was the repair, removal, and disposal of vehicles chapter in NRS, which availed a person of the justice court procedure in the event there were any disputes. He stated when they proposed changing the jurisdictional amounts from $7,500 to $10,000 the bill drafters identified those areas as needing the additional funds.

Assemblywoman Buckley pointed out they heard the same bill in the 69^th Session and thought it was a great bill, but during the hearings they were provided with information that led them to change their opinion of the bill. She noted all of the justices of the peace opposed the bill in the last session. One of their concerns was they were already overworked. More recently the concern was there were 1 or 2 insurance companies exercising their right to request jury trials in justice court as a means to get out of the court annexed arbitration system. Another concern in the 1997 session was an alternative dispute mechanism had been created for cases under $40,000 on the district court level. It was supposed to be a more cost efficient way to settle smaller disputes. She questioned by increasing the amount in justice court were they negating the alternative dispute mechanism that was already set up. She also mentioned in small claims court there was concern that by raising the amount from $3,500 to $5,000, the rules of evidence would not be followed. She questioned at what level would the amount added to small claims court be harmed by the parties not having the opportunity to have the rules of evidence followed.

Mr. Amodei responded to the extent there were numbers in the statutes, which were now 6 years-old. He felt since they put values in statutes those values should be revisited to "keep house."

In reference to Ms. Buckley’s comment about the justice courts being overworked, Mr. Amodei replied there was nothing in statute that prohibited the justice and small claims courts from initiating their own alternative dispute resolution systems to try to assist with clearing the calendar.

Mr. Amodei said if the justice court jurisdiction was raised to $10,000, in terms of the potential for being "swamped" with jury trials, the alternative dispute resolution, which they controlled, was under existing case law. The decision to act on something was exclusively theirs. He also commented if the bill was enacted and somebody returned 18 months later and said it absolutely devastated them, he would be willing to come forward and offer suggestions to fix it. He thought it might be an option to remove some the jurisdictions for those courts in terms of property damage and personal injury under the justice court in chapter 4 but felt right now they had an obligation to keep them current.

Mr. Amodei stated he was asked if they could increase fees, which led him to wonder if they were "swamped," or did they need to change how things were being done or would the problem go away if they increased fees. He thought the perception among the public was those courts were a place to go where an individual did not need to hire an attorney and incur thousands of dollars in fees to get a judicial resolution, and it was popular with the public.

Ms. Buckley asked if he had received any input from Clark County and Mr. Amodei responded he had not had any contact from anybody but Judge Tatro. He also noted there was no opposition on the Senate side.

Valorie Cooney, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, explained the bill was designed and intended to shift cases out of district court into small claims and justice courts for a variety of reasons. She noted it was important to revisit the jurisdictional dollar limits of those types of cases, as well as consider the caseloads burdening both the justice court and the district court systems.

Ms. Cooney stated a Las Vegas attorney provided her with statistics based upon Las Vegas numbers. She stressed she did not want to represent to the committee the numbers reflected what happened in Washoe County and Carson City, but she felt the problem existed throughout the state. She told the committee, currently the cost to taxpayers for civil jury trials in the district courts was approximately $5,000 per day. Cases which alleged damages of $7,500 or more were required to be heard in district court at the cost of $5,000 per day to the taxpayer. Such cases often took up to 3 or 4 days to be resolved. She hypothesized a case with damages of approximately $7,500 could end up costing the taxpayer as much as $20,000 to hear. The district courts were being tied up for 3 to 4 days in trials to decide injury claims only valued at $7,500 or above. She indicated the cases between $5,000 and $10,000 would be more cost effectively heard in justice court.

Ms. Cooney observed those cases valued at $5,000 or less would be shifted to small claims court and could be heard without an attorney and at a greatly expedited schedule. By shifting the cases to small claims court the burden and expense was shifted away from justice and district court. She noted the Las Vegas attorneys and judges reported the small valued cases between $7,500 and $10,000 took 2 to 3 years to work their way through the system. By shifting those cases to the justice courts the timeframe would be greatly reduced.

Ms. Cooney declared she was also contacted by Judge Tatro and he had expressed to her his organization’s concerns about the increased cost to the system and the increase in jury trials. She thought a measure addressing the issue could be added to S.B. 30, which would include a recommendation to the state Supreme Court asking them to modify their rules requiring certain cases with certain values be assigned to mandatory mediation. That could be done by operation of court rule and would address all cases heard in district court at $7,500 or more and shift them to justice court. She added those cases that were now being shifted to justice court would also be subject to mandatory mediation, except those cases automatically excluded by the rule as it existed today.

Chairman Anderson called attention to a proposal to review the operation of the municipal courts and within that study he assumed they would be looking at the workload of the justice courts.

Assemblyman Gustavson mentioned he was a strong advocate of jury trials and he also wanted the process done as quickly as possible, but he asked if he could obtain a breakdown of the $5,000 per day cost of a jury trial and why it cost so much.

Mr. Cooney responded she would provide the information to the committee.

Mr. Brower felt by "bumping up" the small claims jurisdictional amount to $5,000 it would expand access to small claims court for citizens who were looking for relatively inexpensive and quick justice. Ms. Cooney replied that was how she saw the bill.

Bob Crowell, attorney, representing the Nevada Judges Association, explained the association was comprised of justices of the peace which were both lawyer and non-lawyer justices of the peace.

Mr. Crowell observed the issue with S.B. 30 was whether or not to increase the jurisdictional limit. He told the committee the association voted to remain neutral because they felt it was a policy issue. That was why they did not appear on the senate side, and they remained neutral while appearing on the assembly side as well.

Mr. Crowell stressed their concern was the issue of jury trials. They were not opposed to jury trials; however, they were not set up for them. He asked if the bill was processed, after 2 years they would look at the effect it had on justice courts in terms of jury trials and workloads.

With respect to amending the bill to include mandatory court annexed arbitration, Mr. Crowell suggested the committee leave the bill as it was written and not include the provision. He explained justice and small claims courts acted as arbitrators on their own. He stated they did not know the impact the bill would have and pointed out there was already a statute, NRS 38, which allowed voluntary submittal to arbitrary dispute resolution.

John Tatro, Justice of the Peace, Municipal Court, Carson City, concurred with the testimony of Mr. Crowell.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 30 and brought it back to committee. He indicated they would not take a motion on the bill until they heard from witnesses in Las Vegas. He declared the committee would hear S.B. 96 and S.B. 30 in a work session the following week.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 363.

Assemblywoman Leslie, District 27, Washoe County, opened her testimony by giving a brief overview of A.B. 363. She explained stalking had been addressed in the criminal codes of all 50 states with California passing the first stalking bill in 1990. Nevada passed its first stalking bill in 1993 and Congress passed the interstate stalking punishment and prevention act of 1996 which closed the gaps between varying state laws and prohibited stalking across state lines. She referred to the stalking testimony of Jerry Lewis on the Assembly floor the day before and conceded the public heard more about celebrity stalking, but victims of domestic violence were the typical stalking case. In 1993 the legislature approved A.B. 199 and that language was reflected in NRS 200.575. She read what the definition of stalking was from the language in the statute.

Ms. Leslie informed the committee the first offense for stalking was a misdemeanor and any subsequent nonaggravated offense was a gross misdemeanor. She read the definitions of aggravated stalking found in the original language of the statute. She indicated the first of the three definitions found on page 2, starting at line 2 of the bill, would be the one to which they would refer most in the hearing. The second and third definitions were passed by the legislature in 1995 and dealt with stalking of a spouse during divorce proceedings or child custody proceedings. She noted aggravated stalking was a category B felony resulting in imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 6 years and may include a fine of not more than $5,000.

Ms. Leslie stated according to the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP), there were 19 inmates incarcerated in 1998 for felony convictions under the statute. Of those 19, 15 were incarcerated for aggravated stalking and 4 for attempted stalking. She called attention to information she had just received the day before indicating there was a total of 23 individuals in prison for stalking with an average sentence of 4.891 years.

Ms. Leslie explained many states had both misdemeanor and felony classifications for stalking. There was a large sentencing range among the states. The least severe was in Maine with less than 1 year, up to 10 years in Massachusetts and Missouri, and up to 20 years in Arkansas and Alabama. According to their information California only had 3 years which was a different statistic than that to which Mr. Lewis had testified and she explained she would have the Attorney General’s Office address that. After studying the sentencing ranges among the states, it was the consensus to recommend 1 to 15-year sentencing for the State of Nevada. She stressed those were not mandatory sentences, but gave the judges discretion.

Ms. Leslie called attention to the second part of the bill, which was the training provision found in section 2. She noted she had received input from the domestic violence providers and victims that the police had not always been as cooperative as they should have been. They felt because the law was so new there was a reluctance on the part of law enforcement to take stalking seriously.

Ms. Leslie read a copy of an e mail (Exhibit C) she had received from a stalking victim. It conveyed the point that law enforcement needed training. She conceded the committee would be hearing testimony from law enforcement officials and why they did not support the provision in the bill, but she wanted it left in the bill at the request of the domestic violence providers and the victims.

Tom Patton, First Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, observed he would present four comparisons relative to the proposed sentencing for stalking as compared to other available sentences for nonviolent, theft-type offenses. He testified a review of all of the criminal statutes he had done showed there were stronger penalties for less egregious crimes and less threatening crimes and proceeded to quote the sentencing structure for the different offenses.

Commenting on the nature of the crime, Mr. Patton opined stalking was rapidly becoming accepted as a threatening, mental terrorism type of crime. He compared it to a long-term false imprisonment. He referred to Mr. Lewis’ testimony when he said Mr. Lewis had been held captive in his own environment, and it had limited his life.

Mr. Patton indicated sentences served a number of purposes like punishment, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrents, and the incapacitation of the specific offender. He felt the deterrent and incapacitation were not as obvious on the surface, but stalkers usually had serious mental issues and instabilities, and he thought incapacitation was important for stalkers.

Mr. Patton concluded his testimony by pointing out the bill did not mandate a 15 year sentence, but enabled the judges to incapacitate for significantly longer periods of time than was currently available for the most egregious type of offender.

Chairman Anderson questioned if they had considered raising the minimum sentence, which was currently 1 year.

Mr. Patton replied, typically crimes that had 15 and 20-year maximum sentences had higher minimums, but he pointed out a few crimes had sentences from 1 to 20 years.

Ms. Leslie stated they had looked at the full range of sentencing and settled on 1 to 15 years, but she was not limited to those numbers.

Tracy Panzarella, private citizen, testified she was stalked for 2 years and noted the prior week her stalker had pleaded "no contest" to the stalking charges. She felt the system had been more of a hindrance when it came to fighting her stalking issues and discussed why stalking needed to be treated with more severity. She compared the way rape charges were treated 20 years ago to the way stalking was treated today. When she first applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) she was turned away.

Ms. Panzarella opined counseling did not work for stalkers. The person who stalked her spent 6 weeks in a treatment center and cost the taxpayers $30,000 and within 2 months he was stalking her again. She felt the only chance she had was prosecution and requested a psychiatric profile for the individual, but the judge turned her down. She claimed her experience in court was somewhat demeaning.

Ms. Panzarella concluded her testimony by requesting the punishment be equal to the harm created for the victim. She noted her friends were stalked as well as gentlemen she had dated. She expressed great concern the affect of the stalking would have on her children who were 9 and 10 years-old. She wanted a clear message sent, stalking was an intolerable crime.

Lynn Lazovich, private citizen, testified she was supporting the bill because stalking was ugly, and it could happen to anyone. She indicated she was a random victim of her stalker. He stalked her in 1997 for 5 ½ months with phone calls, notes left at her home, and knocking on her door late at night. She stated she involved the police from the beginning, and at first they did not take her seriously. After 5 ½ months the person who stalked her disappeared. She continued discussing the financial strain she had as well as the inconvenience of having to change her phone service.

Ms. Lazovich related the individual left her alone until the summer of 1998 when he showed up at her home again. She discussed how she contacted the police and the district attorney’s office and was told to call 911. Later that evening she found him in her home and ran to the neighbor’s house and called the police. They responded and discovered he had stolen items from her home so they could prosecute for more. She gave details on how her life became worse after that incident and how she spent thousands of dollars to make a "jail" of her home. She felt the system was not supporting her. She called all of the women’s advocate groups and help lines as well as making phone calls to all of the law enforcement offices. She found some people who were aware of what stalking did to a person and people who did not care. She noted because the person stalking her was a stranger she could not get a TRO against him.

Ms. Lazovich concluded her testimony by announcing the person was finally arrested after 2 ½ months, and he was a stranger who had seen her walking from her business to her home. She stressed the stalking affected everyone around her, and she lived in terror everywhere she went.

Lori Brown, victim advocate for the Reno City Attorney’s Office, informed the committee she was the victim advocate for both of the prior witnesses as well as the person who had sent the e mail to Ms. Leslie. She called attention to Ms. Lazovich’s case and noted the reason he was apprehended was because he was stalking another woman, and he was prosecuted on both cases.

Ms. Brown commented those cases and other cases like them were handled on a misdemeanor level and she had checked just prior to testifying that a 6-month sentence on a first time offense of stalking a person would get a 108-day sentence.

Ms. Brown concluded her testimony by pointing out 2 years ago they received a grant which gave stalking and sexual assault training to law enforcement, and there was ongoing training done in the different departments. She stressed it was very important for the officers to know how to use the law so that cases could be prepared to prevent what happened to the prior witnesses from happening to other women.

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, opened her testimony by explaining she was on the domestic violence protection team within the district attorney’s office. She read from a prepared statement (Exhibit D) which illustrated how horrific stalking cases could be. She described two cases the office handled in 1998, and what sentence each of the perpetrators received.

Mr. Carpenter questioned if the penalty was increased, would the judges follow the message the legislature was sending and increase the sentences.

Ms. Greene responded she could not speak for a judge, but the district attorney’s office would not file an aggravated stalking case unless it was egregious, and then they would ask for the maximum sentence. She noted in the two cases she illustrated for the committee (Exhibit D) the judge had to give a range of sentence. She felt currently the judges were constrained by the 6 year maximum, but if it was increased they could bump up the sentence.

Chairman Anderson addressed the treatment of victims issue and noted it was part of the legislation. He wondered how the district attorney’s office handled the issue.

Ms. Greene replied their office created the domestic violence team in recognition of those types of cases that needed specially trained prosecutors and investigators, and worked with the specially trained law enforcement personnel within Washoe County. She pointed out officers who had reached detective level were specially trained.

Assemblywoman Angle queried if there was adequate training for the law enforcement personnel involved in stalking cases.

Ms. Greene responded the district attorney’s office provided training for their prosecutors, and she knew the local police and sheriff’s departments provided training for their officers.

Abbi Silver, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, testified she was previously assigned to the crimes against women and children’s unit, and she was the chief deputy of domestic violence and stalking. She declared she had handled more stalking cases than most of the prosecutors in their office and noted she was the prosecutor on Jerry Lewis’ case the prior summer.

Ms. Silver called attention to the fact nothing was changing with the law except expanding the punishment on those cases which were the "worst of the worst." She suggested nothing else be changed in the bill as far as the minimum sentence. She felt it should still be probationable in some situations and suggested a 1 to 20 year sentence for aggravated stalking because she felt it should be closer to attempted murder. She reasoned anti-stalking legislation was put into affect to prevent murders. She used celebrity stalking cases as examples of how stalking cases led to murder and pointed out there were certain stalkers who were so dangerous and their crimes so heinous they deserved the maximum punishment. She stressed the bill did not mandate everybody would receive the maximum punishment as every case was different. She discussed the reality of a 6-year sentence being reduced because a person became eligible for parole.

Ms. Silver commented on the stalking cases of United States Senator Harry Reid and United States Congressman John Ensign, which she prosecuted. She noted it was a male stalking two other males and the victims did not know their stalker. She discussed the details of how the individual stalked the legislators. Ultimately the individual shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. He survived the wounds and was institutionalized for a short period of time and when he was released he resumed stalking Senator Reid and Congressman Ensign. She concluded her testimony by relating the stalker was convicted of aggravated stalking in 1998 and he was already up for parole because of the maximum sentence as it existed today.

Ms. Buckley stated the bill was broken down into stalking and aggravated stalking and read parts of the bill describing the crime and the penalties. She asked why Ms. Silver did not support a 2-year minimum sentence for aggravated stalking.

Ms. Silver responded the sentencing judge always had the discretion in every case and if they raised the minimum sentence it would take away the discretion. If it was a subsequent offense or a heinous offense, it did not change the fact the judge could give them the minimum sentence of 1-year, but she felt they would receive a minimum of 2-years for those offenses.

Chairman Anderson explained the committee would like to assert the prerogative of the legislature rather than take away judicial discretion of a "less than." He noted an attempted category A felony was a 2 to 20-year situation so if they changed the stalking penalty to 2 to 20 they would be consistent, but would be limiting judicial discretion. He asked if she felt it should be left with judicial discretion.

Ms. Silver felt the main problem was the punishment was too low and she did not see a problem with the minimum, but did see a problem with the maximum.

Tammi Warren, private citizen, testified her stalker was her ex-husband. She proceeded to give details of her stalking experience and shared the feelings she had regarding his threat to kill her and her daughter and how his family took them in to try to protect them. She explained the Sparks police could not help her unless she obtained a restraining order, but she was afraid to get one because he threatened to kill the server and then her. She indicated he was arrested August 1, 1996, for aggravated stalking and still stalked her from prison through phone calls and letters to her and her daughter. She concluded her testimony by stating stalkers needed to control other people by interfering in their lives and creating fear in the victim, and the fear was there every moment of the day and night.

Colleen Warren, private citizen, testified her brother-in-law was the person who stalked the prior witness. She noted her husband did not want her to meet his brother because of his violent tendencies. She discussed how she supported her sister-in-law and told how she witnessed her being stalked and how he had threatened to kill them as well. She concluded her testimony by informing the committee the brother-in-law received a sentence of 6 to 12 years for stalking and receiving two driving under the influences (D.U.I). She also informed the committee they were threatened from prison and were told he had paid somebody to kill her and her husband and now they lived in constant fear.

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff, indicated he supported the bill and supported a 20-year maximum sentence, but he felt the training should be handled through the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) academy. He stressed Washoe County already conducted training on stalking and aggravated stalking at the POST academy and at their annual domestic violence in-service training.

Keith Carter, Sergeant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association testified he supported A.B. 363.

Chairman Anderson asked Sergeant Carter if his concerns were in the training phase also. He replied affirmatively and noted his department conducted training on domestic violence and stalking in their in-service training and supervisory training.

Richard Clark, Chief of the POST Academy, explained they ran a regional law enforcement academy and stalking issues were addressed in several different courses within the basic training which was mandated before officers could be certified for their basic POST certificate. After listening to prior testimony, he noted in some cases there were concerns in the case management of the victims and in isolated cases the lack of sensitivity. He felt those were more management or disciplinary issues, than lack of knowledge. He stressed they trained in those areas as shown by the fiscal note they prepared, but if the committee wanted those areas of training expanded and additions made, they would incorporate more of the subject matter into the existing blocks of instruction in basic training.

Nile Carson, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department, testified he was also concerned about the section on training found in A.B. 363. He informed the committee they utilized the High Sierra Academy and their training was almost identical to the training Captain Nadeau described for the Washoe County Sheriffs Department. He reminded the committee in a stalking situation the system was like a "three legged stool." Law enforcement was only one leg, prosecution was another leg, and the third leg was the judiciary. He stressed all three had to do the same job and have the same tools and that was why he was in favor of increasing the penalties to allow the courts to have the tools they needed to enforce the law.

Jennifer Ruhberg, representing the National Alliance For the Mentally Ill (N.A.M.I.) of Nevada, indicated they were in support of A.B. 363. She noted the individual who stalked Mr. Lewis and many other individuals who stalked, were declared mentally ill. She stressed her concerns were for people like the one who stalked Mr. Lewis who were shifted from mental health clinics and other hospitals and were never sent to one facility. She opined there should be a state mental hospital in Nevada where a person could receive 24-hour therapy and ensured they stayed on their medication. She commented if they went to prison for 15 years "God help the person when they got out" because there was no therapy or rehabilitation in prison.

Chairman Anderson asked if the bill should be held up because of the issues she had raised and Ms. Ruhberg replied they supported the bill, but personally she would like to see it held up because there needed to be a better system for the mentally ill.

Chairman Anderson questioned if they amended the bill to include psychological testing and increased the probability of it being referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, did she still want to delay the bill and she responded affirmatively.

John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, commented there was no gender bias in stalking cases and felt the bill could be more gender neutral. He referred to page 2, lines 1 through 10 which used the word "he" throughout the section.

Chairman Anderson requested the prior testimony of Jerry Lewis be made part of the day’s record.

Jerry Lewis, private citizen, presented the following testimony at an assembly committee as a whole on March 11, 1999:

Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 363 with amendments to raise the maximum sentence from 15 to 20 years and to make the law effective upon passage and approval.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Ms. Leslie to present on the floor and adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Chris Casey,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: