The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:42 a.m., on Friday, May 14, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Room 4401, Las Vegas, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mark Sullivan, representing Probate Revision Committee, stated the committee has reviewed A.B. 159, and believes it to be an excellent bill. The bill treats the slayer situation in a more comprehensive manner. It is consistent with the small change the committee made in section 96 of A.B. 400, to modify Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 134.007. He said if A.B.159 passed, it would be appropriate to replace the revisions the committee made in section 96 of A.B. 400.

Chairman James asked Brad Wilkinson to explain how the conflict amendment would work.

Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated there are conflicts between A.B. 400 and other bills already passed. He added that should A.B. 400 pass, the conflicts can easily be resolved at that time.

*****

Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 400, and opened the work session with the work session document (Exhibit C).

Chairman James noted a conflict amendment is required on the bill. He introduced a letter from Robey Willis, President, Nevada Judge’s Association (NJA) (Exhibit D), in which the NJA is not for the bill, but would not oppose anyone who is in favor.

*****

*****

*****

*****

Chairman James requested Senator Washington handle A.B. 282 on the Senate Floor.

*****

Chairman James asked Senator Wiener to handle A.B. 339 on the Senate Floor.

*****

*****

Chairman James asked Senator Porter to handle A.B. 473 on the Senate Floor.

Chairman James wanted to know if the amendment is based on the clear and convincing standard.

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legislative Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained it could be a clear and convincing standard under a civil case or require a previous criminal conviction. The other choice is a preponderance of evidence standard.

Chairman proposed to amend as, "has been judicially determined by clear and convincing evidence."

*****

Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), articulated that the NRA sponsors the bill. Reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit E), he said the bill codifies existing common law that a wager between a customer and a casino is a contract, governed by contract law. He said the purpose in codifying the common law was to make it easier for a lay person to understand that law by being able to turn to the Nevada Gaming Control Act and determine that certain occurrences voided the contract between the patron and the casino. He iterated it was not possible in the session time remaining to draft an amendment to satisfy concerns regarding common law. Mr. Whittemore conveyed the NRA asked that A.B. 583 be amended to delete section 1. He said the NRA legislative committee would continue to analyze codifying common law, and present it at the 2001 session.

Senator Wiener asked to clarify that the only change to existing law would be on page 2, line 3; and what would be the specificity.

Chairman James clarified that lines 5-6 of page 2 are a result from last session in adding "quality of life." He stated there was some confusion for the gaming commission about whether quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods applied to restricted licenses. He said the intention of the Legislature was that quality of life did apply to restricted licenses. He concluded that section was added to the bill to clarify that all gaming has to be reviewed for its impact on the quality of life.

Senator Washington wanted to know if the quality-of-life section would affect the restricted license in the redevelopment area of Sparks. Mr. Whittemore responded that they would not be impacted. He added that section goes to the preamble as to the factors to determine whether it applies to the restricted or nonrestricted license. The committee agreed to delete section 1 and adopt a conflict amendment.

*****

Mr. Wilkinson, referring to the proposed amendment in the work session document (Exhibit C), commented the amendment provides that records of public safety cannot be disseminated to any person other than as provided in section 7. The section states that records regarding concealed firearms permits and occupational licenses, may be disseminated to agencies of criminal justice only in the State of Nevada. He continued only records of public safety concerning missing or unidentified persons or as protection against domestic violence and stalking, and the towing of motor vehicles, can be disseminated to agencies of criminal justice within the State of Nevada and outside the State of Nevada. Mr. Wilkinson added that this amendment addresses the concern that any other type of information would not be disseminated inappropriately within or outside the state.

Senator Washington wanted to clarify that all public records would stay within the state and within the repository; and only criminal records would permit access by law enforcement, and disseminated outside the state.

Mr. Wilkinson responded the amendment speaks to records of public safety, which are not records of criminal history.

Senator Titus stated that she supports keeping records of criminal history, but did not understand the need to expand the record keeping of public safety to such an extent. Chairman James agreed with the observation.

Senator Care said he believed the testimony was that all of this information was already available. He observed that by enacting the bill, it would do law enforcement’s work for them.

Senator Titus recommended amending out those parts in the bill referring to records of public safety, and retain the sections that expands the type of documents included in the definition of record of criminal history.

Mr. Wilkinson claimed the bill defines the information as a record of public safety. He said the records are already being kept. The bill limits the dissemination of that information.

Chairman James stated the best way to resolve the concerns is to remove the reference to records of public safety.

*****

Dennis Neilander, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board (SGCB), said the SGCB would like sections 1, 4, and 5 deleted from the bill. These sections deal with redefining sports pool and forfeiture divisions. He asked that sections 2, 3, and 6, addressing taxation dates, be retained.

*****

*****

Chairman James reopened discussion on A.B. 86.

Senator Titus said that as a result of conversation with Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1, she would like to propose amending A.B. 86 to change the population to 150,000, to exempt North Las Vegas.

Senator Porter stated that as representative of rural and urban Clark County, his office has received numerous calls with diverse opinions on the bill. He said rural people’s biggest concern was changing the law for Henderson and North Las Vegas may eventually affect the rural areas. Plus many believe a lay person can represent equally, if not better, than can attorneys. Senator Porter added that some of the calls were from elected officials in support of the bill, such as the chairman of the Clark County commission, mayor of Henderson, and others. He said because of the comments offered, he supports A.B. 86; and during the next session will do everything he can to prevent expansion beyond Henderson and North Las Vegas. A conflict amendment was needed.

*****

Senator Washington said he respects his colleagues’ position on A.B. 86, and assures them that he will help take care of the townships and provisions of Reno, Sparks, and northern Nevada. He agreed that perhaps this bill could open a Pandora’s box. He stated he is aware that there are many justices of the peace throughout the state that are doing wonderful jobs. He concluded that during the next session he would work to prevent the bill from expanding into other areas of the state.

Chairman James asked Senator Porter to handle A.B. 86 on the Senate Floor.

Chairman James stated he was asked to entertain a motion on A.B. 18.

Senator Care iterated he would like to delete subsection 4 of section 1, with the exception of paragraph (c), because he believes the bar should have standing to seek an injunction. He said the other proposed change is to leave a first offense as a misdemeanor, second offense a gross misdemeanor, and the third offense a Category D felony.

Senator Wiener stated that she was interested in bringing parties together regarding this bill. She said it was difficult for her to know how she would handle penalties set for actions that are hard to define.

Senator Washington said he is aware there are individuals practicing some form of law without a license, but without a definition of practicing law, it would be difficult to regulate. He suggested the different parties come together for a definition based on criteria, and then set the punishment. He said he has reservations about the bill, even with Senator Care’s proposed amendments.

Senator Titus stated there are people who are having more problems as a result of putting their faith in someone who has misrepresented himself or herself as being credentialed in law. She said the bar has good reasons for requesting the bill, so she will support it, including the amendments.

Senator Wiener asked that a definition be presented at the next session, should the bill pass.

Chairman James suggested that Senator Care amend his amendment to change the third offense from a Category D to a Category E.

*****

Chairman James asked Senator Care to handle A.B. 18 on the Senator Floor.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, stated, for the record, as a by-stander to the discussion on A.B. 18, he predicts there will not be a single person that appeared in protest to the bill, who would be back in 2001 to protest what was done today. He said, in his opinion, the committee is doing the right thing.

Senator Titus explained the Assembly amendment eliminates the crime of conspiring to engage in hazing, and makes the bill effective upon passage and approval.

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: