The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Silvia Motta, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 339.

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30, introduced A.B. 339 as a proposal to codify the current practice in Clark, Elko and Washoe counties where court masters or commissioners have been handling protection-order cases involving domestic violence. She explained the increasing volume of domestic violence cases mandates the necessity for court masters to handle a number of those cases in order to lessen the existing caseload in the family division. She indicated it is a common practice for the district courts in Washoe County to set an additional hearing for an extended order. The hearing is set within 45 days from the original date of issuance of a 30-day temporary protection order (TPO), when requested by the applicant. She also said that such practice has been beneficial for all parties involved. The respondents have the opportunity to appear and be heard before their release from custody or removal from the residence. In addition, it provides more access to the courts, and allows due process with little or no financial impact. However, the Office of the Washoe County Public Defender, who is appointed to represent those indigent persons facing the possibility of jail time for the alleged violent crime, has challenged the court proceedings.

Assemblywoman Evans emphasized the importance for the courts to retain the ability to set extension hearings on TPOs. The gravity of domestic violence often increases when the perpetrator becomes aware that the abused party has left or is about to leave the relationship, in which case the battered persons may be at greater risk up until the court hearings.

Victoria M. Van Meter, Court Master, Family Division, Second Judicial District, testified in support of the bill. She stated domestic violence does not happen to strangers; it could happen to someone close like a mother, a sister, a daughter, a neighbor, a friend, or a coworker. She established that domestic violence constitutes a serious threat to families in the State of Nevada.

Ms. Van Meter stated a protection order has become a first line of protection for domestic violence in the State of Nevada. She expressed confidence and faith that this legislation would improve the existing laws. Ms. Van Meter proceeded to read a letter from a domestic violence victim that had been submitted to the district court with an application for TPO.

Ms. Van Meter read:

Scott Jordan, District Judge, Department 11, Family Division, Second Judicial District Court, concurred with the prior comments. He added, Washoe, Clark and Elko counties are the only counties working under the current statutes, for which the TPOs for domestic violence are handled in the district courts. He stated the procedure strikes the proper balance between the need for protection of victims and family violence, and the need for guarantee of due process for all parties involved. Domestic violence cases are handled as quickly as possible through the district courts. Nonetheless, A.B. 339 would reinforce the process of the courts. He pointed out such process has been recognized by some national organizations as a model practice for domestic programs; namely, such organizations as the National Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. He concluded, A.B. 339 would make the necessary changes to correct inconsistencies within the existing laws and allow the current procedure to continue. He urged the committee to approve the measure, as written.

Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women, an organization for families in Washoe County, spoke in favor of A.B. 339. Then she drew attention to records from 1998 of the Second Judicial District Court, which proves there were 2,067 applications for temporary protection orders, 466 applications for extended protection orders and 1,124 applications for related orders. Additionally, there were 6,760 client contacts made in 1998, for a grand total of 10,130 cases just in the Second Judicial District Court. She said she believes the bill would restructure the process, increasing court efficiency and continue the support to Nevada’s victims of domestic violence. Ms. Kaiser voiced objection to any additional amendments to A.B. 339 that may be introduced.

Nancy E. Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General (AG), expressed, on behalf of the AG’s office, strong support for the measure. In her opinion, the proposal would add crucial changes to the law governing orders for protection against domestic violence. She stressed due to the high volume of cases involving orders of protection in the last 10 years, the court masters or commissioners have been enlisted to handle such matters. However, the existing protection law does not expressly provide authority for the court masters or commissioners to take testimony and make recommendations; therefore, their authority has been challenged. She insisted that A.B. 339 would amend chapter 33 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), to provide such authority for court masters or commissioners; and to allow protection-order applicants to apply for an extension when a TPO is filed. Ms. Hart suggested the amendment would clarify any procedural question in the current law. She recommended the Senate Committee on Judiciary consider approval of A. B. 339. She recognized that commissioners were not part of the proposal, and requested they be added.

Diane Loper, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, offered her vote of confidence in favor of the measure, as written. She outlined some of the difficulties that a battered victim may encounter when filing for a protection order or an extension. Often victims have no means of transportation, no access to a court, or access to an organization for aiding abuse victims. Many times, with children in hand, the victim must wait for a bus to reach a courthouse. In other instances, the victim would rather risk her life to protect her children rather than risk losing her job by taking time off to return to the court to request an extension. Ms. Loper stressed the importance of the bill and recommended it be put into law in all courts throughout the state.

Susan Meuschke, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, a statewide coalition of domestic violence programs for the state of Nevada, spoke in favor of A.B. 339. She stated orders of protection against domestic violence have, since 1985, provided important protection for victims of domestic violence and their families. The judicial system would not be able to respond to emergency protection orders or process the increasing caseload, in a timely manner, without the assistance of the court masters. She also stated, the court-master system has proven to be efficient and effective in handling such difficult cases, without delaying the process; allowing an applicant to apply for an extended order at the time the temporary order is filed. She insisted the proposal would eliminate the excess paper work, and a second trip to the courthouse; and also provide a clearer notice and appearance process for the respondent.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, recognized the concept for preventing and punishing domestic violence as a major concern. However, he did not agree entirely with the additional 45-day recommendation, and said there are more levels of domestic violence to be considered. Mr. Morrow argued that the current proposal (A.B. 339) carries the potential for a total of 75 days over its original intent. He stated such a length of time would only make matters worse, especially for respondents who have been removed from the home, have been ordered to make house payments, or have been denied parental visitation rights. Mr. Morrow asserted this would make it more difficult for alleged abusers to regain their lives.

Mr. Morrow presented a proposed amendment from the Washoe County Public Defender’s office (Exhibit C). Referring to the mandatory language in section 3, subsection 3, of A.B. 339 he remarked, the alleged perpetrator does not always have the opportunity to respond to the accusations before the extended order is issued. He spoke of a frivolous case with different circumstances of domestic violence, where the alleged abuser turned out to be the victim; implying that some temporary protection orders are highly questionable. Chairman James did not agree with Mr. Morrow regarding the 75-day extension. He said the extended order is for timing purposes. Furthermore, if there are specific findings by the courts, based on the facts or special circumstances, which is what the law requires, the courts have the discretion to grant an extended order, and the responsibility to protect the victim or victims.

Mr. Morrow referred to Exhibit C, outlining a second amendment to the additional 45-day extension. He said if an extension is filed with the application for temporary order, it would disrupt the structure and original intent of the temporary order statute. He suggested another option for the applicant, in the event that the alleged abuser is not in compliance, is to hold the perpetrator in contempt of court or file an application for an extension of the original order and a hearing. He also recommended the language in the bill be modified; indicating the extension order should be filed "within 30 days" while the temporary order is still in effect. Chairman James stated the existing temporary-order law allows for both orders to be filed on the same day, adding only 15 days total time, as opposed to 75 days. However, there was a law adopted in 1995, which makes a party and/or his attorney liable for attorneys’ fees if he files a frivolous civil case.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 339 and opened the hearing on A.B. 363.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27, explained that A.B. 363 was created with the intent to increase the penalties for stalking and aggravated stalking, as well as to improve police training. She began explaining that the penalties for the crimes of stalking and aggravated stalking were first approved by the Legislature in 1993. Later, Senate Bill (S.B.) 114 of the Sixty-eighth Session was adopted, which added the provisions for when aggravated stalking is committed; i.e., stalking a person with whom one has a child in common; stalking a spouse while the divorce proceedings are pending; or stalking a spouse within 6 months of the entry of a divorce decree.

Referring to section 1, subsection 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) of A.B. 363, Assemblywoman Leslie offered that while the first offense for stalking is considered a misdemeanor, subsequent offenses are treated as a gross misdemeanor under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 200.575. She described the different types of crimes and punishments outlined throughout the bill. For example, the first offense of stalking is considered a misdemeanor, and a subsequent offense a gross misdemeanor. Whereas an aggravated stalking is contemplated as a gross misdemeanor for the first offense, punishable of not less than 1 year and no more than 6 years of imprisonment. A second or subsequent offense is an "intent crime" Category B felony, with an additional 1-6 years of incarceration, and a fine of no more than $5,000. She told the committee that up to 1998, the Department of Prison’s records showed 19 inmates had entered the prison system. Out of the 19 inmates, 15 were convicted of felony-aggravated stalking and 4 were convicted of attempted stalking; raising the number to a total of 23 persons convicted as felons for aggravated stalking in the State of Nevada. She continued, the proposal offered today would allow the courts to discreetly sentence a more severe stalking case to a longer period of incarceration, in hopes that it will serve as a deterrent on stalking crimes. Senator Wiener inquired if a history profile had been performed on the existing 23 inmates, to find whether they had a repeated behavior. Assemblywoman Leslie had no information to offer in that regard.

Assemblywoman Leslie introduced a copy of a letter from Jerry Lewis, actor and singing celebrity, dated May 4, 1999; together with Mr. Lewis’ full testimony before the Assembly Committee of the Whole floor session, reflected in the Assembly Daily Journal, Thirty-ninth Day, dated March 11, 1999 (Exhibit D). She asked the Senate Committee on Judiciary to reflect on Mr. Lewis’ letter, given that Mr. Lewis was not able to appear today. She explained Mr. Lewis and his family are currently residing in Nevada and have been victims of stalking in recent years. Mr. Lewis implored through his letter, on behalf of his family, all stalking victims and "the great people of Nevada," for the Senate Committee on Judiciary to consider A.B. 363. Assemblywoman Leslie also introduced additional written statements from other victims of stalking (Exhibit E).

Assemblywoman Leslie spoke of the second part of the bill referring to the police-training provision, concluding that law enforcement agencies do not act upon violent crime laws with full force due to the lack of training. She commended the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for recognizing the gravity of domestic violence and dedicating 3 hours out of their 8-hour training to such violence. She said she found this proposal rather compelling; that a horrible crime like domestic violence or stalking indeed can affect anyone, from a celebrity to an average person; men or women alike, and take away the victim’s, family’s and friend’s security and peace of mind.

Thomas M. Patton, First Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, commented the stalking penalties were carefully reviewed; and it was determined they should be comparable to grand larceny, stabbing or ATM/credit card penalties; and the same as the crime of drugs, which carries a 3 to 15 year sentence. He pointed out that in an extreme case or a heinous crime, it is most likely to adopt some form of psychological terrorism, escalating to a violent crime, then causing the victim or victims to hide and be prisoners in their own home. Chairman James stated the Senate Committee on Judiciary has been aware of the penalties under A.B. 363, from the time the effective stalking law was passed, and throughout subsequent amendments. He also said, later the same committee sponsored a bill to increase the penalties from a misdemeanor to the various levels of felonies that exist today. Senator Washington recommended increasing the minimum punishment from 1 year to 8 years of incarceration; or more appropriately, add a second subsequent offense paragraph to the bill, or uphold a sentencing structure. Senators Washington and James concurred that the current jail time may not be harsh enough for the crime of stalking and it would have a tremendous effect, and would make more sense, to increase the minimum.

Mr. Patton spoke about the perpetrator, Garry Benson, convicted of stalking Mr. Lewis and his family. Mr. Benson was ultimately convicted of aggravated stalking or causing a person reasonable fear for his/her safety. Mr. Patton indicated that Mr. Benson was given a suspended sentence for a period of 5 years; however, while Mr. Benson was brought back before the court several times, his sentence was revoked. According to the Department of Prison’s credit calculations, Mr. Benson had been granted approximately 1,200 days credit, based on time he spent on probation, and had become eligible for parole consideration.

Senator Care asked about the maximum punishment in other jurisdictions for a second or additional stalking offense. Assemblywoman Leslie replied there are some jurisdictions that would apply up to 20 or 25 years maximum, depending on the facts of the case.

Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW), a Washoe County organization for families, voiced support for the concept of the bill and for any other recommendations.

Abbi Silver, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, claimed the "anti-stalking" laws were originally implemented to prevent murder. She wished to clarify that not all stalking cases involve a relationship, nor has the victim always met the perpetrator before the stalking crime. She agreed the range of a 1- to 20-year sentence would be an appropriate punishment; and would allow, in certain circumstances, for a judge to apply a maximum term of up to 6 years, with probation. In her opinion, there are some cases, including Mr. Lewis’, where a 20-year sentence would be in accordance with the sentencing law; and even if the accused is sentenced to 6 years, he/she would be eligible for parole 2 years later.

Ms. Silver then talked about Mr. Benson who was convicted of stalking Mr. Lewis and his family. She explained Mr. Benson had been sentenced to an in-patient "lock-up" mental institution; and that during his trial, it was stipulated he could not be sent to prison with his delusion to kill Mr. Lewis and his family. Ms. Silver continued, in 1998, Mr. Benson had escaped from the mental facility, and he continued to make death threats against the Lewis family, including their 4-year-old daughter. Mr. Benson was brought back to the court on a revocation hearing for his 6-year prison sentence; consequently, he was given credit for all the time he accumulated in the mental institution. Although Mr. Benson’s request for parole was denied in September 1998, his 6-year prison sentence will expire by the summer of 2000. She maintained that, under A.B. 363, Mr. Benson would have been convicted with a suspended 20-year sentence, providing more options for the prosecution and courts to prolong his release from prison, and continue to ensure the victims’ safety.

Chairman James disagreed with Ms. Silver’s testimony. He insisted, to assume that a judge would agree to sentence a convicted stalker to a maximum of 20 years would be misleading. He also said he did not believe it would have changed the facts or the circumstances for Mr. Lewis. Ms. Silver insisted a subsequent sentence would not be recommendable for prosecution purposes, unless the perpetrator is paroled. On the other hand, she said, if a stalker was sentenced to a longer period of time, even if he was considered for parole, the stalker would have a remaining punishment pending; and it would be easier for the courts to change his sentence, which is more preferable than to "wait around" for the perpetrator to commit new multiple crimes and wait for a new trial.

Ms. Silver continued her testimony making reference to other notorious stalkers; such as, the cases of Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid, and Congressman John Ensign, representatives in the United States Congressional Delegation, who had continuously been stalked and had received death threats from the same perpetrator. The convicted stalker showed up in both offices, carrying firearms and threatening to "make it the bloodiest day in the history of Nevada" or "a day that Nevada will never forget." She pointed out that this particular perpetrator has already become eligible for parole, and his release from prison is scheduled to take place by summer 1999. She mentioned he appeared to be very intelligent and she feared he would find ways to convince the parole board that he is not a danger; or persuade the parole board to release him before his sentence expires. Once he is released from prison, there will be little or nothing to prevent him from stalking again and again. Senator Care asked if a conviction on a first-defense aggravated stalking and time served in prison would prevent a stalker from committing such horrible crimes. Ms. Silver reiterated that under the current laws the punishment or conviction does not seem to have a significant effect on stalkers; especially for those stalkers who seem to have no remorse for what they do, no regard for the law, and violently continue to terrorize innocent persons. She concluded that, in her opinion, there is no real consequence for what these stalkers do. She emphasized this proposal (A.B. 363) is very much needed to ensure the protection of victims of stalking and violent crimes.

Henry Miller, Concerned Citizen, testified in favor of A.B. 363. Mr. Miller defined stalking as a fearful, indescribable experience; living on the edge, and anticipating the stalker’s next move. He said stalking affects all kinds of people, regardless of sex, race, social status or political beliefs. As well as abusive husbands, there is the abusive wife, who savagely attacks her husband, inflicting fear, yet appearing weak; making it much harder for men to seek help. He gave details of his personal experience, a situation involving his former wife of 6 years. He indicated she had been in favor of Mr. Miller’s sole custody of their daughter, but she had not agreed to the divorce petition. Mr. Miller continued to describe from written notes, the numerous incidents of violence and mental abuse inflicted by his wife. Mr. Miller stated:

Mr. Miller concluded his remarks stating when she "gets-off" her parole, she will start with her harassment and threats all over again, maybe even worse. He suggested stalkers be held responsible as well for the financial and health problems incurred; for example, the psychological counseling and attorney fees, any call traces and telephone traps. He reiterated his concerns and fear for his daughter and other stalking victims, and supports the proposal.

Ms. Loper agreed with the proposal and recommended amendments.

Gemma Greene, Lobbyist, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, pointed out she had previously testified before an Assembly committee and had campaigned for the 2 to 15-year incarceration punishment. She introduced her testimony (Exhibit F), an illustration of the common cases that the Domestic Violence Protection Team handles on a regular basis. She urged the committee to consider increasing the minimum punishment to at least a 2 to 15 years; emphasizing that stalking is a very serious crime.

Lidia Osmetti, Director Assistant, Victim Witness Association Center, specified she had worked with numerous stalking victims over the last several years. She said the most common condition displayed by stalking victims is the state of fear; constantly looking over their shoulder; feeling unsafe; concern not only for themselves, but also for the people around them, like their friends and family. She continued victims of stalking often express the life of "hell" they live, becoming prisoners themselves. All of their plans are focussed on safety; they cannot let their guard down even for 1 minute. She said some of the cases she had become familiar with included victims who were stalked by their boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, an acquaintance or a total stranger. She offered the statement of a victim of stalking and requested it be admitted into the record (Exhibit G). The victim’s letter described how her abuser, who was serving time in prison had managed to pay a prisoner, who was ready for parole, to kill her and her family. Ms. Greene added, the case in this letter clearly illustrates a very common situation, where the penalties "do not" preclude stalkers from committing such hateful crimes, even from their prison cell.

Ms. Meuschke offered her written testimony (Exhibit H); then talked about the critical need for training. She said she has great confidence in the Senate judiciary committee’s efforts to reach a middle ground or compromise on penalties. She said the implementation of violence and stalking laws have become an important topic for the judicial system, prosecutors and law enforcement agents alike.

Richard Clark, Division Chief, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Committee, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained there are a total of 480 hours of based-post-certification training required under officer’s class training Category I. In the meantime, adding the domestic violence and stalking supplementary training, in Category I and II, would not be an obstacle. However, he did not feel the training would benefit the Category III officers. Chairman James pointed out that prior testimony had indicated convicted stalkers had continued their stalking activities from prison; therefore, the additional training would raise the officers’ awareness that there is a certain indicia behavior happening within the prison facility.

Jan Wold, Concerned Citizen, stated she had been the victim of stalking by her husband for 9½ years. She clarified the stalking and harassment had occurred in several states; namely in Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada and Oregon. She said that according to the federal Department of Justice, there are several kinds of stalking, but the most common is one by a former intimate partner. She added, when a person is stalked by someone who knows the victim’s personal details, including social security number, the stalker knows where the victim lives and works and where the family lives. The stalker knows how to get to the victim. She expressed that domestic violence generally occurs as a continuance from the emotional side to the homicide extreme. Domestic violence is about control, power and domination. When a woman leaves her abuser, he often begins to stalk her to regain control. She explained that many victims are not as fortunate as she had been to receive the support from family and friends, and many of them do not have the luxury to move out when the violence becomes physical. In her case, she said the harassment had escalated when she moved out; then the threats to kill or destroy her also began. Later, the terror and loss of freedom would start. She defined stalking is not for a short time, because it is an ongoing process, causing extensive damage for the rest of the victims life, to the quality of life, financially and emotionally; the sense of insecurity.

Ms. Wold indicated she had learned that most stalkers are men and the victims are women, and that stalking occurs as a consequence of domestic dispute. She also learned that, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 1995 more than a quarter of all women were killed by their husbands or boyfriends. Typically, when the woman tries to leave the relationship, that is when it becomes more dangerous. She insisted it is very important that law enforcement officers receive adequate training. She emphasized the need for this bill (A.B. 363) to save lives.

Lyn Lazovich, Concerned Citizen, described her own experience as a victim of stalking. She indicated the horror described in prior testimony was minor in comparison to the reality. She explained her stalker is a repeater, he had committed the same crime before and continues to stalk other women. She said he eventually had been apprehended when he had committed yet another crime of stalking and burglary. She insisted all stalkers are very sick people; they "hunt-down" their victims, like wild animals; and they strip innocent people of something as valuable as life and freedom, following the victims at all times. She also said she did not receive full cooperation from law enforcement. When she found her stalker inside her home, she contacted the local police department and the district attorney’s office. She was told to call the 911 emergency number. More than once she was asked if she was sure she had never been involved with her stalker. She, as well as other stalking victims, felt very weak and fragile; with very little or no help from the police, trying to deal with this horrible situation. Ms. Lazovich emphasized that there is a great need of understanding on the part of law enforcement; therefore, she would be in support of the training for police officers.

Tracy Panzarella, Concerned Citizen, gave her definition of stalking. She said this type of crime is no different than rape, and there is much to be learned about it. She said she believed the laws and lawmakers, including police officers, are not fully informed or experienced when it comes to stalking and domestic violence crimes. She also said that the current laws force victims to go "underground," and that the legal system is hierarchical. Until the laws filter down from higher authorities to the people filing the protection orders, the problems will persist. It is incomprehensible that a person who steals a car is punished more severely than a person who takes away something far more valuable, which is peace of mind or someone’s life.

Chairman James clarified that the Senate Committee on Judiciary wrote the stalking laws and had been involved in the amendments from the beginning. He also said the members of the Senate judiciary committee are fully informed and have been very forward when handling domestic violence and stalking issues.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 363, and opened the hearing on A.B. 473.

Assemblywoman Kathyrn (Kathy) A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15, briefly introduced the bill as a requirement for domestic violent juvenile offenders, so that when they are arrested they would be detained for 12 hours in the holding area as an adult. She said A.B. 473 proposes to provide full credit on orders of temporary restraining and temporary protection that are issued in other states and foreign nations, like Indian (Native American) reservations. She also noted that when the "persons with a dating relationship" amendment was added in 1997, the amendment did not reach all the sections of the law.

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, confirmed that the 12-hour standout or cooling period already exists in the current laws. He mentioned there have been some contradictions in this regard with the Clark County Juvenile Detention Center (CCJDC). The CCJDC is the only agency in the State of Nevada which has been reluctant to follow the current laws, and strongly believes the 12-hour rule under the domestic violence law excludes juveniles.

Lieutenant Olsen offered a brief outline of information involving domestic violent juvenile offenders (Exhibit I). He then talked about the case of a parent, who was the victim and had received a broken arm during the altercation. Three hours later after the injured father returned from the hospital, the CCJDC called the victim and demanded the parent pick up the violent juvenile. Parents, who are often the victims, are forced to pick up their son or daughter; legally the parent is responsible for the juvenile. It becomes a very difficult situation for the parent, especially when the parent is not able to get away from the home and escape from the abuser. Often the parents are told by CCJDC that the only other alternatives they have are to pay an $80 fee per day, or a contempt of court action can be issued, declaring that the parent is a child neglector or an unfit parent.

Nancy E. Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, referred to her written statement (Exhibit J), then made several comments regarding the bill. She said her office was made aware that an important provision had inadvertently been overlooked, the domestic violence bail statute, which was not accurately changed to be consistent with the 1997 amendments, under NRS 178.484, regarding the adult 12-hour hold provision. Ms. Hart suggested an amendment to provide that a "person in a dating relationship" also should not be admitted into bail until after the 12-hour holding period.

Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Executive Director of the Committee to Aid Abuse Women (CAAW), offered her testimony (Exhibit K) voicing support for A.B. 473.

Diane Loper, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, concurred that even a little incarceration would be a deterrent for the domestic violence crime, and she would be in favor of the bill.

Susan Meuschke, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, also expressed support for A.B. 473.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 473 and adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Silvia Motta,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: