The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Tuesday, April 13, 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. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Jerry Claborn

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson announced there would not be a committee meeting on Monday, April 19, 1999. Monday committee meetings would begin at 9 a.m. beginning April 26, 1999. The committee would be hearing three or four bills a day and had less than 50 bills to hear for the remainder of the session.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 114.

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified for S.B. 114. In 1995 the legislature passed some of the costs of incarceration on to the individual causing an impact on detention facilities around the state. The legislation enabled jails to charge a daily fee to the inmate for expenses incurred while incarcerated. Many facilities had chosen not to do that. Washoe County Consolidated Jail had been charging a daily fee. Over the past 4 years there had been a significant group of people who had impacted the jail and added to those costs. Those persons were booked into the jail, but did not stay for any length of time. Typically persons booked for driving under the influence (DUI), domestic violence, trespassing, and similar types of crimes were usually booked and released. They paid a fine and performed some form of community service, but did not serve time in jail. Those booked and released persons caused a financial impact of the jail. S.B. 114 would allow the Washoe County Consolidated Jail to charge a fee for the booking into the detention facility. There were four elements to be met for the booking fee to be charged: The person must be arrested, booked, be convicted of the crime, and must have the ability to pay the fee. The fee would be civil in nature with no incarceration for not paying.

Jim Ganyon, Captain and Detention Jail Commander, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified for S.B. 114. He reviewed the rising costs of incarceration of inmates. Sheriff Kirkland was concerned with the fiscal responsibility to citizens of the community. In 1998 the jail booked 26,824 persons and 3 percent, 815, were billed at $30 a day for room and board. The jail collected $26,566.63 for room and board and returned the collected monies to the general fund for Washoe County. The jail conducted a study to determine the expenses of booking an arrested person and releasing the person on bail or their own recognizance. The jail’s expenses were $67.08 for salaries for the booking personnel, medical-screening personnel, and court services personnel. Utilities, laundry, and food could raise the figure to over $100.

Captain Ganyon stated there were a number of persons arrested, booked, released on their own recognizance, appeared in court, and paid their fine. He saw the bill as being fiscally responsible to taxpayers by returning money to the general fund of Washoe County. When an inmate was booked a variety of questions were asked of the inmate. Were they married, did they have children, did they have a bank account, did they have a job, did they own a car, did they own annuities, and the computer determined if the inmate had the ability to pay.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked what the federal guidelines were for a family of four. Captain Ganyon did not have the federal guideline figures with him. He would provide them to the committee.

Assemblyman Collins asked when an inmate was convicted, was the amount of the fine going to be lower. He stated jails were not fundraisers. Captain Nadeau stated the arrested person had caused a fiscal impact on the jail. The citizens had to pick up the cost of each person arrested. He did not know if the fine would be adjusted. As with the case of an inmate paying for room and board, the inmate could defer payment by making a payment schedule. The deferred payment schedule could be in place for payment of the booking fee. Assemblyman Collins stated jail construction was funded with a bond issue. New laws had increased fees being charged to inmates. The bill was a "fundraiser."

Assemblyman Collins asked why did the county not raise its fine structure to increase the county’s intake. Captain Nadeau stated each inmate cost $71 day in jail and the county charged $30 a day to the inmate. The costs of incarceration had increased over the years, and inmates should help pay for those costs. Captain Ganyon restated the $26,834 collected from board and room fees from 815 inmates. The bill attempted to make inmates fiscally responsible for the costs of their booking.

Assemblywoman McClain stated the bill was a good idea to reduce taxpayer expenses. She questioned why on page 1, lines 5 and 6, "in a county or city jail or detention facility" were crossed out. Ms. Lang responded in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 211.2415 was existing language and the language was not necessary. The phrase, "city jail or detention facility," was removed. Captain Nadeau responded Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had a detention facility. Captain Nadeau did not know if the detention facility was county owned or city owned. He wanted to make sure the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was not excluded.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if charging fees and restitution had reduced the recidivism rate. Captain Nadeau responded when people had to pay for something, they usually had second thoughts about their future behavior. Captain Nadeau recalled a letter Sheriff Kirkland received from a former jail inmate. The letter stated, "I do not like your jail. I do not like paying for your jail. I am never coming back to your county again."

Assemblyman Brower asked about other counties in the country who had instituted a similar program. Captain Nadeau responded he did not have that information. Captain Nadeau would do some research to answer his question.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the $26,566.13 was a gross figure or a net figure. Captain Ganyon responded the $26,566.13 was a gross figure from the 815 inmates. Assemblywoman Leslie asked if he had projected the total amount of money to be collected from the $67 booking fees. Captain Ganyon stated first, the amount of money to be collected would have to be determined. Second, the department would have to review the figures for those arrested, booked, found guilty, and had the ability to pay to determine the projected figure. Currently the department had not done the indigent screening to track and determine how many persons would meet the four criteria to pay the booking fee. The jail had not done a full tracking of the 26,000 inmates booked into the jail in 1998. The jail had used a county collection agent and the overhead for the cost of the collection of fine and fees had been kept to a minimum.

Chairman Anderson stated the committee would be waiting for information from the Sheriff’s Office relative to the questions asked by the committee before the committee could act on the bill.

David S. Gibson, attorney, represented Clark County Public Defender’s Office and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, testified against S.B. 114. He wanted to know actual costs to book and release an arrested person. In Clark County the jail facility had become overcrowded. Clark County booked and released people based on criteria of the nature of the crime as opposed to the ability to make bail or be released on their own recognizance. The booking and releasing in the Clark County Jail was not a simple process. In the Clark County Jail booking and releasing an arrested person was a time-consuming process. He wanted to know what part of the daily inmate fee charge was for booking. If the bill was a way of raising revenue because of the increasing number of people who were not staying in the jail, he had a problem with the bill. Mr. Gibson stated Assemblywoman Buckley had asked a good question as to poverty level. Clark County’s determination as to who was indigent differed from the Federal Government’s determination. Clark County looked at a person’s actual ability to pay for legal counsel.

Stan Olson, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, appeared before the Committee on Judiciary to answer Assemblywoman McClain’s question regarding why "in a county or city jail or detention facility," was deleted. Lieutenant Olson stated the words were probably deleted because the words were redundant. S.B. 114 should not affect Las Vegas. The central jail was a county facility, but managed by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. All the other jails were city jails.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 114 and opened the hearing on S.B. 115.

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office testified for S.B. 115. He stated Washoe County had a successful alternative program to incarceration. The successful alternative sentencing program had eliminated a serious inmate-overcrowding problem in the jail. The jail had 801 inmates incarcerated and 554 inmates in alternative sentencing programs. That figure would be 1,355 without the alternative sentencing programs, and the jail would have violated federal jail mandates. Courts had been sentencing guilty persons directly into the alternative sentencing program. NRS allowed the county to charge administrative fees to supervise those persons sentenced to jail by the courts. The sheriff’s office wanted to insure the legality of charging administrative fees for inmates sentenced by the court directly into the alternative sentencing program by having the language spelled out in statute.

Michael A. Haley, Captain, Detention Bureau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified for S.B. 115. He pointed out the language changes in the bill to include the word alternative to incarceration. The Washoe County Consolidated Jail had been operating within the language of the bill. The sheriff’s office had noticed the language alternatives to incarceration were not included in NRS 211.241 to 211.249 inclusive. For the month of March jail costs avoided were $165,312. In the first 3 months of 1999 jail costs avoided were $483,179. In March $15,947 was collected from inmates including the cash for monitoring the house arrest program inmates. The average daily population for house arrests was 83 inmates. Prison staff reviewed daily the inmates from the jail to be candidates for an alternative program in the community. The alternative sentenced inmates were productive in the community and not a burden. Alternative sentenced inmates were required to be monitored, to communicate with the jail, to physically report to the jail at certain times, to be employed, and to inform their employer.

Chairman Anderson asked if the alternative sentencing program was saving the county money compared to the cost of incarceration of the inmate. Captain Haley responded, "yes." The money the sheriff’s office collected offset only part of the costs of the alternative sentencing program.

Some inmates who could not pay the charges for the alternative sentencing were placed in the Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP). SWAP inmates worked in a group in the downtown area. Chairman Anderson asked if the ability to pay or not to pay interfered with an inmate being place in the alternative sentencing program. Captain Haley responded the ability to pay was not a determining factor to placing an inmate in the alternative sentencing program. Chairman Anderson asked if by being a part of the alternative sentencing program, an inmate’s sentence would not be extended because to extend the sentence would be a violation of the inmate’s constitutional rights. Captain Haley responded "correct."

Assemblywoman Buckley asked what other alternative programs did the jail administer. Dennis Carry, Deputy, Alternative Incarceration Unit, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, responded an alternative program was SWAP. Four- hundred fifty inmates were involved in SWAP working in the community for 8 hours a day performing community service for 1 to 5 days a week. The Inmate Assistance Program assisted inmates with mental problems, an alcohol abuse program, a drug abuse program, a house arrest program, and some inmates were sent to other areas of the country where relatives could provide support to help those inmates overcome their problems.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if inmates on house arrest had to pay a fee for the bracelet and did Washoe County charge an administrative fee. Deputy Carry responded the house arrest unit charged a $50 fee, which partially covered the background investigation to determine if the candidate was qualified to be placed on house arrest. An investigation normally required 5 to 6 hours to be completed. House arrest inmates were charged a supervision fee of $7 to $10 a day. Each bracelet cost Washoe County $2.25 a day. Each inmate required supervision every day. Supervision expenses varied from $25 to $60 a day. The jail asked the inmate to pay between $7 to $10 a day for the monitoring device depending on the inmate’s hourly wage. Each inmate was required to find a job and pay what the inmate could for the monitoring device. The sheriff’s office would like each inmate to pay off their monitoring expenses by the end of their sentence. Some inmates were homeless and were placed into transitional housing, similar to a homeless shelter.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated concerning the house arrest program, if the jail fined the inmate, charged an assessment fee, and a supervision fee, why did the jail need to collect more fees from the inmate. Captain Nadeau responded the jail was not trying to collect more fees. Some inmates were sentenced to jail by the courts. The courts had opted to sentence some inmates directly to the SWAP rather than to jail first. When an inmate was sentenced to jail, the inmate was under the sheriff. The sheriff could charge administrative fees.

An inmate sentenced by the court directly to one of the alternative sentencing programs was under the court’s control. A violation by the inmate would be a contempt of court charge. The sheriff had been charging the alternative sentenced inmate an administrative fee. The sheriff wanted to ensure he had the legal authority to charge the same fees when an inmate was sentenced directly by the court into the alternative sentence program.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if the program had two parts. First, the transitional program where the inmate went to jail and later was placed in the alternative sentencing program. Second, the inmate was placed directly into the alternative sentencing program. Captain Nadeau responded, "yes."

Assemblywoman Angle asked if the bill applied only to the inmates sentenced directly into the alternative sentencing program. Captain Nadeau responded, "yes." He believed the sheriff’s office had the authority to charge assessment fees and supervisory fees. The language clarification ensured the sheriff had the authority to charge the fees.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the Washoe County Commissioners had taken a position on the bill. Captain Nadeau responded the bill was part of the Washoe County legislative package and was approved by the commissioners.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 115.

Assemblyman Brower asked about the two-thirds vote noted at the top of the bill. Ms. Lang responded the bill was a revenue enhancer because the bill increased the revenues.

Assemblyman Collins was more comfortable with S.B. 115 than S.B. 114 except for variable fees for home arrest inmates. He remembered the fee being much lower, $30 a month. The fee seemed rather high to Assemblyman Collins.

Chairman Anderson stated when the fees were first set in place the Committee on Judiciary did not know what to expect. The monitor bracelet was new, and nobody knew how the bracelet would be accepted. The county would save money with fewer inmates in jail and the inmate would be able to live in their home or apartment. Now, the attitude was for the alternative sentenced person to pay the entire cost of the bracelet because of being at home as compared to being in jail.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 115.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO PLACE S.B. 115 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

With the committee’s bill processing completed for the morning, Chairman Anderson shared some news concerning two of the committee’s bills. He informed the committee A.B. 20 was further amended by the Senate to make some technical changes only pertaining to the summary language of the bill. There were no substitutive changes in the bill. He was informing the committee of the situation. The Chairman usually made a decision after consulting with staff. The other bill, A.B. 85 moved the language to evidentiary presumption, it was presumed the merchant had a reason to believe a person had wrongfully taken merchandise, and the merchant could recover the merchandise.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked a question about A.B. 20. He wanted to know if the person running for office again who had filed an appeal to the decision could still run for office. He was concerned about what happened if the person won the political election and was found guilty in their appeal. Ms. Lang stated once the person was determined guilty in their appeal, the person was ineligible to hold office.

Assemblywoman Buckley confirmed Ms. Lang’s statement. She said the person’s right to due process was protected. Chairman Anderson stated A.B. 20 was changed to accurately describe the bill. There was no change in the bill’s language. He wanted the committee to be aware of the history of the two bills so that nobody on the committee would be surprised.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the hearing at 9:15 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

______________________________

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: