The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 7, 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:

Senator Joe Neal, Senate District 4

Senator Jon Porter, Senate District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Annie Rees, Owner, Annie’s Bail Bonds, President, Nevada Bail Agents

Association

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney, Nevada District Attorney's

Association

Damien Scott, Representative, Nevada Bail Agents Association

Dan Musgrove, Representative, city of Las Vegas

Wayne Hurte, Chief, Legislative Police

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Frank Clayton, Supervisor, Elko Combined Narcotics Unit, Nevada Division of Investigations

Following roll call, Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 273.

Chairman Anderson provided the committee with an explanation of S.B. 273 which had been prepared by the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit C).

Senator Joe Neal, Senate District 4, testified in support of S.B. 273. Senator Neal told the committee an amendment to S.B. 273 was presented to him, of which he approved (Exhibit D). He wanted the committee to know that prior to the amendment in question, he had been forced to vote against the bill, but was in committee to express his support of the amendment.

Annie Rees, owner, Annie’s Bail Bonds, president, Nevada Bail Agents Association, presented the amendment to S.B. 273 (Exhibit D). She said the association wanted to make the law a little more clear, and the bail bondsmen a little more responsible in their duty to the state.

Gemma Greene, deputy district attorney, Nevada District Attorney's Association, testified in support of S.B. 273. She said the courts, district attorneys, public defenders, bail bondsmen, counties, and law enforcement all agreed S.B. 273 was a good bill and all those entities supported it. S.B. 273 would tighten up restrictions on people who were admitted to bail. It would make people on bail more accountable to appear and would give more notice of forfeiture to the bail industry. Sometimes, she said, people did not appear in court and the bail industry was not notified in a timely manner so they could find the person in an organized fashion. That would help to relieve pressure on the courts. S.B. 273 did not affect the courts in their discretion to allow bail, but it gave the bail industry better tools to recover those people who did not appear.

Ms. Greene explained section 1 of the amendment made it a crime to fail to appear. Section 2 was the most substantive of the proposed changes, since it would notify the bail industry of persons who committed category A and B felonies who were out on bail or on their own recognizance, and who committed another A or B felony. The reason for that section was because surety risks for people who put up a bond for the first crime had their risk enhanced for the second offense. Those people needed to be informed of the second crime and given a choice as to whether they chose to assume the additional risk.

As a practical matter, continued Ms. Greene, it was rare that bail was granted to people arrested for A and B felonies in Las Vegas and Washoe County. It did happen, however, particularly in drug cases when the suspect was released in order to provide information on other drug dealers.

Chairman Anderson asked what happened if someone was arrested for a Category D felony. He asked if the surety bond was released under such circumstances. Ms. Greene replied the person who provided surety would be notified and could choose to have bond released only if the person committed a crime greater or equal to the crime for which bail had been set.

Ms. Greene said section 3 had no real changes. Section 4 explained that courts must issue an arrest warrant 45 days after a person was arrested for a gross misdemeanor and failed to appeared. An exception was made for excused misdemeanor cases because there were so many of them. The Clark County Municipal Court was accommodated by that measure.

Ms. Greene said section 2, line 42 of S.B. 273 should have the wording changed from "district attorney" to "prosecuting attorney" so the language would apply to all levels of the court. Paragraph 3 on the same page stated circumstances under which a court could extend the date of forfeiture. Ms. Rees added current law allowed the bail industry to ask for an extension of time to bring a person back. She felt it was important to make the industry accountable to show the court there were reasonable and ongoing efforts to find the person and not just trying to stall in order to give the cosigner time to pay a bond.

Ms. Greene said section 5 added technical amendments to S.B. 273. Paragraph 5 stated there was basis for exoneration of a bond if the person was deported. Chairman Anderson was concerned that section 4, line 38 opened up room for abuse of the basis for exoneration when it stated " a person was unable to appear before the court before the date of the forfeiture because he was deported but surety did not know and could not reasonably have known of his departure before that date." He was concerned about boilerplate language and asked how one proved someone could not reasonably have known. Ms. Greene said sometimes unethical bail agents could have knowledge the Immigration and Naturalization Services had placed a hold on the person in custody, but still wrote bonds for that person knowing they would be deported. The bail bondsman would get their 10 percent of the bail and know that the person was on their way back to from wherever they came. Chairman Anderson asked who had the responsibility to prove the bail bondsman knew or should have known that fact. Ms. Greene explained that the bail agency was at the jail all the time and had access to the custody status of a person with whom they dealt for a bond. An Immigration and Naturalization Services hold was placed on a person when the Immigration and Naturalization Services stated their intention to deport him or her. That became common knowledge.

Ms. Rees added the jail personnel knew before the hold was placed on the person it would be done and when the bail agency called the jail, a deputy would inform them of that fact. It was indeed boilerplate language but it was a way to make sure there was some consequence to such actions. Chairman Anderson said that did not raise his comfort level. He said while it looked good on paper, it would not change the practice. He felt the wording was ambiguous and unless there was an affirmative response from the jail or the district attorney’s office that they would not release, the bail bondsmen would continue the practice. Ms. Rees said the point was valid and she did not have the knowledge to ease the chairman’s mind.

Ms. Rees explained section 7 of S.B. 273 changed language to clarify who was addressed and eased the requirement for a certified copy of the bond.

Ms. Greene said section 8 stated if a person was released on bail or on their own recognizance, was not readmitted to custody, and failed to appear for a court date or left the state to avoid prosecution that person was:

• If originally accused of a class D felony, guilty of a felony for failure to appear.
• If originally accused of a gross misdemeanor, guilty of a gross misdemeanor for failure to appear.

Damien Scott, representative, Nevada Bail Agents Association, testified in support of S.B. 273. He explained section 8 of the bill complied with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Agreement. For example, California had a particular warrant which had to be obtained for extradition. It was important to be able to get crimes recognized and to get warrants served in other states.

Ms. Greene said S.B. 273 represented all interested parties, and urged passage of the bill.

Chairman Anderson asked for clarification of the type of felony involved in S.B. 273. He said since A, B, and D felonies were not under the control of justice courts, would they not be under the control of just the district attorney, rather than any prosecuting attorney. Ms. Greene replied the language in section 2 of the bill contained the only limiting language in S.B. 273.

Dan Musgrove, representative, city of Las Vegas, echoed the sentiments of other supporters of S.B. 273. He stressed the bill was truly a consensus agreement.

Chairman Anderson asked if there was any opposition to S.B. 273. There was none, and Chairman Anderson called for a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 273 WITH THE CHANGE TO THE AMENDMENT OF "DISTRICT ATTORNEY" TO "PROSECUTING ATTORNEY."

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 273 and opened the hearing on S.B. 360.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee S.B. 360 had been heard in an earlier meeting. It appeared to be a solid bill. Amendments were required and had been furnished to the committee.

Assemblyman Nolan said he had received an email from a friend of his who happened to be a police officer. The policeman said he had stopped a vehicle and suddenly noticed a laser pointer dot came from the back of the car and was focussed on the center of his chest. He immediately dropped to the ground and drew his weapon. When he ordered everyone out of the car, a teenaged boy came out and showed a hand held laser light to the officer. That was a tense situation which could have resulted in a real tragedy had it not been for the quick thinking of the officer. Subsequently, the officer investigated problems in many major cities with the same problem. Legislation had been initiated in most of those cities, but a consolidated attempt had not been made to deal with the issue.

Assemblyman Nolan said he had a pen laser he had purchased for about $8, which was designed to use in demonstrations as a pointer. The laser was not just a light. It was a particle beam created by a light radiation source. Since lasers became available over the counter they were not really a hazard. On every laser there was a warning to avoid direct laser light. Some laser lights had beams which could travel several hundred yards. They could cause retinal damage by being directed into the eyes.

Assemblywoman Buckley commented on vacation in Hawaii while walking on the beach, a laser was pointed at them and that frightened them. She agreed it could cause real fear in a person.

Assemblyman Manendo said he had constituents who trained their dogs with a laser pointer. He asked if lasers would be prohibited in the dog fancier parks, or in something like a board meeting, in a voluntary situation as opposed to employment protections which were already in the bill.

Assemblyman Nolan agreed the laser pointer was designed with good intentions and still had valuable potential. Language needed to be crafted to protect legitimate use while preventing use for creating mischief and mayhem.

Wayne Hurte, chief, Legislative Police, provided written testimony (Exhibit E) in support of S.B. 360. He said he had been in law enforcement for 30 years, and he knew about the fear of getting shot. He had been with officers when they were shot. Snipers used laser lights to track their targets because they were possibly the most accurate sighting devises for firearms.

Mr. Hurte said it was a general opinion of law enforcement that the red dot of a laser aimed at an officer’s chest was an indication that someone was going to shoot, and the officer would most likely be justified in using whatever force necessary to protect him or herself.

Jim Nadeau, captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified in support of S.B. 360. He showed the committee a weapon which contained a laser sighting devise to demonstrate what people perceived when a laser was aimed at them. He said the pointer was designed for specific purposes, but was being used for mischief. An officer had to react when a laser was pointed at him or her. Captain Nadeau urged passage of S.B. 360.

Stan Olsen, lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in support of S.B. 360. He explained that not only were individual officers subjected to laser beams, but that helicopters in Las Vegas had been hit on multiple occasions. Some were hit accidentally when various hotels had laser lights for decoration on hotels. County ordinances had ended that practice because the lasers had blinded the pilots. The usual cruising altitude for a helicopter was 400 feet. A small laser pointer had a range of 1,600 feet.

In the month prior to his testimony, said Lieutenant Olsen, a helicopter had been painted with a laser light. The light reflected and hit the pilot in the eye. While it did not cause any long-term eye damage, it did temporarily damage his vision. The copilot took over the flight, and it was thought an emergency landing would be necessary. Had another laser hit the ship and had it gone directly into the eye of the co-pilot, the ship would have dropped. S.B. 360 was a serious matter to the Las Vegas Police Department and they were in complete support of the bill.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said she saw no fiscal note attached to S.B. 360. Considering the widespread use of lasers and the number of arrests which would result, she was concerned about what the fiscal effect would be. Lieutenant Olsen responded the crime was a misdemeanor, which could be dealt with a class 2 citation. In that instance, a person was taken to jail, fingerprinted, photographed, cited, and released. Someone could be booked, but because of crowded conditions in the jail, a person was usually released on bail or cited in the street. The fiscal impact, therefore, would be absolutely minimal.

Frank Clayton, supervisor, Elko, Combined Narcotics Unit, Nevada Division of Investigations, testified in support of S.B. 360. He presented a copy of a case relative to laser pointers (Exhibit F) which he said showed why law enforcement was so concerned about children having lasers. More people than just officers felt threatened by laser pointers. He asked the committee to remove the reference to "uniformed officers" and replace it with "any officer."

Assemblywoman McClain agreed with Mr. Clayton, and asked if there was ever a good reason to point a laser at someone. Mr. Nolan responded lasers were very widespread and children used them as toys. He suggested language might be necessary relative to intent to damage someone.

Chairman Anderson agreed the language needed work. He suggested perhaps the penalty for directing a laser at officers and emergency support persons should be raised from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor and separate penalties for other offences.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said the potential for injury or death if the laser was aimed at the operator of a moving vehicle of any type was also great.

Assemblyman Claborn related a story about being "tagged" by a laser at a union meeting. He agreed it was very frightening. He said the general public also deserved protection from laser pointers. Perhaps penalties such as misdemeanors for offenses against the general public, and gross misdemeanors for offences against emergency response people were in order.

Chairman Anderson suggested a change to section 3, line 9, of S.B. 360 to reflect that laser lights could not be used under certain circumstances, and raising the standard of penalties in certain circumstances. Assemblyman Manendo was concerned about the hours of volunteers who used laser pointers. He also asked about the age limit in the bill. Ms. Lang responded S.B. 360 had been drafted after legislation in other states. The age limit would be a policy issue which could be left up to the committee.

Ms. Greene said regarding the point made by Assemblyman Carpenter of making the penalty a gross misdemeanor for any police officer, the committee needed to understand the crime of battery against a police officer was limited to a "readily identified police officer."

Captain Nadeau explained traffic officers might not have the powers of arrest that a "usual" officer had, and therein lay the difference. He said not all weapons had laser scopes. He said if S.B. 360 identified strictly laser pointers, it might preclude laser scopes.

Concerns to be addressed in amendments to S.B. 360 included but were not limited to:

• Age requirement.
• Plainclothes and uniformed officers.
• Definitions of laser pointers, scopes.
• Proper use of lasers.
• Intent to cause harm.
• Reasonable person standard.
• Scope of use of pointers.
• Employment use.
• Penalties for improper use.

Chairman Anderson asked if misuse of a laser would differ from other misdemeanors which took place in sight of the public but not in the presence of a police officer. Ms. Greene replied current law required a misdemeanor had to be committed in the presence of an officer. However, a citizen’s arrest could also be made. An officer could respond to a complaint, but would not arrest someone at the scene without having seen the incident. Barring a citizen’s arrest, a report would be taken, an investigation made, and any charges submitted to the district attorney for further action.

Assemblyman Manendo said he was concerned more for obvious targets such as police officers than he was for the average citizen. He asked if there were a lot of problems with lasers. Assemblyman Nolan replied he agreed with Assemblyman Manendo and felt the amendments being proposed seemed to be on track. Children could be given warnings. Misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor charges would suffice for other instances.

Chairman Anderson requested amendments to be drawn to clarify the points discussed by the committee.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 360 and opened the hearing on

Senator Jon Porter, Senate District 1, testified in support of S.C.R. 14. He told the committee the bill came to his attention during the interim while looking at family courts in Nevada. He had pledged to not allow children’s issues to take second seat to other growth issues which impacted Nevada. He said juveniles in the court system needed to be a priority. Throughout court hearings and through other vehicles, there was encouragement to elect a judge specifically for juvenile court. After numerous hearings, Senator Porter determined consistency was what was needed in juvenile court proceedings. Currently, the juvenile court judge in southern Nevada was a family court judge appointed to juvenile court for 1 year. S.C.R. 14 asked that the Eighth Judicial Court provide for the selection and assignment of a district judge of the family court to serve as a judge of the juvenile court for a period of 3 years.

Senator Porter said to his knowledge, the courts had moved forward with his request and would comply with his wishes. He wished to assure the wishes of the legislature were made known for certain by passage of S.C.R. 14.

Chairman Anderson asked if Senator Porter brought the issue forward from family court discussions to ensure it did not come as a recommendation from them. Senator Porter said it was not addressed formally with that body. He felt he should bring it forward himself.

Chairman Anderson asked for a motion on S.C.R. 14.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 14.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL VOTED NO ON S.C.R. 14.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lois McDonald

Transcription Secretary

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

-

Novella Watson-Lee,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: