The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, March 16, 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:

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson mentioned the committee received 19 additional bills on March 15, 1999. A total of 133 bills had been referred to the Committee on Judiciary. After bill tracking on March 17, 1999, Chairman Anderson would publish a revised schedule by March 19, 1999.

Chairman Anderson explained a conflict notice was a notice sent to the chairman of a committee. A conflict notice informed the Chairman a piece of legislation on which the committee was about to take action or the committee had taken action on the legislation was in conflict with another piece of legislation. He mentioned the conflict notice to prepare new members of the committee. A.B. 229 was passed through the Committee on Judiciary on March 15, 1999 as amend and do pass. A.B. 229 was in conflict with S.B. 77. A.B. 229 would have to be amended by the bill drafter.

Chairman Anderson introduced two Bill Draft Requests, (BDRs).

• BDR 41-1618 - Provides that gaming employee who works for his employer in more than one location is not required to obtain more than one work permit. A.B. 593

• BDR 1-848 - Revises formula for calculation of pensions for justices of supreme court and district court judges. A.B. 592

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District 39, testified for A.B. 406. He sponsored the bill and stated the bill would save costs when a person violated the terms of their suspended sentence. Current statute allowed the district courts to extend suspended sentences if offenders violated or failed to fulfill conditions of suspension and the offender was ordered to serve the remaining part of their sentence.

Douglas D. Swalm, Chief Probation Officer, East Fork Justice Court, Douglas County, testified for A.B. 406. He had 215 probation cases of the more serious offenders. Those offenders were convicted of misdemeanor drug offenses and domestic violence. Usually, an offender would receive a 6-month sentence suspended for 1 year. If the offender failed to adhere to the terms of their sentence or committed another offense, the offender would have another trial in justice court. That had wasted time and increased court costs as the law presently stood. A.B. 406 would allow the justice of the peace to reinstate the probationer’s probation for another year without another trial. The bill would allow justice to be swifter and cost less.

Chairman Anderson inquired if an offender was charged and retried for a violation of their suspended sentence, would the bill reduce the possibility of the person becoming a repeat offender in terms of the court records. Mr. Swalm responded, "That’s correct."

Assemblyman Brower asked if district judges could reinstate an offender’s probation. Mr. Swalm responded district judges could reinstate an offender’s probation for a period longer than 1 year. Municipal judges and justices of the peace could only sentence an offender for 1 year.

Chairman Anderson stated the greatest value was in enforcing the sentence if the offender violated the terms of their suspended sentence. Mr. Swalm responded, "correct." By reinstating the sentence, the original sentence would be imposed.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if an offender served 9 months of their suspended sentence and then violated the terms of their sentence, what would happen to the offender. Mr. Swalm responded currently, the justice of the peace would give the offender the 3 months remaining on their sentence or there would be new charges filed against the offender.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked Mr. Swalm to clarify the facts of the previous statement. Mr. Swalm responded under the current law, the offender would receive the 3 remaining months on their sentence but not an additional full sentence of a year. A.B. 406 would allow the justice of the peace to reinstate the probation for 1 more year when a sentence violation occurred.

Assemblyman Collins asked if an offender on parole or probation broke a law, would the violator be arrested. Mr. Swalm responded "yes." Depending on the violation, the bill would allow the justice of the peace the discretion to reinstate up to 1 additional year of probation from the violation. If the offender had not completed an anger control program for example, A.B. 406 would allow the justice to extend the probation up to a year for the offender to complete the program was part of their original sentence.

Assemblyman Collins asked without the bill if an offender had not completed the program by the end of their probation, was the offender free and did not have to complete the program. Mr. Swalm responded without A.B. 406 the justice court could not sentence an offender to another year and the offender would be free.

Assemblyman Collins asked with the program being 1 to 2 months, if an offender had not completed their program and 9 or 10 months had passed in their probation, would the offender be called before the probation officer. Mr. Swalm responded "yes." However, if the offender was incarcerated for 3 or 4 months and the offender was ordered to complete a domestic violence program required a year to complete, the offender would not be able to complete the program before their probation ended.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if Mr. Swalm felt the language was clear in the bill. Mr. Swalm responded the language was clear in the bill. He believed the bill would save counties money. The offender’s record would show the offender was convicted of a misdemeanor without any additional violations on the offender’s record.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the remainder of the sentence. Mr. Swalm stated the extension of the sentence would be only 1 year. He was not interested in "leap frogging it" into multiple years. He believed 1 additional year would end the sentence.

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, testified on A.B. 406. The justice courts in Washoe County had 3 years jurisdiction with regard to domestic battery cases. The court would make the offender visit the court 30 days after the end of their original sentence to prove they completed their counseling program. If the offender had dropped out of the program at the next review in 3 months, the court would issue an order to show cause and have a hearing. The offender had to explain in justice court why they had not completed their program. The justice court would take the necessary action to have the offender complete the terms of their sentence.

Chairman Anderson asked if Ms. Greene was talking about district court. Ms. Greene answered, "justice court."

Assemblywoman Buckley stated justice court could legally sentence an offender to 6 months in jail and suspend the sentence for 1 year (section 1 line 4 of the bill). Regarding domestic violence the court could suspend the sentence for 3 years (page 2 line 20), and the proposed legislation would allow the suspension for up to a year from the violation. Ms. Greene added district court had a probation ratification hearing. A.B. 406 did not have a probation ratification hearing written into it.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 406. He mentioned his concern that extending an offender’s suspended sentence or probation without a hearing would deny the offender their rights under due process. Mr. Swalm stated the offender who violated their parole would have a hearing before any action was taken.

Chairman Anderson asked legal to research the statutes in the district courts to determine if the process was an administrative procedure of the Nevada Supreme Court. He requested staff to place A.B. 406 on the next work session, March 23, 1999. There was no action taken on the bill.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing of A.B. 390.

Glen Whorton, Chief of Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons, testified for A.B. 390. The bill changed the law to reflect the actual practice of the department of prisons and the board of parole commissioners. The bill on page 2, line 5, deleted the word "application" and added the phrase "the consideration of a prisoner". The bill on page 4, line 10, deleted the words "an application" and added the phrase "the consideration of a prisoner." The bill on page 5, line 23, deleted the phrase "upon the hearing of an application" and added the phrase "at a meeting to consider a prisoner." On page 5, line 26, deleted the phrase "upon such an application, either for or against it" and added "at a meeting to consider a prisoner for parole." On page 5, lines 30 through 38 were deleted and replaced by lines 38 through 42. Page 6, lines 1 through 3 were to read: "The department of prisons shall:

• Determine when a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison was eligible to be considered for parole;

• (b) Notify the state board of parole commissioners of the eligibility of the prisoner to be considered for parole; and

• (c) Before a meeting to consider the prisoner for parole, compile and provide to the board data that will assist the board in determining whether parole should be granted." He stated an inmate did not make application for parole the department of prisons classification and claims division calculates paroles and discharge dates.

Chairman Anderson stated during the 1995 session of the legislature an individual from the Department of Prisons indicated an inmate was the only person who knew when he or she would get out of prison. Chairman Anderson asked if there were any conflicts concerning the amount of time remaining to be served between the prisoners and the Department of Prisons. Mr. Whorton mentioned he did not know who made the statement in 1995. He stated the only person who knew the eligibility to discharge an inmate on parole was the correctional case manager who was Mr. Whorton’s employee. The calculations were complex. Mr. Whorton had an inmate information system instituted in 1987, a data based computer program which did the time calculations of an inmate’s sentence and eligibility for parole. He mentioned the Department of Prisons did not understand how sentencing worked until 1987 when the computer program was instituted. The computer program assisted the Department of Prisons in correcting mistakes made in the past.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated the Committee on Judiciary listened to a presentation by the Department of Prisons. She asked if prisoners earned good time credits while they served disciplinary time. Mr. Whorton stated the Attorney General’s Office ruled the department of prisons could take away good time credits only up to the time of the infraction committed by the prisoner. A prisoner who committed another offense could lose good time credits from the last disciplinary offense to the most recent disciplinary offense. Mr. Whorton stated he was the person who took those good time credits from the inmates.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 390 and opened the hearing on A.B. 391.

Glen Whorton testified for A.B. 391. He expressed concern regarding the complexity of the calculation of good time credits for an inmate. A.B. 391 deleted the tables existing in the present law. The tables had confused the families of inmates and the inmate’s attorney. The tables described over time how inmates earned credits to lessen their sentence. Mr. Whorton testified inmates earned good time credit for good behavior (10 days a month), for working inside (10 days a month), and for working outside the prison (20 days a month). The table did not take into account punishment for misconduct, time for fighting fires, time for earning a high school diploma, or for having attended a drug treatment program.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if Mr. Whorton had a written document explaining to attorneys and families when their client or relative would get out of prison. Mr. Whorton answered, "no." Because of the complexity, the Department of Prisons had to sit down and explain to the attorney or relative on an individual basis. There were 170 different ways of calculating parole eligibility and discharge dates. He mentioned it took about 4 hours to explain the system.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the system was explained to attorneys and family members. Mr. Whorton responded he explained sentences every day to inmates. The caseworkers at the prisons explained sentences to inmates on a daily basis. The correctional case records manager explained to the courts and attorneys. He stated he had an "open door policy" to explain an inmate’s eligibility for parole date.

Chairman Anderson asked when did the tables come into statute. Mr. Whorton responded he did not know. The tables were in place when he began working for the Department of Prisons. Chairman Anderson received information from his staff that the tables were effective in 1977.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked to have the good time credit clarified when an inmate committed an infraction of the prison rules. Mr. Whorton responded an inmate accumulated 10 days of good time for each month served in prison. If an inmate committed an infraction, the inmate would have a hearing to determine their innocence or guilt. If the inmate had served 6 months, if guilty the inmate would lose the 60 days of good time earned. The guilty inmate would start over again earning good time credits from the date of the infraction. After at least 6 months, if the guilty inmate demonstrated he or she had made significant progress in correcting the negative behavior involved in the infraction, the director of the prison could restore all of the good time taken away because of the infraction. Mr. Whorton stated the director rarely restored an inmate’s good time taken away for an infraction of the rules.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the 2 months for good time for each year served being different from the 10 days for each month served. Mr. Whorton explained the old sentencing law. During the 1^st and 2^nd years of their sentence, an inmate earned 5 days of good time for each month served, during the 3^rd and 4^th years 10 days of good time for each month served of their sentence, and beginning with the 5^th year 12.5 days for each month served. The old components of the law were changed in 1977. The inmates who qualified under the 5, 10, and 12.5 days of good time were serving life sentences and would not be considered for parole. He stated the legislature would not rescind the law because of the ex post facto ruling.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if a stalker were sentenced for 20 years in prison, when would the guilty person be eligible for parole if he or she did not do anything extra, but did not do anything wrong. Mr. Whorton responded the calculation was to divide 20 years by 1.667 which would be 11.997 years served. Each month an inmate earned 10 days of statutory good time credit and 10 days of work credit for a total of 50 days. 50 days divided by 30 days was 1.667.

Chairman Anderson asked if an inmate earned 10 days of statutory credit and 10 days of work credit a month, an inmate would end up serving only 10 days a month. Mr. Whorton stated the inmate was serving more time than 10 days a month. Dividing the inmate’s sentence by 1.667, the inmate would serve approximately 2/3 of their original sentence. Mr. Whorton pointed out the passage of S.B. 416 in 1995 cleared up the difficulty with the truth in sentencing for inmates, the courts, and everyone involved.

Chairman Anderson asked if the Department of Prisons would be publishing a logarithm available to the prison system, attorneys, and judges since the tables would no longer be in statutory law. Mr. Whorton responded he would provide the algebraic formula for the calculation. Assemblyman Collins asked why the formula was not placed in the bill. Mr. Whorton stated to print the formula without an explanation would not be readily useable to most people. He would provide a sheet to show the variables. Chairman Anderson stated there were four tables

• Class 1: Inmates sentenced prior to 1969.

• Class 2: Inmates sentenced after July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1985.

• Class 3: Inmates sentenced after July 1, 1985.

• Class 4: Inmates sentenced after October 1, 1995.

Chairman Anderson observed the removal of the tables would treat the inmates in class 3 and class 4 equally. Mr. Whorton responded Chairman Anderson was correct.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 391.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 390.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblywoman Angle would present the bill to the Assembly.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 391.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON.

Assemblywoman Buckley expressed her concerns with a formula so complicated it could not be typed on a sheet of paper to determine when an inmate would be eligible for parole. She stated the credits were clearly in the statute. The deductions would need to be in the statutes. She was concerned about truth in sentencing when 20 years meant 12 years. She supported the motion and wanted her concerns stated for the record.

Chairman Anderson asked the secretary to express the concerns of the committee with the earning of good time credit written in statute and the loss of good time credit written in statute. The committee was concerned with the difficulty of the calculation. The Committee on Judiciary was requesting the Department of Prisons to produce an easily understood formula in lay language for a reasonably prudent person to comprehend.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblywoman McClain would present the bill to the Assembly.

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst stated at the hearing on A.B. 17, Assemblyman Perkins noted the bill was identical to S.B. 11 and wanted his name included as a joint sponsor. The committee heard S.B. 11 on February 26, 1999, and recommended "Amend and do pass as amended." The amendment added Mr. Perkins as joint sponsor and made the bill effective upon passage and approval. The Senate concurred with the amendment, and the bill was enrolled and delivered to the governor on March 10, 1999. Governor Guinn signed the bill on March 10, 1999.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Donald O. Williams stated the hearing on S.B. 123 was requested by the Senate Committee on Judiciary on behalf of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and was referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on February 18, 1999. The bill made various changes to written plea agreement. The AOC had requested the committee not to process the bill, and Senator James had advised Chairman Anderson he agreed with the request. See the salmon colored attachment for the letter, dated February 23, 1999, from Karen Kavanau, Director of Administrative Office of the Courts, in (Exhibit C).

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 123.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Donald O. Williams, stated A.B. 304 was requested by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Mr. Williams read from (Exhibit C), "A representative of the Nevada Highway Patrol Association testified his group requested this bill to curtail willful fraudulent complaints brought against police officers. He indicated the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) currently neither had a form nor had a procedure for complaints. Testifying in support of the bill, the chief of the NHP stated a lot of time and effort was wasted because of malicious complaints filed against his officers. He indicated the California Highway Patrol had a formal complaint process similar to the one provided in this proposed legislation. A representative of the Reno Police Protective Association also indicated support for this measure. A deputy chief of the Reno Police Department testified in opposition to the bill. He indicated the bill could have a chilling effect on citizens filing complaints against police officers. He suggested, instead of the criminal penalties included in the bill, providing police officers with the ability to file civil lawsuits against person filing such fraudulent statements. A representative of Nevada Concerned Citizens also expressed concern with the possible chilling effect of the statement contained in Section 2 of the bill. She proposed an amendment to rewrite the statement."

Lucille Lusk’s amendment was "You have the right to make a complaint against a peace officer and have it investigated if you believe a peace officer had acted improperly. According to the laws of the State of Nevada, this agency had established written procedures for investigating complaints against peace officers. You have a right to receive a written copy of these procedures. This agency investigates complaints and determines, based on the evidence, any action that may be warranted. Please provide accurate and complete details of the reason(s) for your complaint. It is against the law to knowingly make a false or fraudulent complaint against a peace officer. I have read and understand the above statement."

The Committee on Judiciary received a fax from Nile Carson, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department. See (Exhibit D). The fax reviewed three separate cases in which police officers had complaints filed against them, and they were cleared of the misconduct charges. The police officers tried to sue the individual who filed the complaint, but the court ruled the respondents were privileged from civil prosecution for defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Chairman Anderson stated he received a phone call from Professor Richard Siegel, Political Science Department, University of Nevada, Reno. Professor Siegel represented the American Civil Liberties Union and registered his concerns about the potential chilling effect the process might have if the legislation was pursued. Chairman Anderson mentioned Las Vegas and Reno had a written complaint policy.

Assemblyman Nolan mentioned there were a number of complaints filed against Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officers. He believed most of the police officers were good, but there were a few "bad apples." He supported the Nevada Concerned Citizens amendment to A.B. 304.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if it was against the current statutes to file a false report.

Ms. Lang stated there was a statute concerning libel and false reports, but the law did not cover false complaints against a peace officer.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated she did not support A.B. 304. She spoke for protecting the rights of the public to file a complaint without a chilling effect.

Assemblyman Brower stated he did not believe the language on a form would chill a legitimate complaint. He mentioned filing a false claim should be against the law, but he did not find a statute pertaining to it. He felt the Committee on Judiciary should not pass any legislation did not have clear language.

Ms. Lang stated the language was in Section 1 lines 6 to 8, "(b) Makes or files a false or fraudulent oral or written statement concerning a complaint or allegation of misconduct against a peace officer."

Assemblyman Brower stated the bill would create a misdemeanor.

Assemblyman Collins asked if anyone had been prosecuted for lying on a false report in Nevada. He had witnessed on several police ride-a-longs by the time the suspect had reached the police station, the suspect had accused the police officer of all kinds of wrongful behavior.

Assemblyman Carpenter had a problem with the language on page 2. A person had the right to make a complaint. There was a need for a written procedure for filing reports. Once in a while a police officer stepped over the line. There needed to be a procedure to file a complaint would be investigated in an unbiased manner.

Chairman Anderson felt the internal investigators needed to take an active roll to clean up their department. He viewed A.B. 304 as a proactive bill.

Assemblywoman Leslie stated the need for checks and balances in the police system. She stated she was influenced by Nile Carson’s testimony. She noticed a parallel between A.B. 52 and A.B. 304 as both bills were trying to take care of the small percentage of people who lied on a complaint. She was not in favor of the law.

Assemblywoman McClain agreed A.B. 304 was A.B. 52 only for police officers. She would not support the bill.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated while walking her precinct she saw a bumper sticker, "I love my country, but I fear my government." She felt strongly that citizens should have the right to express themselves without fear of reprisal.

Assemblyman Brower had defended police officers concerning civil rights and had noticed where police officers crossed the line. He felt it important to support police officers by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The bill focused on a person knowingly filing a false report against a police officer. He favored the district attorney prosecuting false claims against police officers.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 304 USING THE NEVADA CONCERNED CITIZEN AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

.

A roll call vote was requested.

THE MOTION FAILED. THERE WERE SEVEN YEAS AND SEVEN NAYS. ASSEMBLYMEN ANGLE, BROWER, CLABORN, COLLINS, NOLAN, MANENDO, AND ANDERSON VOTED YES.

ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, KOIVISTO, LESLIE, MCCLAIN, AND OHRENSCHALL VOTED NO.

****

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 304.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. THERE WERE 10 YEAS AND 4 NAYS. (ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER, CLABORN, COLLINS, AND ANDERSON VOTED NO.

Assemblyman Nolan stated he voted to indefinitely postpone the bill to hold out his option to reconsider the bill at a future date.

Assemblyman Manendo stated a two-thirds vote would be needed by the committee to reconsider the bill at a future date. He voted yea on the first motion to amend and do pass and voted yea to indefinitely postpone the bill so the committee could move on with committee business.

Assemblywoman Buckley questioned if the two-thirds vote was for the assembly floor vote.

Chairman Anderson stated the Committee on Judiciary could return the bill for reconsideration by a two-thirds vote.

Donald O. Williams reviewed S.B. 96. Senator Shaffer requested the bill. The bill revised provisions relating to liability of mortgagee or trustee for a deed of trust who failed to record the discharge of the mortgage or deed of trust when underlying debt was satisfied. Senator Shaffer testified he requested the bill to address a problem where a constituent had purchased property and the seller never removed the lien after the mortgage was paid. He stated the bill required the seller to remove the lien within a reasonable period of time after the mortgage was paid. A representative of the Nevada Consumer Finance Association testified the procedures set forth in S.B. 96 for recording the discharge of a mortgage (Chapter 106 of Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS]) mirrored the existing law regarding the recording of a discharge of deed of trust when underlying debt was satisfied (Chapter 107 of NRS).

Chairman Anderson stated the bill was held up so Assemblyman Collins could research title companies. Chairman Anderson stated he had not received any communication from the mortgage companies. The Nevada State Senate had not received any communication.

Assemblyman Collins stated he had no problem with the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 96.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall would present the bill to the Assembly.

Donald O. Williams reviewed A.B. 221. Requested by Chairman Anderson, A.B. 221 required certain actions to be taken against a child who committed an offense involving firearm or cruelty to animals. Dr. Richard Simmonds, Director of Laboratory Animal Medicine at the University of Nevada, Reno, and Pete Bachstadt, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society both testified in support of the bill. Leonard Pugh, Director of the Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services expressed support for the bill but indicated they had concerns with the potential cost of the evaluations and treatment required in the bill. They also said the timeframes for the evaluations could create problems because of the difficulty in finding a qualified professional to perform the evaluations in the limited time provided under the bill. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the committee should consider amending the bill to require parents to pay the costs of the counseling required by the bill. Chairman Anderson asked any proposed amendments to the bill be submitted by Thursday, March 11.

Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Department of Family & Youth Services Clark County, stated in a letter to Chairman Anderson without amendments A.B. 221 would have a serious financial impact on Clark County. He wrote the four amendments:

• 1. A detention hearing would be held within 72 hours excluding Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. The bill included Saturday, Sunday and holidays for a probable cause hearing. Leave the definition of 72 hours excluding Saturday, Sunday, and holidays for a probable cause and detention hearing.
• 2. 10 days was not sufficient time to complete an evaluation. Extend the time frame to at least 14 days.
• 3. Authorize the judicial offices to release the child at the detention hearing on an electronic monitoring or house arrest program at his/her discretion. That would still allow for the majority of that class of youth to have an evaluation.
• 4. Define "firearm" as NRS 202.253 included BB guns.

Leonard J. Pugh, Director of Juvenile Services, Washoe County wrote a letter to Chairman Anderson.

• 1. Page 2 lines 3 through 42 should be deleted.
• 2. Page 3 lines 1 to 36 should be deleted
• 3. At the detention hearing, the child should be ordered to remain in detention until a psychological evaluation was completed or until the court was reasonably assured the child was not a threat to the community if released. If the court ordered psychological evaluation, a qualified professional who evaluated the child shall prepare a written report concerning his conclusions whether the child was likely to commit an offense dangerous to himself or the community if the child was released within 14 days.

Ms. Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel, reviewed the amendments. She stated when a child was taken into custody, there would be a probable cause hearing, followed by a detention hearing which would determine if an evaluation of the child was necessary. The evaluation hearing was to be completed within 14 days. She mentioned most of section 2 from NRS 62.170 would be replaced with the amendments. Washoe County was set up to do electronic monitoring. The definition of firearm could be included or excluded from the bill.

Chairman Anderson asked about the barrel length of a firearm.

Ms. Lang responded the definition of a firearm was, "Firearm meant any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion."

Chairman Anderson asked if the committee were to adopt the amendments, what would happen to the bill.

Ms. Lang responded the bill would tell the courts to take a child into custody. If the child were taken into custody, the detention hearing would have to determine if an evaluation would be conducted and would the child have to be held in custody until after the evaluation was performed.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated there was a concern about the psychological evaluation not working. She suggested keeping section 3 of the bill would allow the court to order counseling or psychological treatment for offenses involving cruelty to animals. She was concerned the psychological evaluation would overload the judicial system.

Chairman Anderson stated psychological testing had come before the Committee on Judiciary a number of times predominantly concerning sexual offenders. The definition of qualified evaluators was broadened on page 4 line 5. He recognized the value of psychological testing taking place on a regular basis when dealing with youths. Catching problems early in a child’s life was worthwhile even if the prison population was reduced by only 5 to 10 percent. He had no problem with the 14 days needed for an evaluation. He was in favor of electronic monitoring. He was concerned with the 3-day holiday weekend, but he felt he could live with the bill.

Assemblywoman Leslie agreed with Chairman Anderson. She stated children who committed cruel acts to animals or used a firearm in a negative manner needed treatment. She stated she felt comfortable with the bill as amended.

Assemblywoman Angle was concerned with the language of the bill conflicting with a child hunting or self-protection in the wild.

Chairman Anderson responded a police officer would have to make a judgment call and the court would have to make a judgment call concerning the child.

Assemblywoman Angle stated some people considered hunting cruelty to animals. She wanted to see the legitimate use of a firearm by a child protected.

Ms. Lang responded the only time the bill would take effect was if a child was adjudicated a delinquent for such an act as described in NRS 574.040. She felt as long as the child was hunting in a lawful manner, there would not be a problem.

Assemblyman Collins commented about children playing cops and robbers making a statement, "I’m going to kill you," being overheard by a teacher or a school security officer. He asked if a child would get evaluated for shooting a skunk in the hen house. He stated there were some flaws in the bill.

Chairman Anderson clarified the nature of the counseling was to determine whether to hold the child.

Assemblyman Gustavson stated he agreed with Assemblyman Collins. He had a problem with a child being evaluated before the child was found guilty of a cruel act to animals.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated the bill only provided for a juvenile being taken into custody, if the child made an offense with a firearm, not skunk hunting. She reviewed Kirby Burgess’ four amendments. Every youth who was arrested for having used a firearm in Clark County received a psychological evaluation. She felt comfortable with the amendments. She answered Assemblyman Gustavson’s concern, the psychological evaluation would be required upon the arrest which was different from counseling of the child.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MADE THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 221 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.

• 1. A DETENTION HEARING BE HELD WITHIN 72 HOURS EXCLUDING SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND HOLIDAYS FOR A PROBABLE CAUSE AND DETENTION HEARING.
• 2. EXTEND THE TIMEFRAME TO 14 DAYS INSTEAD OF 10 DAYS.
• 3. AUTHORIZE THE JUDICIAL OFFICER TO RELEASE THE CHILD AT THE DETENTION HEARING ON AN ELECTRONIC MONITORING OR HOUSE ARREST PROGRAM AT HIS/HER DISCRETION. THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR THE MAJORITY OF THAT CLASS OF YOUTH TO HAVE AN EVALUATION.
• 4. DEFINE "FIREARM" AS NRS 202.253.
• 5. PARENTS MAY PAY FOR COUNSELING USING THE SAME LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN NRS 62.211.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if a judge ordered a child to receive treatment, did the parents have the right to select their own professional to counsel their child.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated she was not sure the court would allow parents to select the counselor for their child.

Chairman Anderson reviewed page 4, lines 5 through 15, stating who was a qualified professional to counsel the child. Chairman Anderson guessed the parents would not be restricted.

Assemblyman Nolan was concerned there was not a specialist for disturbed children.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated marriage and family counselors treated the whole family and had the necessary experience to treat the child.

Assemblywoman Leslie agreed with the list of professionals. Her experience in the rural community was the members of the rural community knew the best professional to refer the child for evaluation.

THE MOTION CARRIED 11 YEAS AND 3 NAYS.

ASSEMBLYMEN, ANGLE, COLLINS AND GUSTAVSON OPPOSED THE MOTION.

Donald O. Williams reviewed S.B. 30. S.B. 30 was requested by Senator Amodei, heard in committee on March 12, 1999, with no action. Senator Amodei testified he requested the legislation to increase the monetary amount of cases within the jurisdiction of justice courts from $7,500 to $10,000. The bill increased from $3,500 to $5,000 the amount for small claims adjudicated in justice courts. He noted the bill might increase citizen access to dispute resolution alternatives without requiring the use of a lawyer. Furthermore, he noted the existing statutory limits had been in place for 6 years.

The Nevada Trial Lawyers Association requested the bill to assist with the caseloads in the district courts. The association expressed the opinion cases in the $5,000 to $10,000 range would be more effectively heard in justice court, and cases of $5,000 or less could be shifted into small claims court. The association noted cases of $7,500 to $10,000 often took 2 to 3 years to work their way through district court.

Representatives of the Nevada Judges Association stated their association was neutral on the bill, and they indicated their concern was with the issue of the legislation resulting in jury trials in justice court. They asked the legislature revisit the legislation in 2 years if the bill was processed.

Assemblywoman Buckley expressed concerns with the potential impact of the bill on justice courts by possible jury trials and increasing caseloads. She also mentioned concern about rules of evidence not being followed in small claims court. Assemblywoman Buckley stated she would check with the judges in Clark County about their concerns with the bill.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated she had sent an e-mail to the Clark County judges. She felt comfortable going from $3,500 to $5,000, but she was uncomfortable going from $7,500 to $10,000 for justice court because of the workload in Clark County Justice Courts.

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association stated in his conversations with judges from Clark County, the judges were willing to try the bill.

Chairman Anderson suggested taking out $7,500 to $10,000 and keeping $3,500 to $5,000.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if Mr. Williams had received the information concerning the cost of jury trials.

Mr. Williams responded, Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District Court, supplied information on the breakdown of court costs for the Eighth Judicial District Court.

Assemblyman Brower suggested waiting to receive more information to make a good decision concerning the bill. Basically, he felt it was a good bill but may need some changes.

Chairman Anderson stated he would reschedule the bill. No action was taken on S.B. 30.

Donald O. Williams reviewed A.B. 287. Assemblywoman Segerblom requested A.B. 287. The bill was heard in committee on March 8, 1999, but no action was taken. Assemblywoman Segerblom testified she requested the legislation on behalf of a group of citizens in Clark County who had their property taken under state or local government exercising the power of eminent domain. Laura FitzSimmons attorney representing the group of property owners testified A.B. 287 was needed to make certain property owners received a fair amount of compensation in condemnation proceedings. She pointed out provisions of S.B. 68 (Chapter 522, Statutes of Nevada 1991) need to be amended because the legislative intent was not recognized by the Nevada Supreme Court. S.B. 68 revised the procedure for determining the value of property and the amount of interest imposed in condemnation proceedings. Various property owners testified as to the loss of the value of their property and the unfair compensation provided to them under the existing eminent domain provisions. A representative of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association also testified in support of the bill.

Representatives of the Attorney General’s Office and Nevada Department of Transportation testified in opposition to the bill. They stated the existing Nevada statutes properly met the constitutional requirements for the payment of just compensation for a government taking private property. Furthermore, they indicated the bill would require compensation beyond the constitutional requirements and cost the state at least several million dollars in additional compensation to property owners. Representatives of various Nevada local governments testified in opposition to A.B. 287 and pointed out the bill would have a significant fiscal impact on their jurisdictions.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked the proponents of the bill to provide a narrower definition of "goodwill" (no limit to the amount of compensation under the "goodwill" provisions in the bill) and to clarify the offer of judgment issue.

Chairman Anderson requested all interested parties to submit any proposed amendments by Thursday, March 11.

Chairman Anderson stated A.B. 287 was an extremely important bill. Assemblymen Anderson, Buckley, and Carpenter would like to clarify the intent of the bill. Chairman Anderson received a substantial fiscal note on the bill from the Nevada Department of Transportation. He stated the taxpayers would have to pay the additional increases, but the property owner had the vested right to their land.

Laura FitzSimmons, attorney, representing landowners, stated she had tried to meet the opposition of the bill but was unsuccessful. She had not seen a fiscal note because there were no budget figures. She was informed by Clark County district attorneys about 5 percent of the eminent domain cases went to court. A.B. 287 would only affect a small percentage of the total number of eminent domain cases.

Ms. FitzSimmons’ amendments from (Exhibit E) were

• Delete section 2 (preferential trial setting for condemnation cases).
• Delete section 3 (providing for relocation benefits for all property taken by condemnation.
• Amend Section 4 of NRS 37.009 (6) (the definition of fair market value) to read "the highest probable price."
• Amend section 5 (Goodwill) to add to NRS 37.110 (1) (f) an additional requirement (5) that "the business had been in operation on the property for a continuous 3 year period prior to the date of taking."
• Delete section 5.3 (regarding burden of proof).
• Amend section 5 to narrow the definition of goodwill as follows: "As used in this section ‘goodwill’ means the value of the business which was proven to be attributable directly to its location."
• Amend section 8 to provide "neither party in a proceeding under this chapter may make an offer of judgment pursuant to NRS 17.115 or Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure."

James Spinello, Legislative Representative, Clark County stated most of the eminent domain cases were settled without a dispute. He mentioned A.B. 287 might encourage more litigation. He proposed eight amendments.

• 1. The court shall appoint an appraiser to determine the amount of damages and compensation to be paid to the defendant in the action. The appraiser shall be a disinterested person not related to anyone having an interest in or lien upon the property to be condemned.
• 2. If any party to the action disagrees with the conclusions of the appointed appraiser, they may ask the court to appoint another appraiser. Upon such request, the court shall appoint an additional appraiser.
• 3. If any party to the action desire an additional appraisal or appraisals following the report of the first two appraisers, the court may, if the interests of justice require, appoint an additional appraiser.
• 4. The appraiser shall subscribe to an oath to truly and faithfully appraise the value of the property taken and the amount of severance damages, if any, according to the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the laws of the State of Nevada.
• 5. No appraisal testimony will be allowed at trial of the action except for that of the randomly selected court appointed appraisers. Any party that owns an interest in the property may testify as to the value of the property taken and damages, if any. The parties by hire their own appraisers for out of court negotiations.
• 6. If additional appraisals or updated appraisals are required due to a change in the date of value by operation of NRS 37.120, the court shall instruct the originally appointed appraisers to complete such additional or updated appraisals as of the new date of value and shall assess the cost of such additional or updated appraisals upon the party or parties that the court finds primarily caused the delay requiring the change of the date of value.
• 7. The parties may stipulate to the appointment of a particular appraiser. Unless a stipulation signed by all parties selecting an appraiser is filed with the court, the court will serve all appearing parties with identical lists of five appraisers at random selected from a list of licensed general appraisers compiled for eminent domain cases listing appraisers willing to make appraisals and testify in such actions. Thereafter, each party shall, within 20 days, file with the court the list of appraisers with no more than two names stricken. If both parties respond, the court shall appoint an appraiser from among those names not stricken. If only one party responds within the 20-day period, the court shall appoint an appraiser from among those names not stricken. If neither party responds within the 20-day period, the court will appoint one of the five appraisers. If there are more than two adverse parties two additional appraisers per each additional party shall be added to the list with the above method of selection to apply. For purposes of this section, if several parties are represented by one attorney, they shall be considered as one party. This selection process shall be followed in appointing a first appraiser, second appraiser and all subsequent appraisers. The court may designate a discovery commissioner or court administrator to handle the selection process for the court.
• 8. The court shall set the reasonable compensation to be paid to the appointed appraisers. The condemning agency or authority shall pay the fees of the first appointed appraiser to the court in turn will pay the fee to the appraiser. The fees of a second appraiser and all subsequent appraisers shall be paid by the party requesting the additional appraisal. Said payments will be made to the court which will then make the payment to the appraiser.

Mr. Spinello reviewed the issue of fairness. He felt the defendant was the taxpayer. What was needed was a fair price to the owner and to the taxpayer paying for the eminent domain purchase in an expedient timeframe. Perhaps by selecting two or three appraisers the judge could select the fair price. Chairman Anderson asked if the proposal would be breaking new ground. Mr. Spinello responded, yes. Chairman Anderson stated there was an arbitration process already in place. Several members of the committee were familiar with the arbitration process. Mr. Spinello stated his proposal would establish fairness in the price and save a lot of time in the process.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated Mr. Spinello’s proposal would rewrite jurisprudence in Nevada. She was for a trial by jury, a guaranteed right. Mr. Spinello stated his proposal would not replace the jury trial. His proposal would be involved early to establish a fair price and save time. Assemblywoman Buckley stated the Spinello amendment would not allow a property owner to hire their own appraiser to testify in court for their side of the argument.

Assemblyman Collins stated the issue was established in 1993. What was needed now was to clear up the conflict in the courts. He reviewed every project had a public hearing for input before the project started.

Assemblyman Carpenter did not see how A.B. 287 was going to cost the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). He stated goodwill was the location of the property. He could not see why a property owner would not be compensated for goodwill. Assemblyman Carpenter gave the example of NDOT acquiring a piece of property in Las Vegas for $9 million and the new appraisal price was $13 million. He mentioned he had a bad experience with some of his land being acquired by eminent domain. Assemblyman Carpenter was for the interest rate of prime plus 2 percent to be paid to the landowner while the disputed value for the land was being resolved.

Chairman Anderson stated he wanted to resolve the differences and move forward today. He stated state agencies were not justly compensating landowners. Just compensation was guaranteed in the Nevada Constitution. He wanted constructive language to be in the work document to be reviewed on the March 19, 1999, work session.

Assemblywoman Buckley did not want to process the bill now. She did not believe the $39 million fiscal note. There were a couple of parts of the bill she did not like and some parts of the bill needed to processed. Land was valued by one method in the original bill, and then the Nevada Supreme Court changed the way to value land. For the people who had property condemned by eminent domain, the method to value their property had changed. The state and local governments needed to sit down and resolve the problems instead of changing American jurisprudence.

Chairman Anderson stated the NDOT representatives were not present because of a conflicting meeting.

Assemblyman Collins partially agreed with Assemblywoman Buckley. He wanted to find a balance to process the bill.

Thomas J. Grady, Legislative Representative, Nevada League of Cities & Municipalities, stated there were 18 cities and 17 counties and Ms. FitzSimmons had not contacted anyone in the Nevada League of Cities.

No action was taken on A.B. 287. The bill was scheduled for the March 19, 1999, work session.

Chairman Anderson reported the status of the subcommittees and exactly what had happened with each committee.

A.B. 18 would be ready for the March 23, 1999, work session.

A.B. 52 would be ready for the March 30, 1999, work session.

A.B. 121 would be ready for the March 30, 1999, work session.

A.B. 154 would be ready for the March 30, 1999, work session.

A.B. 155 would try to schedule for Thursday, March 18, 1999.

A.B. 158 and A.B. 315 would be ready for the March 30, 1999, work session.

There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 12:16 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: