The Committee on Judiciary was reconvened at 5:20 p.m., on Tuesday, April 6, 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:

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, Assembly District 5

Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senate District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson reconvened the committee on judiciary and a quorum was present. The first item the committee addressed was Assembly Bill 543.

Assemblyman Don Gustavson, Assembly District 32, noted A.B. 543 was a clean piece of legislation and was necessary due to the increase in lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers. He elucidated the bill would prohibit commencement of any lawsuits against the manufacturer, distributor of firearm or ammunition, or a trade organization related to firearms and ammunition for damages. He noted Carolyn Herbertson from the National Rifle Association was unable to attend the hearing today but she submitted a letter of support for the committee’s consideration. The letter was attached as Exhibit C.

Assemblyman Claborn expressed support for the legislation but asked if it included an exemption for defective guns. Mr. Gustavson explained it was excluded. An individual, city, or county could file a lawsuit if there was a defect with a gun or ammunition.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Gustavson if he wanted to submit any proposed amendments.

Mr. Gustavson explained the only amendment he would propose would be to change the effective date to make it effective upon passage and approval rather than the current date of October 1.

Chairman Anderson noted he had received a letter of support for A.B. 543 from Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President of the Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce. His letter was attached as Exhibit D.

David Small, representing himself and Galena Industries, the maker of AMT firearms, testified in favor of A.B. 543. He explained currently his business was located in southern California, and it was his desire to relocate the business to Reno, Nevada, and therefore hoped the committee would pass the bill. He noted both Wyoming and South Dakota had already passed similar legislation offering protection to firearm manufacturers.

John W. Riggs, Sr., representing Gun Owners of Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 543. He emphasized gun manufacturers should not be held responsible for the crimes committed by others and expressed support for the change of the effective date.

Janine Hansen, State President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, also expressed support for the bill. She shared with the committee Charleton Heston’s column in the April 1999 issue of The American Rifleman. He wrote about the tremendous increase in lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and its correlation to the billions of dollars won by the states by suing the tobacco industry. Ms. Hansen likened suing gun manufacturers to suing "General Electric because you took a bath with your toaster or suing General Motors because a drunken driver hit you." She noted the American firearms industry was a fraction of the size of the tobacco industry and paying the defense attorneys’ fees in those cases could be "crippling if not financially lethal. This is the strategy of the anti-gun lobby to achieve through litigation what they have not been able to achieve through legislation."

Richard Brengman, representing Special Interest Arms, a small gun shop in Minden, Nevada, expressed support for A.B. 543. He believed by suing gun manufacturers, people were attempting to use the courts to create a fourth branch of government. He hoped Nevada would not allow that to happen. Mr. Brengman’s written testimony was attached as Exhibit E.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, came forward to express support for the bill.

As no one wished to testify in opposition to A.B. 543, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing. He noted Assemblywoman Buckley had requested to be present for the vote on the bill and therefore, would entertain a motion upon her return. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 618.

David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General for the criminal justice division of the Attorney General’s Office, introduced Robert Wieland, a Senior Deputy Attorney, who supervised the unit which litigated petitions for writs of habeas corpus in both the state and federal court systems. He explained A.B. 618 would establish a procedure to govern the litigation of "next friend petitions" for writs of habeas corpus. He noted commonly, that type of litigation was in the capital litigation arena although the bill would also address cases which arose in the noncapital arena. He reminded the committee that on April 5, 1999 Alvaro Colombro was executed in Carson City for the commission of two first-degree murders in Washoe County. In 1995, and then again on the eve of his execution, Lydia Colombro, his mother, tried to intercede on his behalf even though her son did not wish her to. That particular case resulted in over 1 year of litigation in both the state and federal courts. He stated the proposed legislation would establish a system for courts to timely review applications by people who would be required to come forward in due course and without waiting until the eve of execution. Mr. Sarnowski stated, "Right now they are a free for all." He drew attention to his prepared testimony, which was attached as Exhibit F.

Mr. Sarnowski then reviewed several suggested amendments, which were attached as Exhibit G. He explained the second amendment would make the language consistent with another bill the committee would be addressing. That bill would clarify that the district judge could order either the district attorney or the Attorney General’s Office to respond. He noted the amendment on page 10, lines 17 to 18 (Exhibit G), would be literally consistent with Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 178.415 which addressed the procedure whereby the competence of a defendant was determined by the trial judge. Mr. Sarnowski explained while the provision already allowed the state to appeal a judge’s determination that an applicant had standing to litigate on the real party’s behalf, it would allow the district judge to enter a stay. However, in those instances where the district judge would deny that standing, the district judge could not enter a stay of execution that would be allowed by a justice or a group of justices of the Nevada Supreme Court, the body that addressed appeals.

Mr. Sarnowski referenced a letter from Michael Pescetta dated April 5. The letter was attached as Exhibit H. He did not disagree with the concept put forth in the letter regarding the occasional need to have a person who wanted to waive his right to litigate examined. He opined it was already in the discretion of the court. He was concerned the proposal did not address instances whereby lawyers, family members, the ACLU, or any other person or group took it upon themselves to intercede on behalf of someone who wanted to discontinue litigation. He asked, "What do we do to reasonably regulate the litigation?" He acknowledged Mr. Pescetta’s proposed procedure might make it more difficult for those individuals to intercede but nonetheless, they would be there.

Mr. Sarnowski proceeded to briefly address the issue of consanguinity. He opined it was within the committee’s purview to decide degrees of consanguinity and who should be allowed to litigate if beyond the family member circle. He suggested there was no constitutional precept, which would allow anybody and everybody to litigate on a prisoner’s behalf. "Federal next friend litigation is to some degree a free for all as well." Mr. Sarnowski did not think the state courts were constricted by federal or state constitutional law to allow anybody to intercede just because they thought they had a better idea than the prisoner himself of his best interest. Concluding his comments, he noted he was paid to litigate and would do so in whatever method required. He remarked the burden of that type of litigation brought at the last minute when the prisoner did not want it to occur, rested squarely on the victim’s families in those cases.

Chairman Anderson recognized the degree of consanguinity had been addressed several times in the past. He clarified only the parent would be able to intercede on behalf of the child, not a grandparent or another sibling.

Referring to page 4 of Exhibit F, Mr. Wieland, from the Attorney General’s Office, confirmed the first degree of consanguinity would be either the parent or the child and did not include siblings or spouses. He reiterated the range of people authorized to bring "next friend litigation" under A.B. 618 would be a decision for the committee. However, he reiterated, "There is no constitutional requirement that anybody and everybody be allowed."

Chairman Anderson commented the decision was a difficult policy question. He expressed surprise that a spouse, brother, or sister was not included, but recognized that level would also include grandparents.

Mr. Sarnowski told the committee he had seen the level extend to grandparents, siblings, and parents. He repeated the decision was the committee’s to make.

Chairman Anderson asked if the legislation had been drafted using law of another state as a model. Mr. Sarnowski stated although it was thoroughly researched, they could not find a model to use. He explained the reason could be because Nevada had a history in the modern death penalty era of a higher number of people volunteered for the death penalty.

Referring to Mr. Pescetta’s letter (Exhibit H), Assemblyman Carpenter referenced the sentence on the second page which stated, "This virtually insures that every case in which a procedure proposed in this bill is used will have to be re-litigated in federal court". He asked Mr. Sarnowski why he felt that statement was in error.

Mr. Sarnowski replied the proposed procedure in A.B. 618 would not insure it. "I think the fact that people who are intent on intervening on behalf of prisoners to do this will insure this litigation ensues whether we have this procedure or not." He explained the way cases were currently reviewed, if a federal court reviewed a state conviction, it had to take a more limited review of the record. Mr. Sarnowski repeated although the procedure would not stop the efforts of next friends, he did believe it would streamline and regulate the litigation making sure it was done in a timely fashion without somebody coming in at the last minute, merely to delay the proceedings.

Ben Graham, representing the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, stated he was also speaking on behalf of victim’s rights because Barbara Shell who wanted to testify on the bill, was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Graham stated essentially, the bill sought to establish a more effective process to see that justice was carried out and to bring an end, for both survivors and litigants, to the litigation. Agreeing with Mr. Carpenter, he reiterated it would not close all the loopholes, but it might assist in the expedition of litigation. Mr. Graham commented it was extremely painful for the survivors after their loved ones were killed to wait through all the delays. He urged the committee to support the legislation.

Michael Pescetta testified as a private citizen who had experience litigating those type of cases. He advised the committee to be cautious of the bill in its current form. He explained the problem concerned an individual who volunteered for execution. He pointed out in that instance, there was no orderly procedure by which the district court could make a determination as to whether the person was competent to waive further proceedings and accept execution or not. He opined the delays and confusion occurred when a next friend intervened, while an execution date was pending, and sought to get a stay in order to litigate that question. Referring to the example in his letter (Exhibit H), he offered the "Abeyta" case. In that case, the District Attorney took what he believed was a reasonable approach to the situation. The individual wrote to the district judge and indicated he did not want any further review of his death sentence. He was brought to court with the agreement of the district attorney, and two psychologists were appointed to examine the individual. After they reviewed his mental health records, they reported to the judge he was competent to proceed. The attorneys were also given the opportunity to review those records and they raised no objection. He was executed without any intervention by a next friend or any attempt at intervention by a next friend. Mr. Pescetta opined an orderly procedure by which the determination was made before an execution date was pending would reduce the burden on the families of the victim as well. He remarked he would be willing to work with representatives of the prosecution to draft an amendment that would provide for such an examination before an execution date was set in the case where a person was volunteering for execution.

Mr. Pescetta commented on a couple of other issues in the bill. He noted any kind of consanguinity limitations or other kinds of limitations on who could appear as a next friend, did not have a parallel under federal law. Under federal law, persons had been allowed standing who had no closer relationship with the individual than "having once been the individual’s lawyer." Any provision that excluded someone from attempting to appear as a next friend would insure that the federal court would have to relitigate the issue because there would be no form open in state courts. In regard to relatives of the defendant showing up at the last minute, Mr. Pescetta explained the problem was it was always last minute litigation once an execution date had been scheduled. He asked the committee to consider mandating a procedure through which the district court could examine the defendant, appoint experts to consider the question, and find the individual competent before an execution date was set. He said that would eliminate the need for further litigation.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if someone could intercede at the last minute even with Mr. Pescetta’s proposal in place.

Mr. Pescetta explained there was no way to prevent all attempts to intervene, constitutionally or statutorily. There was always the possibility someone would attempt to intervene at the last minute but having the orderly procedure completed at the beginning would make it far less difficult and time consuming to reject an appeal of that nature. He reiterated establishing a procedure that resolved the issue at the beginning of the process rather than at the end was the best thing the committee could do to prevent that sort of situation.

Mr. Carpenter noted the complexity of the issue. He asked if there were any late next friends who tried to intervene in the "Abeyta" case after the procedure about which he just spoke had happened. Mr. Pescetta replied there were potential next friends, but it was decided at that point there were no legal claims to raise. "The issue had been resolved in a full and fair manner and there was literally nothing to talk about." "The quality of the presentation, after the examination of Mr. Abeyta, was such that there was really no argument that the individual was incompetent."

Assemblyman Brower noted the procedure followed in the "Abeyta" case was a procedure that was and would be followed in few cases. He questioned if it could really be used as a model. Mr. Pescetta responded the procedure was not statutorily mandated. His suggested amendment was to mandate that as soon as the district court became aware a defendant was volunteering for execution the competence examination be done, and the issue would be resolved.

Chairman Anderson asked if anyone else wished to testify on A.B. 618.

Mr. Sarnowski noted an individual, Clarence F. Crawford had wished to testify, but he had to leave.

Chairman Anderson stated he had no concerns with the bill other than the question of the level of consanguinity. He referred the committee to page 8, section 10, beginning on line 38, and noted the first degree would include the parent and the child. "If we are to expand it to the second degree, then we have picked up the person who committed the crime, his mother and father, his children and his siblings and his grandmother" (see page 4 of Exhibit F). He asked for the committee’s opinion.

Assemblywoman McClain opined "With some of our dysfunctional families these days we ought to at least go to two but I think probably that is far enough."

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed a preference for the third degree.

Chairman Anderson queried if multiple petitions would be expected. Mr. Sarnowski responded it would not be normal to face more than one petition. If there were competing interveners, the court could allow multiple parties in the same case but he opined there would not be successful successive petitions by multiple interveners.

Mr. Sarnowski noted another correction would have to be made on page 7, line 2, which also contained the words "first degree". It would have to be changed to reflect any decision the committee made.

After Chairman Anderson stated the committee would continue as a subcommittee due to a lack of a quorum, he commented since there would not be multitude of appeals, there was no greater risk by moving to the third level of consanguinity. Recognizing Mr. Carpenter’s suggestion, he pointed out a situation could occur where the parents and grandparents could have died and maybe the aunt or uncle was the person who had been raising the individual. Chairman Anderson expressed support for the third level of consanguinity if the bill was to be processed.

Mr. Brower said the appeals process in those cases was abused by defense attorneys. "As important as these cases are and as permanent as the punishment that we’re talking about is, I think it is incumbent upon the legislature and the people of Nevada to make sure that, if we are going to have a death penalty, then we allow our district court judges, district courts to sentence defendants to death." He believed the sentence needed to be carried out as swiftly as possible. "I think it’s a needed bill."

Chairman Anderson reiterated the committee was trying to reach an agreement on the level of consanguinity. He repeated he agreed with Mr. Carpenter in that it should be the third level. He noted Mr. Claborn favored the second level.

Responding to Assemblyman Claborn’s request for clarification, the Chair explained there had been several discussions on how to provide a clear avenue in the state penal system so those people who indicated they wished to be executed, could be executed. It was a problem for Nevada because of the high percentage of individuals who volunteered to be executed. The execution was delayed when groups and other interested individuals (next friends) intervened on behalf of the individual who had already made his decision. Chairman Anderson stated the committee was trying to resolve the question of who could be a next friend.

Mr. Sarnowski further explained because those types of cases would continue to present themselves, a statutory process needed to be established so the district judges, the prosecutors, and the lawyers for both sides knew what the rules were.

Also responding to Mr. Claborn’s request, Assemblywoman Buckley stated if Nevada was going to support the death penalty, the state needed to ensure it was an orderly proceeding without undue delays. Due process and constitutional protections also needed to be ensured. Ms. Buckley believed an individual deserved every opportunity to make every legal argument possible and expressed support for the next friends status. The next friend could make his argument and the judge could either allow or deny it. "At least you are sure with the folks that they got every chance that they deserved and no more."

Chairman Anderson noted a quorum was again present.

Mr. Brower opined the issue was about allowing the defendant every opportunity or every reasonable opportunity. He opined the defendants should definitely have every reasonable opportunity, but they were getting more than that. By getting every opportunity, it was causing far too long in delays. Mr. Brower exclaimed that did not help anyone, the defendant, the victim, or the families.

Chairman Anderson explained the committee would not act on the bill so they could further review it. He closed the hearing on A.B. 618 and open the hearing on A.B. 619.

Robert Bayer, Director of the Nevada Department of Prisons, explained A.B. 619 addressed two issues. The first issue dealt with employment and the ability of the director to approve or not approve secondary employment for a peace officer or any of the employees. He shared with the committee an example in which a supervisor and a subordinate went into business together. They restored and repaired motorcycles on their off-hours. He perceived that to be a conflict with the potential for problems and therefore, tried to block their secondary employment. Mr. Bayer noted he lost on appeal. He explained he rarely exercised the option to block somebody’s secondary employment and since then, had not tried to turn any of them down. He noted the board of prison commissioners could review an action or decision by the director. Mr. Bayer explained the second part of the bill dealt with transfers. Currently, he did not have the ability to transfer someone. He tried three transfers and a hearing officer had denied all of them. He shared one instance in which he wanted to transfer an employee. "Same warden, same parking lot, same supervisor, same days off, same shift, just from the camp to inside the fence where there is more supervision because we perceived that the person needed more training." He told the committee the request was denied because it was believed for some reason he was trying to punish the employee. "If I can’t transfer them from one place to another within about four hundred square feet, I’ve got a problem."

Mr. Anderson asked how long had Mr. Bayer had been employed in the Nevada state prison system. Mr. Bayer replied 25 years.

Mr. Anderson asked how many directors had there been. Mr. Bayer responded there had been about six or seven.

Chairman Anderson noted in considering the bill, the committee could not only look at Mr. Bayer but rather the fact that the position of director was a changing position. "We have to look on not just how it affects you but how it is going to affect us permanently as part of the state legislature."

Assemblyman Collins asked what secondary jobs Mr. Bayer would oppose and what the hiring policy was in regard saying the state job came first.

Mr. Bayer noted regulations did exist. In regard to secondary employment, an employee was told the employment with the prison was the primary employment, and they were expected to be able to respond to work in emergencies. Mr. Bayer explained the kind of jobs he had questioned were, for example, someone who then may have an inmate as a client when they go outside or where they wanted to have certain kinds of websites. He looked for conflicts of interests and potentials for abuse. He offered there had only been one or two times he had ever recommended that employment not be approved.

Referring to page 2, lines 29 through 30, Assemblyman Carpenter pointed out it said " may establish, consolidate or abolish a district within the state." He asked for clarification of those words.

Mr. Bayer explained he had requested the drafter of the bill to word it in such a way that it would give him the same kind of authority that parole and probation had. Mr. Bayer also explained his main issue was the ability to transfer employees.

Assemblyman Carpenter still questioned what were the districts set up within the state.

Mr. Bayer elucidated district was another word for region. He explained there was a rural, north, south, and central region. He noted he could open recruitment for personnel jobs based on the district. He favored using statewide lists but there were different "districts".

Assemblyman Carpenter commented consolidating or abolishing a district was an extreme measure to be able to transfer someone. He asked, "What happened to all the other people."

Mr. Bayer expressed uncertainty about what it actually did. He believed the prison board currently had the ability to rearrange the structure of personnel divisions. "It’s always been just one big department of prisons." He told the committee he would not be opposed to eliminating those three lines because he had no intent of abolishing any districts.

Mr. Claborn noted he had met a prison employee who had told him he also had a sheet metal business on the side. He asked if that employee would be able to keep that business if the bill passed. Mr. Bayer stated currently, employees turned in a request, as the regulations required, and he approved them. That employee would not be dissuaded from having the business on the side, but he would need to know that it was secondary.

Mr. Claborn understood the need to have employees be on call and able to come in during emergencies but he did not think it was fair to deny a person the chance to increase their income.

Mr. Bayer reiterated he routinely approved almost all requests for secondary employment but there were some kinds of employment that presented a conflict.

Wally Tarantino, representing the Nevada Corrections Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 619. In regard to secondary employment, he stated statutory protections, administrative code protections, and administrative regulations of the department currently existed to protect both the employer and employees. Mr. Tarantino submitted a copy of existing statute and prison regulations for the record, which were attached as Exhibit I. The department’s administrative regulations specifically outlined eight areas where a conflict of employment was defined, such as betting parlors or if a prison employee worked where there was a contract with the state. Those things were expressly prohibited. He recognized the validity of the comments made by Mr. Claborn, reiterating, "I don’t think it is any secret that the employees of the Nevada Department of Prisons are in bad need of financial assistance as far as pay raises." Mr. Tarantino also said, " We don’t want to be put in a situation where we are going to inhibit or somehow make it difficult for secondary employment because, in some instances, it is absolutely essential for correctional officers to survive and to put food on the table." He stated if the legislation passed, it would give the director the unfettered ability, without a chance of appeal, to determine whether or not there was a conflict. To allow that would emasculate all the statutory and administrative protections that currently existed.

The other part of the bill which caused Mr. Tarantino concern was the ability of the director to direct the work including, and without limitation, the time and location of work and assignment to an institution or facility. He understood the bill to empower the director of the department of prisons to establish, consolidate, or abolish districts. The director could define the entire state as a district. He said if there was a northern or southern district, it did not inhibit the director’s ability to transfer from district to district. Employees could be transferred without an avenue of appeal, because the legislation said they would direct the work without limitation. The rights of the employees to argue whether or not a transfer was arbitrary, for purposes of harassment, or disciplinary reasons would be emasculated. Mr. Tarantino explained currently, if an employee was reassigned, they had the ability to argue before a hearing officer that the transfer was for either purposes of harassment and or for disciplinary purposes. Mr. Tarantino concluded, "I sense and I hope that you can all see the hazards, the dangers that are inherent in this bill and we urge you to not pass this legislation."

Steve Barr, Legislative Counsel for Nevada Correctional Association, came forward in opposition to A.B. 619. In regard to a previous question asked by Mr. Carpenter, he explained when any state employee filled out an employment application, they checked the box of the area in which they wanted to be employed. The bill would eliminate those boxes and a person could be sent anywhere.

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed sympathy for the director but noted most of the regulations were in place. "I guess we all get disappointments in life."

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Manendo for a motion.

Chairman Anderson turned the committee’s attention to A.B. 478.

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, representing Assembly District 5, explained A.B. 478 addressed the need for restriction on the accessibility of alcohol to minors. She offered the following statistics in support of the changes to the current state law the bill would make: According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 9.5 million Americans between the ages of 12 and 20 consumed at least one drink and 4.4 million of the minors were binge drinkers. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey which indicated 82 percent of high school seniors had used alcohol. Approximately two-thirds of teenagers who drank reported they could buy their own alcoholic beverages. Approximately 8 percent of the nation’s eighth graders, 22 percent of tenth graders, and 34 percent of twelfth graders had been drunk during the last month. Ms. Cegavske stated junior, middle, and senior high school students drank 35 percent of all wine coolers sold in the United States and they also consumed 1.1 billion cans of beer. She opined those numbers indicated the seriousness of alcohol consumption by minors and further, the intent of drinking to get drunk. She said another part of the problem was parents and grandparents that were buying alcohol for kids for different parties. "I do believe that we need to increase the penalties and make it known that this is illegal. You are to be 21 years old to drink." The goal of A.B. 478 was to reduce the availability of alcohol to teenagers and young adults. The bill did not outlaw the use of beer kegs but tightened the restrictions on who was allowed access to a keg or large container of alcohol.

Senator Mark Amodei, representing the Capital Senate District, explained pursuant to a request from some constituents, he agreed to introduce a measure that dealt with keg registration. He supported A.B. 478 because he believed it was an important tool for prosecutors to identify, in regard to minor consumption, who bought the keg and who supplied the keg. He noted some people had expressed concern with more government intervention, but he did not think it was an unwarranted invasion of privacy or anything else like that. Senator Amodei stated he had discussions with the retail association and they had some administrative concerns with the mechanics of marking a keg in a way that made sense. They also had some concerns in regard to the standardization of some provisions in the bill that addressed information to be provided. He noted there was a fiscal note associated with the bill, but he believed the local government portion would be minimized by standardization. He explained there would be one form that retailers could provide throughout the state.

Ms. Buckley expressed concern with the burden on the retailers. She noted they would need to keep records for 6 months. She was also concerned that having to ask someone where they were taking the keg was an invasion of privacy. "It seems like we have a huge hammer for a real small fly." She hoped there would be another way to stop the adults who were "stupid enough to get minors drunk."

Addressing Ms. Buckley’s concerns, Senator Amodei responded an individual already had to fill out paperwork indicating who they were and where they lived, as well as present a driver’s license. The only additional information that would be required would be a number from the keg and the address of where the keg was going. He expressed hope that having to provide the additional information would prevent people from buying alcohol for kids. If law enforcement broke up a party and the kids scattered, evidence would exist for the prosecution to use in terms of from where the keg came and who purchased it.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated in the case where policemen showed up at a house and found a keg with underage drinkers, they already had a case against someone knowingly supplying alcohol to minors. It would be the owner of the house or the adult present, and they could then trace the purchase of the keg. She reiterated her concern was that the keg company or the beer distributor now had to keep records for 6 months. They also had to make them available to law enforcement, and there was no mention of a warrant. She wondered about the impact it would have on the small businessperson.

Senator Amodei said during his discussions with the retail industry, they had not indicated any concern with that requirement. He stated if the committee had a concern about the length of record retention, it was something that could be discussed.

Referring to page 3, lines 21 through 24, Mr. Carpenter expressed concern with not being able to move the keg from one house to another. He offered if one night the entire keg was not consumed and his friend was having a party the next night, he wanted to be able to take the keg over to that party.

Senator Amodei expressed uncertainty with the transient restrictions on the keg but emphasized the importance of the proposal was to have the ability to identify who purchased the keg and how to contact that person.

Laurel Stadler, Director of the Lyon County Chapter of Mothers against Drunk Driving testified in support of A.B. 478. She distributed a listing of states which currently had laws relating to keg registration. The listing was attached as Exhibit J. Ms. Stadler commented action needed to be taken to prevent adults from illegally selling or providing alcohol to teens. "We can change the environment by implementing and enforcing state policies that make it less likely that youth can get alcohol." She opined one way to do that was with beer keg registration. She explained keg registration statutes were used primarily to identify and penalize adults who purchased kegs and allowed underaged youth to consume from them. Ms. Stadler submitted an article from the December/January 1999 issue of "Teen People" magazine about a teenager who was killed after attending a party given by a girl whose parents had supplied the alcohol. The article was attached as Exhibit K. She urged the committee to support the bill and added the Truckee Meadows Safe Communities Partnership also supported the legislation.

Anne Marie Maloy, a private citizen, testified in favor of the bill. She explained her boyfriend was killed in a drunk driving accident when she was a senior in high school. She was now in college and saw minors drinking everyday. Ms. Maloy recognized the bill would not stop underaged drinking, but it might prevent some of it by preventing older people from providing alcohol to minors. She urged the committee to pass the bill.

Jim Holmes, representing the Northern Nevada Driving Under the Influence Task Force, expressed his support for the bill.

Alfredo Alonso, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Beer Wholesalers, expressed strong support for the concept of the bill. He wanted to make sure anybody purchasing alcoholic beverages was of age and was interested in being able to track the kegs as they were sold. He drew the committee’s attention to a proposed amendment which he explained had been discussed with many of the beer wholesalers. The amendment was attached as Exhibit L. They had indicated the deposits were between $50 and $100 dollars on average. He stated they did not want to raise the cost for a legal-aged purchaser of a keg with respect to the deposit. He noted the sponsor of the bill had also expressed support for the proposed amendment.

Amy Hill, Vice President of the McMullen Strategic Group, representing the Retail Association of Nevada and Miller Brewing Company, stated they supported the concept behind A.B. 478. Her clients wanted to assist in making sure alcohol was kept out of minors’ hands, and they also supported the concept of keg registration. She noted the retailers had two concerns, both of which she had discussed with Assemblywoman Cegavske and Senator Amodei. The first concern was having an appropriate state agency develop the forms, the receipts, and the identification tags for the kegs. She did not believe it was necessary for all 17 county commissions to have to come up with the right form and the right tag. She pointed out retailers worked in numerous jurisdictions and it would make sense to have one form that all retailers in the state could use. Ms. Hill further pointed out the form would aid in the enforcement of the provisions. The other concern raised was that stickers directly affixed to the keg posed problems when the kegs were returned to be filled. She would suggest using an identification tag that was not easily removed from the keg but that could be cut off by the retailer when returned to them. Ms. Hill reiterated the retail association’s support for the keg registration concept.

Chairman Anderson noted California had enacted a registration law and asked how it identified the kegs.

Ms. Hill replied she could not answer for any one particular state, but she did know there were some states that had used tags similar to luggage tags. She noted they were easy to put on but it had to be cut off. She said they were also recyclable for the retailer so they were not constantly buying new tags.

Chairman Anderson stated in his dealings with minors, he found them to be quite clever. He pondered if the tags would not be easy for them to remove.

Agreeing with the Chair’s comments, Ms. Hill replied she was uncertain if there was a foolproof method. "They could peel off the sticker or they could snap the tag." She noted the bill would make it a crime to remove or mutilate the tag.

Chairman Anderson offered permanently affixing to the keg a statement warning of the penalties in regard to the tags removal. "It would be clearly a forewarning to the individual not to take the tag off and that would not prove to be burdensome because it would only have to be affixed one time."

Ms. Hill reiterated anything affixed to the keg could cause problems when the keg was being refilled. She opined a permanent method would be to emboss the metal but she was unsure as to how practical that would be.

Responding to a question about the number of keg purchases posed by Mr. Collins, Ms. Hill told him she had conducted a quick survey of some members of the Retail Association of Nevada. She told the committee Scolari’s grocery stores sold approximately 220 kegs a year. Ben’s Liquor sold about 2,000 a year. She was uncertain of the statistics in regard to southern Nevada but noted the population was much greater than in northern Nevada. Ms. Hill stated ounce per ounce, a keg was an economical way to purchase a large amount of beer and was frequently used in party settings.

Mr. Alonso volunteered to contact some of the members of the Nevada Beer Wholesalers to see what they did in other states.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Hill and Mr. Alonso to draft language to address that issue.

Captain Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified his office was also trying to find a way to track the kegs when they were found. He offered his assistance in finding an appropriate solution.

There was no one else who wished to testify on A.B. 478. Chairman Anderson expressed his intent to address the bill at a later work session.

Mr. Brower noted a quorum was present and asked the Chair if he would accept a motion on A.B. 543, the first bill the committee had addressed.

There was no further business before the committee and therefore, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: