The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Monday, April 5, 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

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

Ms. Barbara Buckley

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 544. The bill was drafted on behalf of Assemblywoman Buckley.

Judge Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court testified for A.B. 544. The bill with the amendment had the approval of the Eighth Judicial District Court. Courts had struggled in the past when a motion to relocate came before the courts. The Nevada State Supreme Court had given guidance regarding cases involving the moving of the parent with greater parenting time and the day to day responsibility for the child. She mentioned the "Swartz Factors" were considered before a parent was allowed to leave the state with child, thereby depriving the remaining parent of the day-to-day or week-to-week visitation with the child. Usually the move was so far away the remaining parent would only see the child three or four times a year. If the moving parent had a good faith reason for moving, and the move would improve the moving parent’s ability to provide for the child, the move would be approved. There was a great deal of distress for the remaining parent. Recently, the courts had a problem with joint custodial parents when one parent wanted to leave the state. Judge Steel had talked with Assemblywoman Buckley about the bill.

Assemblywoman Buckley made the provision for joint and custodial cases by adding the phrase, "in the best interest of." Judge Steel’s amendment deleted on page 2, lines 19 and 20, "or a parent having joint custody," lines 23 and 24 "or other parent having joint custody," and line 31 "or other parent having joint custody." The amendments would place joint custodial parents on an "even playing field." If one parent decided to move out of the state, the court would look at both parents equally and not give the benefit to the parent leaving the state. Currently the parent leaving the state benefited from the court’s decision.

Chairman Anderson asked if the amendments to the bill were the only language changes to the bill. Judge Steel answered the joint custodial language was the only amendment needed. Chairman Anderson asked if the deletion of joint custody was included with the new language to be added to the bill. Judge Steel responded "yes."

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the Second Judicial Court had reviewed A.B. 544. Judge Steel responded she received e-mail from Judge Scott Jordan in the Second Judicial Court, and he was comfortable with the joint custodial language being removed from the bill. He felt both parties would have equality when they were in court. Judge Jordan thought the phrase, "best interest of the child," was confusing, but Judge Steel did not feel the phrase was confusing, the judge would automatically consider the best interest of the child because of the "Swartz Factors". Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the federal statutes were mandating the best interest of the child. Judge Steel responded she was not sure about all the federal statutes. The federal statutes of which she was aware were promoting the best interest of the child to be part of the court’s decision.

Chairman Anderson stated Assemblywoman Buckley had spoken with him and was comfortable with the amendments to the bill.

Helen Foley, private citizen testified for A.B. 544. She testified her brother was recently divorced. She had been watching the decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court over the past few years. When she served in the state legislature, she always wanted judges to consider the best interest of the child. The best interest of the child should come first in the judges’ ruling in child custody cases. She stated the Nevada Supreme Court had made it difficult and confusing for family court judges in attempting to decide whether to allow a parent to move. Unfortunately, in joint custody cases whichever parent got to court first and petitioned to leave met all the legal requirements. The parent could legally leave the state once their petition was filed. If the case did not come up in court for 6 months, the parent had already moved out of the state.

Mrs. Foley explained her brother coached three soccer teams so he could be with his children more than weekends. Her ex-sister-in-law had physical custody of the children, but her brother spent more time with them than his ex-wife. The problem had been with the Nevada State Supreme Court. The court had ruled if the ex-wife was going to make a little more money at a new job in Boston for example, she could move. Unless the parent who remained living in Nevada had money to travel, the court had terminated the Nevada parent’s rights to physically see their child or children. With A.B. 544 if the parents had joint custody, both parents had to go to court to renegotiate the custody. Ms. Foley stated she supported Judge Steel’s efforts with A.B. 544.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 544. He wanted to wait for Assemblywoman Buckley’s return to process the bill.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 561.

Assemblywoman Angle sponsored and testified for A.B. 561. Section 1 established a pilot program for the management of offenders patterned after the inmate management plan carried out at the Washoe County Consolidated Jail. The director of the Department of Prisons would select one medium security prison to carry out the program. The director could accept gifts and grants from any source for the support of the program. An offender who entered prison was allowed the lowest level of benefits constitutionally permissible: minimal time out of his cell, no television time, not more than two visits per month, and consumption of meals in the cell. An offender would be given the option to participate in the program by agreeing to adhere to all rules and regulations of the prison in a manner respectful to the correctional officers and other employees of the prison and by following the standards of personal hygiene established by the director. The offender who participated in the program agreed to participate in vocational training and employment in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 209.461, to include work on various community projects inside and outside the prison, such as cleaning roads, painting schools, maintaining the prison if applicable, and attending programs of education. Offenders performing work in the community must wear clothing clearly identifying the offenders to the public as a prisoner.

Ms. Angle continued, only offenders who volunteered to participate in the program earned additional privileges, such as increased visitations, selected time to watch television, and access to self-improvement programs. An offender who violated a rule or regulation of the prison would lose all additional privileges. The warden selected for the pilot program would provide at least one dog for each shift of employment. The dog would be trained to sniff for the presence of drugs. All offenders who did not participate in the program would receive a cold breakfast, a cold lunch, and a hot dinner.

The director of the Department of Prisons would submit a written report on or before February 1, 2001, to the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmission to the legislature evaluating the success of the pilot program. The act would become effective on July 1, 1999. Being a Washoe County resident, Ms. Angle was impressed with the program at the Washoe County Consolidated Jail. The bill allowed prisoners to enter prison with their constitutional rights and allowed prisoners to earn more rights and privileges.

Richard Kirkland, Sheriff, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office testified for A.B. 561. He stated he did not create the bill. Out of 37,000 jails in the nation, 50 to 60 jails had programs similar to the bill. Sheriff Kirkland testified the Washoe County Consolidated Jail had serious problems when he became sheriff in 1994. The jail had an 80 percent recidivism rate. Inmates expected a hot breakfast, a hot shower, clean clothes, private rooms, no time schedule, visits to the doctor or dentist at any time, to watch television anytime, use the phones, visit the law library, use the exercise equipment, and to do nothing in exchange for all those privileges. Sheriff Kirkland met with his staff and designed a jail program patterned after the jail in Jefferson County, Texas. Sheriff Kirkland and the Jefferson County Sheriff knew one another from attending the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Academy together. Sheriff Kirkland’s jail program had been in effect for 4 years. There had been a variety of positive outcomes from the jail program. The Washoe County Consolidated Jail had 615 beds with a total inmate population of 1,600 in April 1999. Fortunately, about 900 inmates were on home arrest, released on bail, released on their own recognizance which lowered the actual jailed inmate population to between 500 to 600. The following were the benefits of the program:

• First, the recidivism rate of between 60 to 80 percent was reduced to 20 to 35 percent in 1999.

• Second, assaults on inmates were down 70 percent.

• Third, assaults on jail staff were down 50 percent.

• Fourth, the jail population was 700 in 1994 and the population was 1600 in 1999. The inmates had adjusted to a structured jail system.

• Fifth, there was a higher level of participation and success level in anger management, domestic violence training, money management training, alcohol abuse, narcotic abuse, and a variety other skills such as requiring inmates to earn their Graduate Education Diploma (GED).

• Sixth, the introduction of a canine with a deputy patrolling the jail reduced the assaults on inmates, reduced contraband in the jail, and reduced refusals to obey a jail deputy.

He cautioned the first reaction to any change would be, "we can’t do that!" A wise person said, "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." Sheriff Kirkland stated putting the new jail program into effect was not easy. He allowed his staff to have control over the creation of the program. The staff gradually took ownership of the program to make the program work. Sheriff Kirkland stated the program did not cost the taxpayers more money. He hired a recognized jail and prison expert who had practiced before the United States Supreme Court, John Hager. Mr. Hager reviewed every program to make sure there were no violations to the United States Constitution or the Nevada Constitution. The Washoe County District Attorney worked with Mr. Hager.

Sheriff Kirkland said he hired a nutritionist from the University of Nevada, Reno, who reviewed the meals served to the jailed inmates. The meal costs had been reduced from $1.40 a meal to $.35 a meal while meeting the federal and the state nutritional requirements. The jail had medical certification. The jail had been inspected by the grand jury on regular basis. Washoe County Consolidated Jail had not been successfully sued even though a certain lawyer had tried. The residents of Washoe County were pleased with the jail program. The jail program was predicated on the same rules each of a responsible citizen had to follow: they had to get up at a certain time in the morning, they had to produce work, they had to be responsible for their actions, they had to earn their benefits. Sheriff Kirkland received a letter from a former jail inmate who had been straight for 2 years because of the program. The program could work if the program was supported. Inmates had been put to work in the community to clean up the Truckee River and the parks, painted over graffiti, and shoveled snow for the elderly or handicapped.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if Sheriff Kirkland was aware of any constitutional issues preventing the program in the state prison system. Sheriff Kirkland stated the jail charged room and board for inmates who could pay for their own room and board. The prison system could not charge room and board because of a state statute. The recidivism rate for inmates who paid room and board was down significantly. Assemblywoman Leslie asked how many inmates were mentally ill. Sheriff Kirkland responded between 10 to 15 percent on the inmates were mentally ill or about 100 inmates. Most mentally ill inmates were on a drug to improve their behavior. One of the housing units was transformed into a professional mental health facility. The mental health facility would be opened in about 2 weeks with professional mental health technicians.

Chairman Anderson asked Sheriff Kirkland the number of programs he had privatized in the jail. Sheriff Kirkland stated food and medical were privatized, and 44 percent of the employee positions in the jail were civilian jobs.

Assemblywoman Angle shared with the committee the news Assemblyman Gustavson had a resolution honoring Sheriff Kirkland in the Assembly.

Robert Romer, Senior Employee Representative, State of Nevada Employee Association (SNEA) testified against A.B. 561. He had concerns with the safety of the citizens with medium security inmates working in the community. There were safety problems with the transportation of inmates in the community to receive medical treatment. The SNEA members’ main concern was the lack of staff to cover the inmates in prison. Mr. Romer mentioned the daily cost for each inmate was about $40 a day. He stated everyone was in favor of minimum custody and inmates working in the community. He was concerned with the type of inmate who would be released to work in the community and what type of coverage was required for the work released inmates. The members believed the fiscal costs for the inmate work program would be higher.

Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Romer had ever worked in a prison. Mr. Romer responded he worked as a sergeant in the prison for 4 years. He left the prison system to work for SNEA 18 ½ years ago. Chairman Anderson asked if anyone received breakfast in his or her cell. Mr. Romer responded only inmates who were locked down or for a safety reasons could not leave their cell.

Pat Hines, representing, Nevada Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE) testified against A.B. 561. She had five concerns.

• The lack of work opportunities in the prisons particularly those not located in a metropolitan area. Of the 10,000 prisoners, 7,000 prisoners worked for the prison industries and only 330 prisoners worked for private industry for pay. There were four prisons in rural areas, Lovelock, Jean, Indian Springs, and Ely.

• What type of inmate would be allowed into the community to work.

• How much good time credit a prisoner would earn having worked in the program.

• Five prisons were understaffed. How could those five prisons run a community work program.

• The inmates in jails had a sentence of a year or less compared to prison inmates who had a sentence of several years.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if she was aware every inmate in prison came from a county jail. Ms. Hines responded, "yes." Assemblyman Gustavson asked if she knew the bill was about a pilot program for only one prison. Ms. Hines responded, "yes." She was concerned with the transportation of the prisoners between prisons. She wanted to know if the prison at Indian Springs was chosen for the pilot program prison, would a prisoner who transferred from the Lovelock prison have to start at the bottom working for privileges. She was concerned with the recently moved prisoners having more idle time to cause problems for the prison staff.

Chairman Anderson reminded Ms. Hines the bill was not Sheriff Kirkland’s bill. Chairman Anderson stated the question was could the Department of Prisons do a better job with placing a pilot program in one of the prisons where there was an available community. Chairman Anderson agreed with the fact 10 to 20 percent of the prison population was moved around for a variety of reasons. Ms. Hines wanted to see motivational reasons for moving prisoners. She liked prisoners doing community service. She did not have a problem with violent prisoners and sex offenders attending a boot camp.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if Ms. Hines had visited the Washoe County Consolidated Jail. Ms. Hines responded, "No." Assemblywoman Angle stated Ms. Hines had made an assumption that all inmates were released in the community to work. Assemblywoman Angle had visited the Washoe County Consolidated Jail. There were numerous inmates who had jobs inside the jail performing maintenance. Ms. Hines responded due to lack of staff in prisons to supervise inmates, the inmates were not allowed to work on certain days. Even the education classes in prison required a correctional officer be present in the classroom. Ms. Hines felt there was a lack of funding. Assemblywoman Angle asked Sheriff Kirkland to answer the objections raised by Ms. Hines.

Sheriff Kirkland stated he heard the same objections when he made changes in the Washoe County Consolidated Jail. The State of Texas had been running its jail program for about 100 years. All inmates went through the county jail, as Assemblyman Gustavson stated earlier. The program would be successful if the persons responsible for administering the program had "bought into the program." He understood the prison system had staffing and fiscal problems, but it was getting off the subject of the pilot program.

Sheriff Kirkland invited those persons who opposed A.B. 561 to visit Washoe County Consolidated Jail and talk with inmates. Over half of the jail’s work programs were on site, not in the community. Recently, the jail obtained the first license in Nevada to build and rebuild mobile homes. The jail’s eight programs had produced $500,000 in revenue last year. Chairman Anderson stated the Committee on Judiciary had not toured any of the prisons during the current session. In 1997 the committee toured the Silver Springs, Lovelock, and Carson City prisons, and Las Vegas jail, and Washoe County Consolidated Jail.

Assemblywoman Angle mentioned the nonspecific of the bill to allow the director of prisons some latitude. She asked Sheriff Kirkland if he thought the bill should be tightened. Sheriff Kirkland recommended tightening to allow decision-makers involved in the pilot program to work within the limitations of the prison system. The prison had inmates and prison staff doing things all day long. What was needed was the "transferring of a mindset" as to which prison staff was going to be watching the inmates who were already in the prison.

Assemblyman Collins commented on the pay for your own way in prison. He noted in eighteenth century England people who could not pay their debts were placed in servitude, and the colonies won a war becoming the United States of America. He felt the program "nickel and dimed" the bad guys.

Chairman Anderson mentioned the first settlers in "the colonies" thought there was gold lying around to be picked up. Most settlers soon realized only through hard work was anything ever accomplished. Texas had one of the strongest prison programs in the United States. Texas had a "three prong" approach to the problem: First, punish the offender; second, protect society; third, change the prisoners’ attitude. Part of the problem was in not placing enough dollars in changing attitude to reduce the recidivism problem.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 561.

Assemblywoman Angle stated there was no fiscal note on the bill. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Angle if she had asked for a fiscal note on the bill. Assemblywoman Angle responded she had asked for a fiscal note, but she had not received one. Chairman Anderson noted there was no fiscal note in the green book.

Assemblywoman Angle agreed with the Chairman’s comments about hard work. The bill offered inmates an opportunity to get out of a negative cycle.

Chairman Anderson had wanted to see a representative from the Department of Prisons to provide input. Assemblywoman Angle stated she had met with Robert Bayer, Director of Prisons and he stated the bill was insulting, but he did not have any concrete reasons for not doing the pilot program other than the objections expressed at the meeting.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 648.

Robert Crowell, representing Nevada Judges Association, testified for A.B. 648. The bill would allow the Attorney General’s Office to represent a municipal judge or a justice of the peace in the event the district attorney was asked to provide a defense and declined to provide the defense because of a conflict. The bill had been introduced in a previous session but failed to pass. There was no fiscal impact on the state, but there was on local government. Mr. Crowell stated the Attorney General’s Office supported the bill.

Chairman Anderson apologized for not recognizing Judge Johnson and placing his bill at the beginning of the agenda because of judges’ court schedule.

Judge Edward R. Johnson, Justice of the Peace, Dayton Township, testified for A.B. 648. Occasionally a conflict developed between a district attorney and a judge. When a judge had a conflict, he or she had to hire a private attorney to represent that side in court. Local government paid for the private attorney fees. The bill would allow a judge to go to the Attorney General’s Office to request the Attorney General’s Office to represent the judge. Over the past 10 years, there were about three conflicting cases a year. That was the reason the Attorney General’s Office did not place a fiscal impact on the bill to the state.

Brian E. Doran, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, testified for A.B. 648. All judges and the Nevada Supreme Court approved the bill. The proposed language was a compromise between the municipal judges and the Attorney General’s Office.

Assemblyman Brower asked for an example of a judge being brought into a conflicting situation with the district attorney. Judge Johnson gave the example of Judge Randy P. Varian, Justice of the Peace for Schurz Township, was brought before the Judicial Ethics Commission for a possible breach of ethics for a violation of communicating with a jail inmate. Judge Varian went to the jail at 5 a.m. to make sure the inmate was not mistreated after being arrested 2 hours earlier. The inmate had not been mistreated. There was a conflict between the district attorney and the judge. With the conflict the district attorney could not represent the judge, so the judge had to retain private counsel which was costly to Mineral County.

Assemblyman Brower referred to the civil action statute. He asked Mr. Crowell if the civil action statute assumed commission action: an ordinary civil suit. Mr. Crowell responded in section 2, subsection b, "The Attorney General determines that the act or omission on which the action is based appears to be within the course and scope of the public duty or employment of the justice of the peace or municipal judge and appears to have been performed or omitted in good faith." Mr. Crowell mentioned if there was a conflict between a justice of the peace and a municipal judge at the same time, the Attorney General’s Office would be needed to represent one of the two sides with the district attorney representing the other side of the conflict.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked why there was not a fiscal note either for the local or state level. Mr. Crowell responded, normally, the district attorney would represent the judge. Chairman Anderson stated the county would pay for the judge’s legal expenses because the county paid the district attorney’s salary. In conflicting cases, the county would pay the salary and expenses of the attorney for the Attorney General to represent the judge in court.

Assemblyman Brower asked if there would be a financial impact to the county with the Attorney General’s Office representing the judge. Judge Johnson stated the county would be responsible to pay the Attorney General’s Office to represent the judge. The county was responsible for the cost of private counsel for the judge. Judge Johnson said he had not heard of any opposition from the counties on the bill. He conferred with Ben Graham, and was told district attorneys were not against the bill.

Mr. Doran, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), volunteered when he was court administrator for the city of Sparks; the city of Sparks placed a line item in its budget for private attorney fees for judges. Chairman Anderson mentioned the Attorney General’ Office representing the judge would help keep legal expenses lower than the expenses of private counsel. He asked Judge Johnson if the bill had the support of judges in the state to which Judge Johnson responded "yes."

Anne Cathcart, Senior Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office testified for A.B. 648. She thanked Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, for working with her office to put together an appropriate bill. The bill would make the Attorney General’s Office the place of last resort to obtain legal representation in an otherwise difficult situation.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 648.

Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to find out how cities and counties felt about the bill. Chairman Anderson stated in the past when the cities and counties were upset with unfunded mandates, the cities and counties were not afraid to voice their feelings either for or against a piece of legislation.

Chairman Anderson reopened the hearing on A.B. 648.

Lisa K. Huffman, certified professional secretary (C.P.S.), Assistant to the Director, Nevada League of Cities, offered to check with Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, and Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, and report back to Chairman Anderson. Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Huffman.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 648 for a second time.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 650.

Michael R. Havemann, Court Administrator, Las Vegas Municipal Court, testified for A.B. 650. The bill authorized the Nevada Supreme Court to establish rules governing electronic filing, storage, and reproduction of documents filed with various courts. The bill authorized certain peace officers to issue certain electronic citations and similar devices to file citations electronically with a court or traffic violation bureau and be processed by the court as if the violation was manually filed. The language in the bill permitted law enforcement agencies or courts to maintain their present system. No government entity would be required by the law to change to electronic citations. There would not be a fiscal impact with the bill. He thanked Rene R. Yeckley, Deputy Legislative Counsel, for distilling a mountain of documentation into an easy to comprehend bill. The amendment contained in (Exhibit C) was supported by Nevada State Supreme Court, State of Nevada Judicial Counsel, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Reno Police Department, Las Vegas Township Court, Reno Municipal Court, and Boulder City Municipal Court.

Chairman Anderson asked if the written statements were dropped, how would a citation issuer prove a citation was electronically written. Mr. Havemann responded the receipt of document would be proof of service of the document and the peace officer would confirm the defendant complied.

Chairman Anderson was concerned with the mechanics of the process. In the manual process a citation was written and signed by the offender. The offender would either send in the forfeiture or appear in court. Since the written citation was removed, if a person did not appear in court and did not send in their forfeiture, how would the court prove the person received the citation. Mr. Havemann stated the officer used the offender’s driver’s license for proof of identification. The information would be processed into a citation. In some states the citation was called a summons and complaint. As a result of the information provided by the defendant, the officer indicated the citation was issued to the defendant. The electronic citation was issued.

Chairman Anderson asked if more officers would have to appear in court to verify the citation was electronically issued. Mr. Havemann answered the information was in the electronic file and the defendant received the citation. The information was recorded either manually or electronically and the officer who issued the citation would not have to appear in court more because electronic citations were issued.

Assemblyman Gustavson read section 3, subsection 2, "If a person does not appear in court as provided in a misdemeanor citation that was issued electronically, the court shall issue a summons requiring the person to appear before the court. A person who fails to appear before the court in response to such a summons is guilty of a misdemeanor." He asked if a photocopy "photo cop" of the citation could be issued. Mr. Havemann stated he had not studied the issue of the "photo cop" citation. When a system processed documents electronically, the human intervention was taken out of the process. In Las Vegas citations were contracted to a private company. The private contracted company entered the citation in the Las Vegas system, an electronic database. A peace officer entered the information, which was downloaded into the police department’s computer system and electronically transferred to the courts. The electronic citation system was more secure in comparison to the manual system because of the checks and balances in electronic system. Assemblyman Gustavson preferred the process described in the bill. He thanked Mr. Havemann for his explanation of the process.

Brian E. Doran, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, testified for A.B. 650. The bill came through the state judicial counsel and was supported by the Nevada Supreme Court to support electronic filing in the future.

Jimmie Ballard, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department, Traffic Division, testified for A.B. 650. The Reno Police Department had been using electronic devices to issue traffic and parking citations for 1 year. The biggest advantages in using the electronic devices were the time saved entering information for the citation and time saved for the courts. Assemblyman Gustavson asked if the electronic citation issued could be "photo cop."

Ben Graham, representing Nevada District Attorneys Association, testified "photo cop" was a substitution for the electronic citation. He had been working around the issue for the last 1½ years. There was no authorization under county codes or under NRS for the photo cop. The opinion of the attorneys involved was there must be specific authorization to use "photo cop." Mr. Graham thought there was a bill proceeding through the legislature, which would prohibit the use of "photo cop."

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 650.

Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned if there was a fiscal note on A.B. 650.

Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) was not opposed to A.B. 650. The bill was permissive and allowed counties to switch to electronic devices to issue traffic citations. The switch to electronic devices could possibly save the counties money.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 650.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblyman Manendo would present A.B. 650 to the Assembly.

Chairman Anderson mentioned the concerns of an unfunded mandate concerning A.B. 648. Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to know how the cities and counties felt about A.B. 648 concerning a possible fiscal impact. Mr. Hadfield testified if the county had to hire an outside counsel to defend a judge, the county would pay for the outside counsel. NACO did not view the bill as an unfunded mandate. Thomas J. Grady, representing the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, nodded his head in agreement with Mr. Hadfield’s statement concerning no fiscal impact on the counties, cities or municipal governments.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 648.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED TO PLACE A.B. 648 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 647.

Ben Graham, representing Nevada District Attorneys Association, testified for A.B. 647. He announced an amendment had been composed and agreed upon by concerned parties. Mr. Graham gave some background on the bill. Occasionally, stolen property was pawned at a pawnshop and was identified as stolen. The stolen property was needed for prosecution and eventually returned to the rightful owner. The 1997 Legislative Session created a process to be burdensome when followed to the letter of the law. The efforts of Mr. Barengo, Mr. Alonso, and Mr. Graham were to provide a method for the law enforcement community to keep the integrity of the property in place during an investigation and during prosecution. If the rightful owner could be determined, the property would be returned to the rightful owner. If the rightful owner of the property could not be determined, the property would remain with the pawnbroker. Mr. Graham wanted to work with Ms. Lang to have the proper language in the amendment. Mr. Barengo, Mr. Alonso, and Mr. Graham agreed with the intent of the amendment. Mr. Graham urged the committee to amend and do pass the legislation.

The amendment to NRS 644.040 is hereby amended to read as follows:

No property received in pledge by a pawnbroker may be removed for his place of business within 30 days after the receipt of the property is reported to the sheriff or the chief of police as provided in this chapter, unless the property is:

1. Redeemed by the owner thereof; or

3. Upon the request of a police officer acting pursuant to an investigation and prosecution of criminal activity by following the below procedure:

Robert Barengo, representing Nevada Collateral Loan Association, testified for A.B. 647. In 1997 S.B. 242 was passed with the language on page 3, lines 28 and 29. The lines 28 and 29 of A.B. 647. Lines 28 and 29 were burdensome and the above amendment would begin on page 3, line 28. The amendment was the record keeping process to return property to the rightful owner at the conclusion of an investigation and prosecution. Chairman Anderson asked if section 1, and section 2, would remain the same to which Mr. Barengo responded in the affirmative. At the end of section 3, line 28,would begin the amendment. The timeframe would be replaced with the language "until further notification."

Alfredo Alonso, representing Super Pawn, testified for A.B. 647. He stated the amendment was an effort over the past 2 years working with the Clark County and Washoe County district attorneys to resolve the language. Both district attorneys felt there was some difficulty obtaining search warrants as required in the 1997 legislation. The time factor, "until further notice," saved the district attorneys from going to the pawnshop every 90 days to renew the hold.

Chairman Anderson asked who drafted the amendment. Mr. Alonso responded the amendment combined Arizona law with some of the procedures performed in Nevada by the Super Pawn staff in Las Vegas. Chairman Anderson asked when was the amendment received. Mr. Alonso responded he received the amendment on April 2, 1999, and discussed the amendment April 5, 1999.

Mr. Barengo offered to rework the amendment if there were some major problems. He felt the amendment would solve the previous problems. Chairman Anderson stated property was an important issue to people who pawned items.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if stolen property was pawned and sold right away. Mr. Barengo answered pawned property must be held for 120 days before it could be sold. The 120-day hold would prevent an item being pawned one day and sold the next. After the property was pawned, records of the pawned items were given to the police to discover if any of the pawned items were reported to the police as stolen.

Mr. Graham thanked the Committee on Judiciary for the opportunity to work on the amendment. He wanted the amendment to be free of language problems. Chairman Anderson asked if Ms. Lang had reviewed the proposed amendment to A.B. 647. Ms. Lang stated she had reviewed the amendment to work out any problems with the language.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 647.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblyman Claborn was assigned to present A.B. 647 to the Assembly.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the Committee on Judiciary meeting at 10:10 a.m.

Signature page to follow.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

___________________________

_ Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: