The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Friday, April 16, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Claborn asked Chairman Anderson what had happened to A.B. 442 and S.B. 286. Chairman Anderson stated the bills were bundled into one bill. The senate was working on the details of the compromise. There was not a number assigned to the bill combining A.B. 442 and S.B. 286 yet.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 118.

Glen Whorton, Chief Classification & Planning, State of Nevada Department of Prisons (DOP) testified for S.B. 118. S.B. 118 was proposed by the Department of Prisons to improve the management of inmate sentencing. Most of the counties and district courts in Nevada provided the DOP with a judgement of conviction when an inmate was committed to the prison system. Clark County used a "minute order." The minute order was developed during the extreme overcrowding of the jails in the 1970s and 1980s. Prior to the overcrowding in Clark County the courts did their own judgement of convictions for the DOP to receive inmates. The minute order eased the overcrowding in the jail and was completed by the clerk of the court at the actual time of sentencing. The presiding judge did not sign minute orders. Minute orders were hand written on National Cash Register (NCR) paper. When the prison received an inmate with their minute order on the second or third copy of the NCR paper. The copy was not always legible. The minute orders contained errors regarding the inmates’ sentence. The judgement of conviction was an excellent document. Frequently, there were discrepancies between the minute order and the judgement of conviction for the same inmate. When there was a discrepancy, the DOP would write a letter to the district attorney to seek clarification. The district attorney did not always respond to the letters of inquiry. When the DOP did not receive a response to their inquiry, the DOP would assume everything was correct and hoped for the best. The DOP would like to do away with the minute order. The Department of Prisons had discussions with the Deputy Administrator of the Courts in Clark County. The Deputy Administrator had been brokering some discussions with the law enforcement agency on how to manage the process. Technology had grown since the institution of the minute order with computers with templates to generate a judgement of conviction. The minute order had outlived being useful. Jailers in Clark County told Mr. Whorton they had the judgement of conviction sitting on their desk while they waited for the minute order to arrive to send the prisoner to the Department of Prisons. Chairman Anderson noted some language was deleted from the bill. Chairman Anderson referred to a bill heard earlier by the committee, A.B. 78, where the Department of Prison had deleted part 4 of section 2, on page 2, lines 32 to 35. The Department of Prisons had eliminated on page 2, lines 3 through 13 of S.B. 118. Chairman Anderson wanted to know how the DOP was going to start the practice of returning the judgement of conviction to the county of origin when the inmate had served his time in prison. Mr. Whorton responded the Department of Prisons did not have plans to send the judgement of conviction to the county of origin. Mr. Whorton spoke with the Douglas County Clerk who told him Douglas County did not use the judgement of conviction form as the authority for obtaining restitution. He had a conversation with the Clark County Clerk who told him Clark County used the return of the judgement of conviction to clean out their evidence vault of the evidence pertaining to the released inmate’s case stored in the evidence vault. After the conversation with the Clark County Clerk, the DOP had begun providing every county clerk with a list of inmates, sorted by county, discharged from prison and a list of persons discharged from parole. The county clerks would be able to sort through the list by case number to confirm who was released from prison.

Stan Olson, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department testified against S.B. 118. He stated the jail was overcrowded to the point where the jail rented 650 beds a day at a daily cost of $36 per bed. If S.B. 118 became law, the bill would delay the moving of a prisoner from their jail to the prison by at least 3 weeks if not 4 weeks per prisoner. This bill would cost Clark County an additional $756 to $1008 to house each prisoner during the 3 or 4 week delay. There were hundreds of prisoners each year sent from the Clark County Jail to prison. He stated the overcrowding situation was a budget problem and a space problem for Clark County. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Olson if he had mentioned the problem situation when the bill came before the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Mr. Olson responded no, the bill might have been heard when he was out of town. Assemblyman Carpenter asked what was the difference between the way the jail processed the minute order paperwork now, and how the jail would have to handle the judgement of conviction paper work if the bill went into law.

Ben Graham, Attorney, representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association explained how Clark County handled the paperwork. Once a judge sentenced a person, the judgement was prepared. In Clark County a minute order was prepared when the defendant appeared in court, he was with counsel, the district attorney appeared, and the judge gave him the sentence. The minute order was handed to the correction officer who took the sentenced person to the jail. The Department of Prisons would be notified to pick up their prisoner. In Clark County the judgement of convictions were prepared by the Clark County District Attorney. In the other 16 counties in Nevada the courts prepared the judgements of conviction. Clark County felt the minute order would accompany the sentenced person to the state prison. The judgement of conviction would follow the inmate in prison in two or three weeks. Clark County asked the Department of Prisons to wait until the judgement of conviction was in their hands to determine the inmate’s sentence from Clark County. The delay was caused by the time to dictate and type the judgement of conviction and be signed by the judge. Assemblyman Carpenter asked why the district attorney’s office prepared the judgement of conviction and the courts prepared the judgement of conviction in the other 16 counties. Mr. Graham answered he did not know the answer to the question. Assistant District Attorney Thompson of Clark County had discussed the situation with Mr. Whorton.

Mr. Whorton answered Assemblyman Carpenter’s question. The Clark County District Attorney’s Office assumed the responsibility as a courtesy to prepare the judgement of convictions for the courts because the courts had limited resources at the time. The Nevada Supreme Court had ordered the judgement of convictions must be completed within ten days of the judgement to give the inmate a timely opportunity to file an appeal. Mr. Whorton had not discussed the issue with Mr. Thompson. Mr. Whorton had discussed the issue with Mr. Rick Loop, Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. Mr. Loop was going to arrange a meeting between the county clerk, the jail, the district attorney’s office, and the courts to resolve the process in Clark County.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated the lawyers in civil cases drafted the order. When the judge handed down his decision, the lawyers asked to approach the bench, and the judge signed the order. She asked if Mr. Graham had ever thought to handle the judgements of conviction in the same manner. Mr. Graham responded he was not a bean counter. He calculated if the Clark County District Attorney’s Office would pay about three weeks worth of overtime to get caught up the problem would be resolved. The district attorney’s office would be able to stay current on the preparation of the judgements of conviction.

Chairman Anderson stated in this building, the Nevada State Legislature, everyone was worked with deadlines, and the staff produced the necessary documents to have the process move along in a timely fashion. Assemblywoman Buckley did not want to vote for a bill to have the jail in Clark County become more overcrowded. The United States Justice Department had visited the Clark County Jail and saw inmates sleeping on the floors without blankets. Chairman Anderson mentioned Clark County would reduce their jail population if the paperwork was speeded up to get the jail inmates transported to prison. Mr. Whorton mentioned Clark County was conforming to producing the judgements of conviction within the 10-day limit.

John C. Morrow, Attorney, Washoe County Public Defender stated Washoe County courts have been getting their judgement of conviction orders out within 24 hours in a criminal case. He felt the production of the judgement of conviction was a function of the court not a district attorney function.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 118. He asked Mr. Graham to discuss with the courts and the district attorney’s office to resolve the paperwork problem to relieve the overcrowded jail conditions. Chairman Anderson asked to have the problem resolved by April 23, 1999 so S.B. 118 could be placed in the May 5, 1999 work session.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 146.

State Senator Alice Costandina Titus, District 7 prepared her remarks, (Exhibit C.) She was in a meeting with Governor Guinn and unable to attend the committee meeting.

"S..B. 146 simply makes assaulting a taxi driver a felony by adding taxi drivers to the existing list of specially protected individuals who are in occupations that are both personally dangerous and simultaneously require the individual to protect the public. These currently include transit operators, firefighters, judges, police officers, among others.

As stated in the Review Journal, ‘In a town that never sleeps, the most dangerous after-hours job can be driving a taxi.’ Indeed, this seems to be true. In Las Vegas alone (and Reno statistics are comparable) there were over 100 incidents of assault last year, with some 20 percent resulting in injuries to taxi drivers and one death.

Passing this bill will say to our cabbies, who are among the first to greet the millions of tourists who come to Nevada each year, that we won’t tolerate violence against them."

Senator Titus’ Exhibit C contained a Las Vegas Sun article by Jeff German supporting the cabbies and Senator Titus. "The valley’s 3,500 cabbies are among the first to greet the millions of tourists who come to Las Vegas each year. They are considered important ambassadors of goodwill to a city that thrives on goodwill. And yet they have become a downtrodden class in recent years, forced to deal with company owners who suck every last tourist dollar out of them, state regulators who make them follow silly rules of conduct and street thugs who see them as easy marks. What has become particularly disturbing about the plight of Las Vegas taxi drivers is the rise in violence against them. Much of that has been brought on because of the cash-flow nature of the industry, which made a whopping 17 million trips last year. Since 1993, according to state Taxicab Authority records, eight drivers had been shot, two of them fatally. Last year, the Taxicab Authority says, 83 cabbies were robbed and 20 were assaulted. It’s gotten to the point where drivers have to demand hazard pay just to get through their daily routines. For the past several years, the industry has struggled to find cost-effective ways to protect the drivers. There’s been talk of installing cameras, bullet-proof shields, even a satellite tracking systems, in the cabs. But no one has been able to agree on what to do. All the while, the violence has continued. There have been eight robberies and one assault so far this year. This week in Carson City the drivers received word that people really do care about their well-being. Senator Minority Leader Dina Titus of Las Vegas introduced Senate Bill 146, a measure that will make it a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, for anyone who assaults a cabbie. The bill gives the drivers the same protection as police officers, firefighters, bus drivers, and others who deal regularly with the public. It was a simple idea first proposed by Taxicab Authority member Steve Sisolak and enthusiastically endorsed by authority administrator Bob Anselmo, who has had his share of bad blood with the drivers over the years. "This seems to be the quickest and easiest way to put the criminal element on notice that assaulting a taxi driver will be dealt with severely.’ Anselmo says. Indeed it is. But you have to wonder why no one thought of it earlier. S.B. 146 which also is endorsed by the attorney general, the district attorneys’ association, organized labor and the taxicab companies likely will make it out of the Legislature and be signed into law by Governor Kenny Guinn this year. Titus, a veteran lawmaker with a soft spot in her heart for the little guy, will make sure of that. It may not be the ultimate answer to providing a safe work environment for the valley’s cabbies, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. The drivers shouldn’t lose sight of the support that Anselmo and the Taxicab Authority are throwing behind S.B. 146. Some will say it’s a no-brainer for Anselmo. How can anyone in the industry not back such a measure? Still, S.B. 146 should leave little question in the minds of the drivers that the industry, through it may not always look it, is sensitive to their plight. Cabbies should be dancing in the ‘pit’ at McCarran International Airport today over news of this bill. Finally, people are listening to their concerns, and doing something about them."

Senator Titus’ Exhibit C contained a letter from Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority. "Thank you for introducing bill number S.B. 146. We appreciate your assistance and support, which will enhance penalties for assaults against taxicab drivers. This was an important bill in that taxicab drivers are easy targets for those wanting to commit a robbery. The enhanced penalty law will send a very strong message to criminal elements that assaulting taxicab drivers and other drivers of public transportation will not be tolerated. On behalf of the Nevada Taxicab Authority and the taxicab drivers throughout the State of Nevada, I wish to thank you for your efforts in supporting this very important piece of legislation."

Ben Graham, Attorney, representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association testified for S.B. 146. He stated the bill seemed logical to do to protect cabbies. School employees were added to this class of employees having contact with the public as well as public transit drivers. Senator Titus was asking to place taxicab drivers in the same protected class. When he first came to Nevada, he worked in the appellate division handling murder cases and appeals. Nearly every year there was a case involving the murder of a cab driver. He mentioned he drove a cab in Las Vegas when he was younger. It was not a case of if you got assaulted, but a case of when. Fortunately for Mr. Graham, he stopped driving a cab before he was assaulted. He mentioned this was a logical move to add cab drivers to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 706.8816. Chairman Anderson asked if he and Mr. Graham had a past conversation about placing taxicab drivers in the statute. Mr. Graham responded they had talked about ambulance drivers being placed in the statute, not cabbies. Mr. Graham mentioned a phone conversation from a district attorney who could not believe district attorneys were not included in the statute. Mr. Graham told the district attorney to "forget it."

Charles L. Horsey, III, Administrator, State of Nevada Business and Industry Housing Division testified for S.B. 146. Mr. Horsey provided a memorandum (Exhibit D) from William Maier, administrative services officer for the Taxicab Authority, citing certain statistics regarding taxicab crime. He stated the Taxicab Authority in Clark County and the Transportation Service Authority in Washoe County totally supported S.B. 146. Mr. Horsey was not aware of any opposition to the bill when the Nevada State Senate heard the bill. In 1998 there were 83 cabbies robbed, 20 assaults on cabbies, and one fatality in Clark County and one fatality in Washoe County. In 1997 there was one fatality in Clark County. Since 1996 there have been six nonfatal shootings of cabbies. Any positive action to reduce the assaults on and robberies of cab drivers would make good public policy. Mr. Horsey thanked the committee. Assemblyman Nolan mentioned when bus drivers were added to NRS 200.471, his employer, a bus company, posted signs in prominent areas. There was a 20 percent reduction in assaults on bus drivers. Assemblyman Nolan asked if the taxicab operators were going to have an advertising campaign to notify the public about the increased penalties for assaulting a cabbie. Mr. Horsey responded the taxicab companies were considering signage, alarms, and a public awareness campaign.

Gary Milliken represented Yellow Cab, Checker Cab, and Star Trans testified for S.B. 146. He mentioned he was at the Taxicab Authority meeting when the posting of prominent signage and public service announcements on radio and television was discussed.

Alfredo Alonso, represented Whittlesea Bell testified the Bell family strongly supported S.B. 146. The Bell family transportation services had been working with the Taxicab Authority to discover innovative ways to protect their employees. Bell would be posting prominent signage as part of the public awareness campaign.

Michael R. Reed representing Baker and Drake Inc. testified for S.B. 146. The bill made great strides in protecting a segment of the working public at risk. He agreed with the comments of Mr. Alonso.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 146.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 146.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO PLACE S.B. 146 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson said he would wait until the "log jam" of bills subsided before he would place S.B. 146 on the consent calendar in a few days. He reminded the committee there would not be a meeting on Monday, April 19, 1999. The committee would be meeting on Tuesday, April 20, 1999. The committee would be hearing 3 or 4 bills a day. There was a possible joint meeting with the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs if a large enough room could be located.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: