The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Saturday, March 27, 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. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Brower (excused)

Ms. Buckley (excused)

Mr. Nolan (excused)

Ms. Ohrenschall (excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 624.

Dave Wasick, administrative counsel, Nevada Supreme Court, testified the Supreme Court was taking steps to clarify and amend the rules regarding final judgments so a final judgment in district court would resolve all the issues, including fees and costs, before an appeal was taken. He noted currently the appeals were taken after the final judgment, and subsequently the attorney would file for fees and costs at the district court level, and then they would file another appeal after the court ordered fees or costs. What the Supreme Court was trying to accomplish through rules was to adopt rules so only one appeal would be taken after all the issues at the district court level had been resolved. He stated it saved the court time and money and ultimately the taxpayers of Nevada also. In the process of amending the rules in regard to clarity, they looked at section 1, subsection 4 of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 18.010, and felt the language in that section should be eliminated, so the new rule at the Supreme Court for the Nevada rule of appellate procedure was clear regarding the final judgment.

Chairman Anderson questioned what type of fee generally came in after the fact and what types of questions were raised in the subsequent appeals after judgment.

Mr. Wasick replied, after the judgment on the merits was made the prevailing party would often be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. The court would be asked for those fees and costs after a notice of appeal had been filed and there was an appeal pending at the Supreme Court on the underlying merits of the case. He noted the attorney’s fees and costs argument would revolve around whether the fees and costs were reasonable or whether or not the person was actually the prevailing party.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the process gave the parties time to decide if the costs and fees were reasonable. Mr. Wasick responded eliminating the language would not have an affect, but the rule they were proposing would give them enough time to obtain the costs and fees to which they were entitled. He noted there would be provisions in the rule to allow for any fees that could not be figured in a short period of time to be amended at a later date. The rule had not been developed yet, but they anticipated doing it and were aware of the need for giving the attorney’s enough time to evaluate their costs.

Chairman Anderson questioned if the bill became effective on passage and approval and the set of rules were not in place, should they delay passage to give them enough time to establish the rules.

Mr. Wasick felt it would not be necessary because most of the existing case law in Nevada made it clear, and the bill did not have a substantive effect on the final judgment rule, it was more for clarification.

Mr. Carpenter questioned when the rules would be in place and Mr. Wasick responded they were working on them, and it was a complicated process. He anticipated it would take several more months before the rules were in place.

Mr. Carpenter indicated, if the rules were not in place and they delayed it until other pieces of legislation went into effect, it would give them time to complete the rules.

Chairman Anderson observed, if they put forth the rule of law during the window of time needed to complete the rules, would anybody suffer. He noted the committee was trying to raise its comfort level knowing there were no rules available and because of past history with the court, he wondered how long it would take them to implement the rules and would the people be protected during that time period.

Mr. Wasick reiterated the court had comprehensive rules currently in place governing the final judgment in appeals taken and those rules had not been repealed. He stressed they were looking to amend those rules, and while that was being accomplished the existing rules were in place and were comprehensive and covered all areas.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 624 and entertained a motion.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Collins and opened the hearing on A.B. 546.

Joe Brown, president of the law firm of Jones Vargas, testified on behalf of yellow checker cab company. Mr. Brown read from a prepared script (Exhibit C) indicating he supported A.B. 546. He also showed a video of a news segment from Channel 3 in Las Vegas where the station had conducted a sting operation concerning the business of diversion. The video showed the producer of the television news acting undercover as a customer for cab drivers. He would request to be taken to a certain strip club in Las Vegas, but the driver would try to divert him to another club instead. He performed the same undercover operation with several different cab drivers over a period of time.

Mr. Brown concluded his testimony by reading from his prepared script (Exhibit C), where he pointed out how prevalent common carrier diversion had become and gave examples of diversion tactics used by cab drivers in Las Vegas.

Chairman Anderson questioned the difference between a person asking for recommendations from a cab driver regarding places to eat, antique shops to visit, or the location of historical sites in the community and a cab driver offering a recommendation to the customer.

Mr. Brown responded the bill was totally different from the scenario Chairman Anderson described. He noted the bill was designed to prevent the scenario where a customer had a location in mind and the cab driver tried to convince the person to go to another place because there was something wrong with it and the cab driver received money from the place to which he diverted the customer.

Chairman Anderson questioned if the burden of the bill was placed on the cab driver and not on the business owner who paid.

Tony Sanchez, attorney at law, Jones Vargas, pointed out under existing law and under the current sting operations being conducted, they were geared toward the cab drivers. With several thousand taxicab drivers in Nevada it was virtually impossible for the authorities to reach each one, so the proposed legislation was directed toward the business owners. He noted currently there were provisions preventing drivers from accepting money, but the bill put the onus on the business owner and since there were fewer of them, it required fewer investigators to attempt to put an end to the practice.

Assemblyman Collins referred to NRS 706.036 describing common motor carriers and wondered if the description covered all motor carriers because it included buses, trolleys, cabs, and other motor carriers. He questioned since they were specifically targeting taxicabs did they consider addressing the issue of bus drivers who took people all over and would go to certain restaurants because they were compensated for it. He also questioned what the local law enforcement was doing to address the problem or were they allowing the local television station to do the policing for them.

Mr. Sanchez indicated the Clark County Code, the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), and the city of Las Vegas Municipal Code were geared toward taxicabs and did not think the concern was charter buses stopping at a fast food restaurant because they gave a meal to the driver. He pointed out the driver was not diverting the patrons from where they requested to go.

Mr. Sanchez addressed Mr. Collins’ question regarding law enforcement and noted the taxicab authority conducted its own sting operation where their officers went into the field and conducted 30 rides and 30 percent tried diversion. He mentioned the bill allowed authorities, on multiple offenders, to go for the suspension of their business license for 6 months. Sometimes there were not sufficient resources to catch all of the cab drivers so the focus of the bill was the business owner who was breaking local, state, and tax laws.

Assemblywoman Leslie questioned if the diversion problem was in northern Nevada as well as southern Nevada and Mr. Sanchez responded the focus was in southern Nevada.

Ms. Leslie questioned if the $10 or $20 fee cab drivers received from business owners was motivating them to break the rules against the cab companies and wondered why the companies could not adequately supervise their drivers.

Mr. Sanchez could not speak for the industry as a whole, but the provision was shown to the cab industry and they endorsed the provision and understood it was a problem because they dealt with the angry customers as well as the authorities attempting to go after their drivers. He felt the owners did try to enforce the rule, but with so many drivers involved they did not have the resources to watch every driver.

Ms. Leslie asked how many drivers were cited the previous year and Mr. Sanchez replied the statistics included the Channel 3 investigation as well as the sting conducted by the taxicab authority and of the 30 rides, 10 were cited and given fines ranging from $250 to $500.

Mr. Manendo commented, if bus drivers took their customers to a casino and the casino gave them free dinners the casino operator would be subject to a fine.

Mr. Carpenter felt the bill applied to truck drivers and all common motor carriers and thought it should speak specifically to taxicabs and he questioned what penalties were set by the local authorities for the practice of diversion.

Referring to the comment about truck drivers, Mr. Sanchez replied it would not apply to them. Addressing the issue of bus drivers, he noted they would not want it to apply to them because those passengers requested to be taken to Las Vegas and if they stopped for a meal, they were not necessarily being diverted from their intended location. In regard to what the codes provided, the city of Las Vegas and Clark County had fines of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months. The current Nevada Administrative Codes allowed fines from $250 to $500. He pointed out the difference with the new legislation was it allowed for progressive, repeat offenders with the fines becoming stricter thereafter, and it would apply to the business owner.

Mr. Carpenter reiterated his concern regarding the bill referring to all motor carriers and Mr. Sanchez replied he would not have a problem clarifying it was for taxicabs only.

Mr. Brown indicated through their investigations businesses such as casinos and taverns were not the violators and noted they would not care if they were specifically exempted. They found the violators to be restaurants, nightclubs, and brothels in counties where they were legal.

Assemblyman Gustavson queried if the legislation would apply to the owners of the restaurant or nightclub who gave the driver a tip for recommending their place, but the driver did not divert his customers to the location.

Mr. Sanchez replied the current codes prevented business owners from paying remuneration for any purpose.

Assemblyman Claborn indicated he could not find the word diversion in A.B. 546 and asked for an explanation of why they kept referring to the word throughout their testimony.

Mr. Sanchez responded the concept was if the business owner was prevented from offering the money in the first place, a diversion would not occur because the cab driver would not have the incentive to try to divert the passenger from his intended location.

Mr. Claborn stated it still did not answer the problem because the word diversion was not in the bill. He felt the language in the bill Mr. Sanchez was referring to did not pinpoint diversion at all.

Mr. Sanchez referred to section 1, subsection 1 pointing out if the business owner was not offering money to taxicab drivers as an incentive to take them to their location the driver would attempt to take their customer to a location that would give them a remuneration.

Mr. Claborn repeated he understood what they were trying to say, but they did not say it. If they were talking about diversion they should use that language in the bill.

Harvey Whittemore, partner, Lionel Sawyer and Collins law firm, testifying on behalf of Bell Transportation addressed the concerns expressed by Mr. Claborn and others on the committee and noted those concerns could be handled in an amendment. He suggested adding the language "which would require the driver to divert a customer in violation of applicable law" at the end of line 8 in the bill. He stressed it was the intent of the proponents of A.B. 546 to ensure the drivers were subject to the existing NAC codes regarding diversion, but it also said to the business owners they could not pay for the diversion, which was what Mr. Claborn and the other members were seeking.

Mr. Brown agreed with the recommendation because he felt Mr. Claborn had made a good point.

Mr. Whittemore indicated they would support A.B. 546 in the amended version.

Mr. Carpenter contended the term "common motor carrier" had to be modified to address only taxicabs.

Chairman Anderson expressed concern about discount coupons found in the cabs and wondered if that was a way of keeping track of the diversionary process. He questioned if the bill would prohibit the practice of handing out coupons in the cabs and would it also affect cabs from having signs on them advertising businesses in the area.

Mr. Whittemore suggested the amendment he proposed would be more appropriately placed before the language discussing coupons because it would more appropriately identify the Chair’s concerns about not impacting advertisements and coupons. He reiterated all they were trying to accomplish was to make the actual act of a recommendation, which had the effect of diverting, inappropriate. He stressed it was a drafting point to decide on language that would satisfy the committee.

Chairman Anderson indicated if the bill was processed an unfunded mandate to the local government would be created where they would have to enforce the statute which would increase their costs of incarceration. He expressed there was a level of concern regarding the mandate and wondered if it would cause a problem.

Mr. Brown responded he did not think it would be a problem because it would make it easier to enforce the violation by making the owner liable.

George William Treat Flint, wedding chapel owner, conceded there was a problem in Las Vegas, but not one time had he heard of a similar problem occurring in Reno or in the rural areas.

Mr. Flint testified he heard the word "diversion" 47 times during earlier testimony and felt it was a problem, but it should not be wrong to do something nice. When a place was recommended it should not be wrong for that business to show their appreciation.

Mr. Flint referred to a list of businesses with whom (Exhibit D) his wedding chapel did business and noted they paid commissions to all of those businesses. Under the bill they would be prohibited from paying commissions to only taxi and limousine drivers, which were on the list. He stated the list gave an indication of how vast the concept of remuneration or commissions was within the tourist-oriented state.

Mr. Flint testified 2,500 people a week went to Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City to be married. Their first encounter with the community was a friendly taxicab driver. The driver helped those people find a notary public, waited at the courthouse while they purchased a marriage license, and sometimes ran errands for the couple. He noted 20 percent of the 2,500 weddings were known as "taxi weddings" and wedding chapels were happy to slip the driver $20 because they helped make the chapel’s work easier.

Mr. Flint pointed out cab drivers did not receive accumulated sick leave or overtime pay. The average driver drove 12 hours a day and received 50 percent of the meter, less the cost of gas and oil. Without the benefit of tips and other found remuneration few cab drivers would be making more than minimum wage. He gave examples of how helpful cab drivers were to his friends and family and sometimes they received tips from businesses for their help, and under the law the business could lose its license.

Noting how dangerous driving a cab could be, Mr. Flint referred to a newspaper article (Exhibit E) about a taxicab driver who had been shot and killed 2 years ago in the Reno area.

Mr. Flint estimated there were approximately 4000 Nevadans driving cabs and limousines and they were often the first ambassadors of goodwill for the 34 million tourists who visited southern Nevada and the 4.5 million who visited northern Nevada every year.

Mr. Flint concluded his testimony by suggesting if problems existed at the strip clubs in Las Vegas, the owners should be encouraged to address the issues with the cab drivers and not upset the relationship the drivers had with other businesses in the state.

Assemblyman Manendo related how a constituent of his, who was a retired cab driver, would take a passenger to the Silver Slipper for breakfast every time the person came to Las Vegas on business. He questioned if that driver suggested the Silver Slipper because it was closer to where the customer was staying and went inside and was given a free cup of coffee, would the Silver Slipper or the cab driver be liable under that scenario.

Mr. Flint responded as he read the bill they would be liable.

Chairman Anderson referred to a fax he had received from the Nevada Restaurant Association (Exhibit F) which suggested amended language in order to support the bill. Without the amended language, they would not support the legislation as it was introduced.

Michael Langton, speaking as a private citizen, related he had a problem with the word "person." He referred to line 3 of section 1, "a person shall not offer" and then referred to line 9 of section 1, " a person who violates the provisions" and pointed out corporations were hard to send to jail and how would the provision be enforced.

Mr. Brown conceded the original draft of the bill was inartfully drawn. He noted the issue they brought before the committee was diversion, and it was not covered in the bill. He thought most of the concerns people had would be alleviated in the subcommittee. He stressed they were trying to prevent diversion as an illegal act which caused concern in the tourism industry and did not have a problem with a cab driver extending a courtesy to a passenger and being tipped for those courtesies.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 546 and assigned it to a subcommittee. It would be composed of Mr. Collins as the Chair and Mr. Gustavson.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 670.

Mr. Langton, representing the Washoe County Probation Officer Employees Association, requested NRS 62.1262 be amended to allow the employees who worked in the juvenile services courts in Washoe County to have the same rights the employees in Clark County currently enjoyed, which was to be recognized as county employees.

Mr. Langton informed the committee there had been a dispute whether or not they were county employees, even though their paychecks came from the county, and they received all of the benefits. The dispute had been continuing for 6 years and because the county was growing at such a rapid pace it would be a short period of time before it would come under the current provision of 400,000. They were asking to have it reduced to 100,000 so they would be considered county employees right away.

For clarification, Ms. Leslie asked what the practical aspects of the bill were.

Mr. Langton responded the practical application would allow them to petition for recognition as an association under NRS 288. He noted, currently in Clark County probation officers did have the rights to be considered county employees under NRS 288. The dispute had arisen because of a petition for recognition that was submitted in 1992 and had been resisted on the grounds they were not county employees, and he felt a clarification in the law would solve that. He explained the employees would still be under provisions of NRS 62.103 through 123. He reviewed them several times and it was his opinion they did not reduce the judge’s authorities in any way, it just gave the employees the rights to petition government in the form of an association.

Chairman Anderson questioned if it only affected Washoe County and asked if the other county employees were under the collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Langton responded affirmatively and pointed out the Washoe County employees association would have accepted the group as members it there not had been the argument about whether or not they were county employees. He said those county employees currently were recognized and had collective bargaining rights. He noted it was not an issue in Carson City, even though they were not a county greater than 100,000.

Ms. Koivisto queried where the group’s paychecks came from and Mr. Langton responded Washoe County.

Ms. McClain asked how many employees were involved and Mr. Langton responded there were 77 individuals.

Ms. McClain asked if Washoe County was "ok with this," and Mr. Langton stated that was not a fair assumption because he was not authorized to speak for them.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 670 and brought it back to committee.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to himself.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 644.

Myla Florence, administrator, Nevada State Welfare Division, distributed copies of her testimony (Exhibit G). She explained they were requesting changes to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 31A to promote recovery of child support dollars and pertained to Nevada’s child support enforcement program, which was administered by the Welfare Division in conjunction with the county district attorneys. Reading from her document, Ms. Florence explained each of the changes her department was requesting to amend the statute and mentioned provisions in the bill with which her department disagreed or had not requested. She pointed out attached to her written testimony were two proposed amendments to A.B. 644. She explained the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) bill drafter recognized a need to amend NRS 31A.250, but there was insufficient time to include it in the bill prior to introduction.

Mr. Collins asked for clarification on the requested July 1, 1999, delay mentioned in her testimony and if payment would still be sent to the district attorney, and they would transfer it to the State Disbursement Unit (SDU).

Ms. Florence responded payments would be made directly to the SDU. She noted the date referred to the effective date for changing from certified to first class mail and felt it could easily be accommodated by that date.

Ms. Lang indicated she was the person in the Legal Division who decided not to include the proposed amendments in the bill draft and she explained it was because in NRS 31A.250 she felt it was talking about the court could assign a that amount to the person. In NRS 31A.300 it stated "when it was assigned" and since it referred to how the payment took place before it went to the new method of disbursement with the SDU, she felt the language addressed the issue of payment and felt it was unnecessary to amend that section.

Don Winne, deputy attorney general, Office of the Attorney General, responded he agreed with Ms. Lang that 31A.250 did not need to be reopened at the current time. He explained the reason they had concerns about the language in 31A.300 was because they did not understand what the bill drafter was requesting. After he realized she was trying to state they were to follow a court order, he pointed out the problem for the committee was NRS 31A was a "schizophrenic chapter." The first part of the chapter dealt only with the enforcing authorities withholding. The second half dealt with a private wage assignment in which the court had allowed either the custodial parent to proceed directly or the custodial parent’s attorney to proceed directly to obtain the wage assignment or wage withholding. He stated NRS 31A.300 dealt with the custodial parent trying to obtain a wage assignment and it was a non-4D case. He explained that meant the child support enforcement authority was not working the case, but the custodial parent was trying to collect child support, so they send a wage assignment to the employer, but because of federal law, every wage assignment or withholding must go through the enforcement authority.

Mr. Winne concluded his remarks by stating they agreed to leave NRS 31A.250 alone, but they would still needed the language in NRS 31A.300.

Ms. Florence clarified they would not need the second amendment they proposed, and Ms. Lang agreed NRS 31A.300 took care of their concern and did not need the second amendment.

For clarification on the intent of A.B. 644, Chairman Anderson stated mail was being changed from certified to first class. Secondly, all collections would go through the district attorney’s offices for distribution, and finally the requirement the person received the payment was being eliminated.

Ms. Florence stated Chairman Anderson was correct except ultimately all 17 counties’ payment would be through the SDU which would be located in Clark County, but confirmed the payment would go through the district attorney to be deposited in the SDU.

Chairman Anderson questioned if they anticipated a time delay and Ms. Florence responded the SDU, under federal law, must process the payments within 2 working days, and that was why they needed a centralized location for the SDU.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 644 and brought it back to committee. He noted they would accept the first proposed amendment, but did not feel they needed the second proposed amendment (Exhibit G).

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Ms. Leslie.

After a brief recess Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 621.

Dennis DeBacco, manager, Records and Identification Services, Nevada Highway Patrol, distributed a proposed amendment (Exhibit H) explaining their original intent had not been defined in the first bill draft.

Chairman Anderson informed the committee because of the extensive proposed amendment, which changed many subsections of the bill, it would be moved to a work session, and he wanted them to concentrate on discussing the amendment during the hearing and not the bill. He pointed out the bill might require a two-thirds majority vote because of the potential for a fee increase and Mr. DeBacco responded they were not proposing a fee increase or a user fee. Chairman Anderson questioned if they were expanding the cost, but he indicated the legal staff would make the determination. Mr. DeBacco also mentioned they did not anticipate a fiscal note on the bill, because they felt within their existing program and their budget, it brought them into alignment with additional responsibilities.

Mr. DeBacco pointed out in the last session there were a number of bills, which affected the Criminal History Records Repository as well as the justice information system. The amendment added clarity to NRS 179A and other enabling statutory provisions.

Mr. DeBacco testified the proposed amendment (Exhibit H) carried a significant amount of weight. He noted much of what was originally proposed was still in the bill. They took those recommendations, but they added a new section 1 by changing the language, and they also changed the language in section 2.5. He explained the remainder of the changes were "cosmetic" and could be found throughout the bill. They also tried to accommodate some of the new functions they assumed from the 1997 session such as protective orders, sex offender registrants, missing persons, and domestic violence statistical information.

Mr. DeBacco observed the user community throughout the state, which primarily consisted of the criminal justice community, as well as many civil licensing, employment, and regulatory agencies, had placed numerous requests to increase the effectiveness of the repository. They were asked to redesign their existing criminal history record system, as well as add many new functions to the justice information system.

Chairman Anderson asked if the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had examined the proposed amendment and Mr. DeBacco responded they had not examined the specific amendments (Exhibit H), but the director of the AOC had a seat on the justice information system’s advisory committee. She was aware of the intended legislation found in the bill. He pointed out there were members of the district court, the municipal court, and the justice court judge’s associations who also sat on the committee. There were also representatives from district attorney’s association and various law enforcement agencies across the state, as well as representatives from the Department of Prison and the Division of Parole and Probation. He pointed out the members of the committee were familiar with the intent of the original language found in A.B. 621.

Mr. DeBacco explained A.B. 621 accurately identified the originator of the agency and required them to report information. As an example, if an arrest warrant was served by law enforcement, they felt since the warrant originated in a court directing law enforcement to serve it, the court should be responsible for transmitting it to the repository, either in a manual form or an electronic form.

Mr. DeBacco mentioned his department would like to move toward a paperless environment in which they would receive and disseminate information in a timely manner. He felt that was the only way the repository would survive, as well as receiving favorable funding support to administer the program.

Kalene Dickerson, police services manager, Reno Police Department, indicated she also served as the chairman of the northern Nevada subcommittee, which represented all of the criminal justice agencies in nine counties in northern Nevada.

Ms. Dickerson referred to their proposed amendment (Exhibit H) and gave a synopsis of each of the sections.

Calling attention to section 1.5 of the document, Ms. Dickerson noted the "records of public safety" were not defined in the existing statute and they requested those be added to records that already included work permits, occupational licensing permits, court orders, and missing person reports.

Ms. Dickerson referred to section 2 of their proposed amendment (Exhibit H) explaining it gave a clearer definition of what records of criminal history were.

In regard to section 2.5, Ms. Dickerson explained it went into detail as to whom the originator of record was and who should be submitting the record to the repository. She noted that was the intent of section 1; however, it was not clearly defined, and they felt it was more clearly defined in the language they used in the amendment.

For clarification, Chairman Anderson asked if they were requesting the committee maintain the current language in section 2 (Exhibit H), and add the new language found in section 2.5, and Ms. Dickerson said that was correct. Chairman Anderson further clarified they were moving language that was "scattered" throughout the bill and centralizing it in one area of the bill.

Mr. Carpenter referred to page 2, line 9, of the document "the term includes only information contained in a record, maintained in written or electronic form," and questioned in order to report it must be written or electronically transferred, and Ms. Dickerson responded affirmatively. He wondered if there would be records for individuals held in detention. Ms. Dickerson replied those were currently submitted on a fingerprint card taken at the time the person was taken into custody, and they considered that a written form.

Chairman Anderson and Ms. Dickerson discussed the provision found on line 38, page 3, of (Exhibit H), regarding if the district attorney made a determination not to prosecute a person in detention, it would appear in the central repository that the person was not prosecuted.

Ms. Dickerson called attention to section 4(b) of the document, explaining the provision was added so they would have the ability to look to the future for electronic transmission of information via the internet or access from outside computers throughout the state. Chairman Anderson questioned the term "unique identifying numbers" found on line 41 of the section and asked for clarification. Mr. DeBacco replied it was widely recognized in the criminal justice community in record management systems. As examples, he mentioned social security numbers, dates of birth, and incident numbers that were created in local police agencies, to which the repository matched their records to those numbers. He pointed out what was difficult for them in dealing with the many agencies throughout the state was to find one identifying number.

Chairman Anderson questioned if the unique identifying number was an important tool for cross matching from fingerprints. Mr. DeBacco replied currently there was only one true form of identification and that was fingerprints. He noted DNA was close to being identical, but when forensic returned with an analysis, they would say it matched with a degree of certainty.

Ms. Dickerson continued her synopsis of the proposed amendment by calling attention to page 6, line 10 (Exhibit H), noting the date had changed from January 31 to July 1 for submitting statistical data for the legislative members. Mr. DeBacco added that date aligned itself with the release date of their annual uniform crime report, and they would like to incorporate the domestic violence statistics into the annual report.

Chairman Anderson remarked the legislature had problems obtaining meaningful record information from the courts that could be utilized by the legislature to analyze the workload of the various agencies. He felt by moving the date forward, it would cut down on the window of time they would have information available to them. He questioned if they moved forward with the July 1 date, that would eliminate the opportunity to obtain information from the months preceding the legislative session. Mr. DeBacco concurred with the statement, but reported it was as timely as the agencies could get the year end closing information into the repository in order to put it into a format that was readable.

Ms. Dickerson called attention to section 3, subsection 7(c), found on page 6 (Exhibit H), which would give them the ability to electronically disseminate the information throughout the state. As a side note, she indicated they had inserted the words "public safety records" throughout the document, which were not contained in the original bill draft.

Ms. Dickerson pointed out the different changes found on pages 7 through 9 of the proposed amendment (Exhibit H), noting they were the word changes she had previously discussed. She also called attention to some language changes found on page 10 of the document.

Ms. Dickerson called attention to section 12, explaining it was added to clarify what the Department of Prisons would be submitting to them and the form in which they would be submitting it. In section 13, she reported it was to define what the coroner would be submitting to the repository.

Chairman Anderson questioned if the language in those sections was new language and Ms. Dickerson responded some of it was in the original bill, but they added additional phrases.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the coroner was required to send fingerprints on everybody, and Mr. DeBacco responded they were required to submit the prints and records of death on anybody who had a record within the repository so they could manage the system by purging inactive or closed records. He noted on many occasions the coroner used the repository to identify "John or Jane Does."

Mr. Carpenter questioned how the coroner would know if a person had a record in the repository. Mr. DeBacco explained there were provisions within NRS 481.245 that directed the coroner through the process. They had a computer terminal in their office in which they made inquiries to the repository database through any unique identifiers they had regarding the deceased individual. If they found the individual had a record there, they would submit the fingerprints and that would allow the repository to purge the system. He pointed out a criminal history record remained in their system until the person was 90 years-old, plus 10 years, provided there had not been any activity on the person.

Grace George, representing the Records and Identification Services, Nevada Highway Patrol, explained the July 1 date was the date their statistics would be published. They had statistical collection schedules already established with their contributors.

Mr. DeBacco noted the statistics were gathered on a calendar year basis instead of a fiscal year basis and that coincided with the national reporting requirements.

Chairman Anderson suggested the bill drafter clarify that information if they moved forward with the bill.

Mr. Carpenter questioned if their system would have the capability of handling the added requirements included in the proposed amendment.

Alan Rogers, manager, Public Safety Information Technology, responded their current proposed budget adequately funded those improvements. The project was on-going and they maintained a 5-year plan which projected their future needs.

Asking for clarification, Ms. McClain referred to page 3 of the proposed amendment (Exhibit H), regarding Temporary Protective Orders (TPO). She wondered if the language found on line 23 would take care of situations in which the TPO expired or when it was reversed. Would they be notified to remove the record from their database.

Ms. Dickerson responded, the way the module was constructed, there would be a date entered to notify them when the TPO expired. It would also notify them if the TPO was reinstated or renewed or validated.

Chairman Anderson questioned if there was a TPO that had expired and the court had not notified them it had been reinstated, how would an officer know it had been reinstated.

Ms. Dickerson replied how they envisioned the system to work was once the TPO expired, the agency that submitted the record would receive a notification they had an expired order and were asked if they wished to extend or modify it.

Ms. McClain questioned once the agency had been notified of the expired TPO, and the accused had his or her day in court, and proved it was false, would that require them be to notified as well.

Mr. DeBacco replied it was not in the statutory provisions but it was in their operational plan. He noted once the order expired, based upon the date that was on the order, whether temporary or extended, it was taken from their active system and placed in an archival file. That information was used to feed statistical data into another component of their program.

Chairman Anderson questioned if they had a process in place for expungement of materials. Mr. DeBacco referred him to page 3, line 20, of the document (Exhibit H) which stated they would be required to seal criminal records. He pointed out there were no provisions in Nevada to expunge a file. In the state they sealed records, and there were statutes in place showing how it was applied to the record management system.

Jim Nadeau, captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified they supported A.B. 621 in the amended version.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, expressed concern for the privacy of noncriminal records and personal information. She indicated they did not have a quarrel with the intent of the sponsors of the bill, but they had specific concerns regarding provisions in the proposed amendment.

Ms. Lusk called attention to page 1, line 6, of the proposed amendment (Exhibit H) which contained the definition of records of public safety. She requested the committee add assurance the information kept on noncriminal records would be limited to the items listed in the section to which she referred. She also requested the records be maintained only in Nevada and not shared with other states or the Federal Government.

Referring to page 2, line 1, which contained the language "citations for misdemeanors," Ms. Lusk asked for clarification and assurance it applied to criminal misdemeanors only and not civil or traffic type misdemeanors. She conceded she was aware that was the intent of the sponsors, but reiterated she wanted the assurance.

Chairman Anderson questioned if her suggestion would prevent somebody with an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation or parking ticket from being identified through the criminal repository.

Ms. Dickerson confirmed they did not collect any traffic information or other moving violations. Chairman Anderson hypothesized if a police officer pulled somebody over and issued a citation and 45 minutes later that person was back on the highway. Shortly thereafter a highway patrolman pulled that person over again, and issued another citation, and the same person proceeded into an urban area and received another citation. Chairman Anderson questioned if there would be any record available for the officer to see there had been a chain of events, which could be indicative of problems other than speeding.

Ms. Dickerson clarified they did not collect that information through the criminal justice repository, but it was collected through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Adding a point of clarity, Mr. DeBacco indicated driving citation information was not made part of a person’s criminal history record. It was made part of the individual’s driving history record that was administered through the DMV; however, it was accessible information through their computer system and the Nevada law enforcement state message switch to law enforcement agencies. He pointed out if a person received a traffic citation and failed to appear in court, that would result in a warrant, and that would be made part of their justice information system.

Ms. Lusk called attention to page 4, line 33, "record of public safety" and stated that phrase was not always appropriate because there were differences in the way records of public safety were intended to be kept and shared. She referred to various sentences contained on that page regarding the collecting of information and stressed she wanted assurance it would be collected only on criminal histories and not on public safety records.

Ms. Lusk moved on to page 7, starting at line 7, which contained language that allowed records of criminal history to be disseminated to any agency where records were shared. She reiterated her concern about the words "public safety records" because of her desire to keep those type of records in the state of Nevada. She conceded she was told that was the intent, but by the insertion of "public safety records" she felt it was negating that. She approved of the existing language found on lines 20 through 23, which allowed the dissemination of certain records upon written consent of the person whose name was on the record.

Chairman Anderson commented part of the criminal history repository, in terms of its funding formula, was the ability to interlink between states, and that was why federal dollars had been allocated for it. He noted the committee would not limit their ability to do the job they were designed to do, especially with the highly transient population in the state, and take away the ability to access other states.

Ms. Lusk agreed with the Chair in regard to criminal history, but with the expansion to public safety records, she said Ms. Dickerson had told her it was their intent to keep the public safety portion of the records, which were noncriminal records, in the State of Nevada. She reiterated she wanted that assurance and not have the sharing become a sharing of noncriminal history records. As examples, she mentioned concealed weapon carry permits (CCWP), permit lists and records of employment. She felt the language found on page 7 was expanding that sharing.

Chairman Anderson referred to section 1.5 (Exhibit H) and questioned if they were identifying deceased remains as an example, for a agency in another state, they might need to work with Nevada to help identify the remains if those remains were found in Nevada.

Ms. Lusk responded the elements the Chair mentioned were not their concerns. They were concerned with occupational licensing, permits to work, and CCWP permits.

Chairman Anderson observed CCWP permits in Nevada were limited to just the state. He noted other states shared that information and allowed CCWP permit carriers to cross into their state, but Nevada did not allow it by statute. He pointed out some individuals wanted that requirement dropped, but they would be relying on the central repository in order to accomplish that.

Ms. Lusk called attention to page 9, lines 7 through 15 (Exhibit H), which dealt with allowing people who were a subject of one of the records to inspect them. She thought the intent was to allow them to inspect any records, but according to the language found on line 12, the right of access did not "extend to data contained in intelligence, investigative or other related files, and does not include any information other than that defined as information relating to sexual offenses or a record of criminal history." She felt they should add "or public safety" so the individual who had the record on file could inspect any of the records referring to that person.

Ms. Lusk noted she wanted the words "or public safety" added to the language found on page 9, lines 30 through 32.

Ms. Lusk referred to page 11 of the document, which dealt with concealed weapons. She noted by deleting the language on lines 9 and 11, where previously that information was provided upon specific request, now all information would be provided.

Ms. Lusk concluded her testimony by stating it was clear everybody was "after the same thing," but it was important to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. She felt whatever records were kept by Nevada should be preserved in the state.

Mr. Collins conceded some of Ms. Lusk’s concerns were valid, but in the concealed weapons statute, in order to obtain a permit, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was contacted to check the records of the person. He also addressed the issue of public safety stating it was a federal requirement that a person obtaining a commercial driver’s license had their record checked by the Federal government. He noted that information would have to be shared in order for a person moving to Nevada to obtain a commercial driver’s license. They would have to contact the state from where the person had moved in order to run a check on him. He understood public safety to mean upon the consent of an applicant the information was made available to anybody other than just law enforcement.

Ms. Lusk stated she disagreed with Mr. Collins because within the state the sharing among law enforcement agencies was a factor, but not between the state and the Federal Government.

Mr. DeBacco stated he validated what Mr. Collins had said, but he felt they misunderstood the dissemination of information. On page 7, where it discussed how records were disseminated for criminal history records as well as public safety, he clarified public safety records were only shared among the criminal justice community. The only other way that information would be released to noncriminal justice agencies was by release and waiver from that individual, according to the language found on line 20.

Chairman Anderson addressed Ms. Lusk’s concern regarding the Federal Government and questioned how much information had to be exchanged outside of the state.

Mr. DeBacco reported there were many statutory provisions that guided the repository in exchanging information with other state criminal justice agencies, as well as with the FBI’s crime information center.

Mr. DeBacco concluded his testimony by requesting if the bill passed it would become effective upon passage and approval. He conceded the proposed amendment was a "work in process" as it related to the system. There were some provisions that were not going to be available upon passage, but they wanted the latitude as they were building the modules to have the statutory authority.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 621, and announced the bill would be assigned to a subcommittee.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Chris Casey,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: