The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:22 a.m., on Tuesday, May 25, 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:

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Clark County Assembly District No. 13

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, introduced Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of the Court Administrator, and mentioned Justices William Maupin and Deborah Agosti were in the audience as well and available to answer questions. He stated A.J.R. 22 had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, and, in his opinion, it is the long-term solution to the tremendous caseload and to further expansion of the Nevada Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rose advised the supreme court was requesting the bill passed 2 years ago be jettisoned and that the committee start anew with this bill. He remarked the reason for that request was the seven-justice court just got started, and it is difficult to gauge precisely what work that court can accomplish. Chief Justice Rose continued, saying although he knows the supreme court will need help in the near future, he could not give an accurate assessment of its needs at this time. He indicated he should have a better idea in 2 years when it is time to pass the second leg of the bill.

Chief Justice Rose explained why the supreme court was requesting A.J.R. 22 even though they have just begun the seven-justice court. He advised the caseload will continue, and by any measure, Nevada has one of the busiest appellate courts in the United States. Chief Justice Rose remarked appellate courts are not supposed to try more than 100-cases-per-judge per year, which for seven justices would be 700 cases. However, he stated Nevada’s Supreme Court is currently at 2,000 cases, or approximately 280-cases-per-judge per year. He further advised before getting two additional judges, the court was handling 400 cases per judge, a number well above any other state supreme court in the United States. Chief Justice Rose asserted their caseload has increased 400 percent in the last 30 years, but the number of appellate judges has increased by only 40 percent. Additionally, the number of district court judges has increased by 200 percent. Chief Justice Rose pointed out, with the increase in population, the caseload will continue to increase into the future.

Continuing, Chief Justice Rose advised that acquisition of two new judges and breaking into panels has been a tremendous help. However, he stated when they got the two judges, the "dam was about to break," and this structure was a last-ditch effort to handle Nevada’s caseload. Chief Justice Rose remarked it is his opinion future expansion of judges, which will certainly be needed, should be done by the intermediate appellate court rather than by adding additional panels. He noted a large number of supreme court justices is unwieldy, and the Chief Justice of the State of Washington, which has nine on its supreme court, is going to the Legislature with an initiative to roll the court back to seven or five. He asserted all the states around Nevada have turned to an intermediate appellate court as a solution when their caseloads have reached 1,000. Chief Justice Rose explained the supreme court was asking the Legislature to start this process anew now because the process takes a minimum of 5 years before implementation. Therefore, when asking to begin this process and create the appropriate appellate court structure, they are looking out 5 years, at which time statistics indicate the supreme court will have over 3,000 cases. Chairman James requested Chief Justice Rose submit a copy of the statistics he had mentioned to the committee to aid in answering questions from the Senate Floor.

Chairman James remarked this bill had come up every session he has been on the committee. He stated it had been defeated on the ballot in 1992, it was passed by the Legislature in 1993, the Senate Committee on Judiciary passed it in 1995, but during that session, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary "killed" it in committee. Chairman James asserted that is what precipitated the crisis situation in 1997 that required the court be expanded. Chief Justice Rose concurred and said the proponents did their best to break the 1995 logjam, but there were 21 in each party, and they made it a political issue. He added neither party would budge and it died due to a lack of majority. Chief Justice Rose advised in 1997 they urged expansion of the court, which can be done without a constitutional amendment, and that is what they did. However, in his opinion, that was a stopgap measure allowing them to hold the line for 2, 4, or 5 years. Chief Justice Rose reiterated the long-term solution is creation of the intermediate appellate court as most of the western states have already done.

Senator Porter commented that 4 years ago, public opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court was at an all-time low. He commended Chief Justice Rose for the turnaround in that sentiment.

Senator Wiener mentioned Chief Justice Rose’s remark that he wanted to come back in 2 years and reassess the caseload situation. She pointed out if the committee was to process the bill with the existing language, this is how it would be processed in the next session. Senator Wiener asked what Chief Justice Rose meant by reassessing it in 2 years since, in her understanding, that would restart the clock again. Chief Justice Rose clarified he meant reassess as to what structure the appellate court should take, not the language creating it. In other words, assess whether the appellate court would need three judges or six judges. He remarked, according to current law, if a state elects to have an appellate court, it must immediately retreat to five judges. Chief Justice Rose suggested they could repeal that law, continue with seven justices, and add a three-justice intermediate appellate court for mostly criminal matters. Another approach would be retreat the supreme court to five, and have a six-justice intermediate appellate court. Chief Justice Rose stated he was mostly talking about finance rather than the legal language itself.

Senator Titus observed she did not think anyone would want to leave the supreme court to be on the appellate court. Chief Justice Rose remarked a certain number of appellate judges are needed, whether they are on the supreme court or the intermediate appellate court. He said if they do drop back to five justices, he prefers to do it by attrition.

Senator Care asked if the three positions created by the bill would be "at large." Chief Justice Rose replied they always have been, but the Legislature would have the authority to establish districts, if it so desired.

Senator Wiener inquired whether Chief Justice Rose had any sense of what the intermediate appellate court would do in terms of numbers to cut the caseload. Chief Justice Rose answered it depends upon how many judges are put on the intermediate appellate court. He continued, assuming three additional appellate court judges are decided upon, they should be able to handle 250 cases each, totaling 750 additional cases. Chief Justice Rose estimates the addition of the three justices would enable the supreme court to maintain a manageable caseload for the next 5 to 10 years.

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of the Court Administrator, testified there are primarily two changes from the last bill. The first change begins in section 3A, subsection 2, where the words "at least" are inserted in front of the discussion of staggering terms. Ms. Kavanau explained they wanted to ensure the number of judges was not restricted to three. The other primary difference, according to Ms. Kavanau, is in section 20, subsection 2, where the language has been changed to be consistent with A.J.R. 13.

Ms. Kavanau noted that resolution came out of the Commission on Judicial Selection, which wanted to guarantee a minimum of 12 months in service to an appointed district judge, supreme court justice, and now an intermediate appellate court judge, unless the term they are appointed to fill expires during that 12 months. In that case, the judge would be required to run in the next election.

A. William Maupin, Associate Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, commented most intermediate appellate courts in the United States sit in panels; the Nevada Supreme Court is sitting in panels now and functioning as an intermediate appellate court as well as the court of final appeal. He explained under Nevada’s system, the supreme court does not have discretionary jurisdiction. Therefore, any final judgment rendered under any district court in the state is subject to mandatory appeal that must be heard on its merits in the event the supreme court has jurisdiction over that appeal. Justice Maupin suggested one way to transition this new system into place would be, for example, to create an intermediate appellate court with three judges on it, and assign it a specific portion of the court’s caseload, such as the error-correction criminal cases. He continued, a portion of the supreme court’s central staff could be transferred to the new intermediate appellate court. Justice Maupin explained that would minimize the financial impact of this particular court, because they would just be moving positions from point A to point B. He further commented gradually they would expand that court’s functions, and as it expanded in numbers, continue to have it sit in panels and continue to transfer members of the central staff to that court system. Justice Maupin pointed out that would again allow them to get that system up and running at a minimum of support cost, other than the salaries of the judges, their immediate support staff, and necessary capital building expenditures. He maintained, in that way, they could gradually transition into this intermediate appellate court with a minimum of trauma to the people accessing the justice system on the appellate level. Justice Maupin stated, over a fairly significant period of time, but less than 5 or 10 years, the system would switch to an intermediate appellate court doing error-correction cases, and the Nevada Supreme Court itself would handle discretionary matters.

Chairman James mentioned section 4 of the bill charges the Legislature with the role of fixing the jurisdiction of the respective courts. Justice Maupin affirmed that was correct, and stated over time the supreme court would be generating the appropriate statistics for the Legislature’s analysis to determine the best solution at any particular time during the transition period.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.J.R. 22. He opened a work session and called for a do pass motion on the resolution.

*****

Chairman James addressed Senate Bill (S.B.) 360. He advised when the bill left the committee in the first reprint it revised the penalty for the crime of petit larceny, and it now relates to the use of laser pointers.

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Clark County Assembly District No. 13, said he would explain the genesis of the amendment, how it ended up in S.B. 360, and how the Assembly Committee on Judiciary came about developing the bill language. Assemblyman Nolan stated S.B. 360 first came about as a request from uniformed police officer Scott Murray, who worked for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. He told of Officer Murray making a routine traffic stop and while approaching the vehicle, discovered he had a laser beam directed from the back seat of the vehicle onto his chest. Assemblyman Nolan remarked thinking it was a laser gun sighting, the officer immediately dropped to the ground and drew his weapon. Officer Murray had the occupants of the car get out and discovered a juvenile was operating a simple, hand-held laser pointer. Assemblyman Nolan continued, saying the incident scared Officer Murray enough for him to do an Internet search and found that several states have had to deal with this problem. Office Murray printed information from the Internet regarding three states: Rhode Island, New York, and Florida, that have relevant legislation. Assemblyman Nolan requested the chairman of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to introduce a bill, but due to it being so late in session, it did not get onto the docket. He said he was willing to let the bill die, but law enforcement representatives stressed the importance of the bill because laser pointers were potentially causing life and death situations. Therefore, Assemblyman Nolan waited for a senate bill to come along that could be amended, and S.B. 360 was a good vehicle for that purpose.

Assemblyman Nolan relayed another incident involving a laser pointer. He remarked a U.S. Department of Defense load of ordnance was being transported out of the Hawthorne, Nevada, plant. On the highway a vehicle pulled up, and a laser beam was pinpointed on the military personnel in the vehicle. The military personnel activated the global alert button, not knowing whether it was an attempt to abscond with the weapons and ammunition. Assemblyman Nolan stated that alert sent the highway patrol initially, and then the military police and Apache helicopters were put on alert. He remarked, once again, it was juveniles whose lives were put in harms way because the highway patrol had to draw down on them and remove them from the vehicle, at gunpoint.

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association demonstrated the reason for concern about laser pointers. He had an unloaded pistol equipped with a laser sighting device. Captain Nadeau shined both the laser pointer beam and the gun laser sighting beam on the wall, showing how difficult is was to distinguish between the two. Chairman James asked if people know that laser-pointer beams are similar to gun-laser beams. He remarked he was unaware of that fact, and does not want to turn innocent behavior into criminal conduct. Captain Nadeau commented, in his opinion, people who are pointing lasers at individuals have a concept of what they are doing.

Senator Titus asked why not just outlaw laser pointers. Captain Nadeau replied laser pointers are viable tools. Senator Titus clarified she meant on guns. Captain Nadeau explained the whole idea of a laser on a weapon is the user does not have to take time to sight. He said it was designed for combat when combatants did not have time to bring the weapon up to the eye, but instead could shoot and the bullet would hit where the red dot appeared. Senator Titus commented she understood the purpose of section 4 of S.B. 360, but thought section 3 goes too far. She favored deleting section 3. Captain Nadeau emphasized that lasers can be dangerous. He read the warning notice on the laser pointer advising keeping it out of the reach of children. Captain Nadeau asserted they are not toys, but are treated as toys. He pointed out section 3 does not outlaw laser pointers and, in his opinion, section 3 is not too strict. Captain Nadeau mentioned laser beams can cause eye damage and may be used to intimidate a person.

Senator Care mentioned an incident in which a person attempted to blind a police helicopter pilot at night and did some damage, and another incident of two young men committing two or three "thrill kills," using laser weapons. He asked Stan Olsen if he was aware of the incidents.

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated he did not have enough details on the second incident mentioned by Senator Care to be able to discuss it. However, situations such as the helicopter incident have occurred as recently as April 1999 with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and with other agencies throughout the United States. Lieutenant Olsen told of a helicopter incident in Los Angeles, California, in which the laser beam was so strong, the pilot had to make an emergency landing. He remarked the Federal Aviation Association finally outlawed laser pointers at airports for all but a few personnel, due to the debilitating effect on pilots if the beam is shined in their eyes.

Wayne R. Hurte, Chief, Legislative Police, Legislative Counsel Bureau, relayed an incident that happened April 12, 1999, when Legislative Police Officer Frank Bachman was escorting a female employee to her car in the Sedway building parking lot. While walking back to the office, Officer Bachman looked down and saw a red laser dot on his chest. He took cover behind a trash dumpster and worked his way into the office. Chief Hurte stated the red dot followed Officer Bachman into the office. Officer Bachman called an officer in the Legislative Building who was able to use a remote camera on the south end of the Sedway building and focused it on the Capital Apartments building. By use of the camera, the officer found the suspect who was focusing the laser pointer beam on Officer Bachman. The sheriff’s office was called and sheriff officers assisted Officer Bachman in contact with the suspect. Chief Hurte advised that the suspect was an ex-convict, recently released from parole. He was not arrested because pointing a laser beam at an officer is not a crime.

Chairman James advised the question before the committee was to concur or not concur.

Senator Care also expressed concern regarding section 3. He wondered about the reference to 19 years of age. He stated he understood the problems law enforcement has with the pointing of laser beams at officers, but he was not comfortable with section 3 of S.B. 360. Senator Titus agreed and recommended not concurring and going to conference to see if they would be willing to delete section 3, and focus on the law enforcement problem.

Responding to a question from Chairman James, Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, advised the third reprint of the bill took out the language about persons 19 years of age or older, just for clarification.

*****

Chairman James next addressed S.B. 322, Amendment No. 1008. He stated the Assembly tried to take out the fees so the bill would not be vetoed. However, there is one remaining item that causes a veto concern, according to Chairman James.

*****

The final bill addressed during the work session was S.B. 396.

Senator Titus advised the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources was to roll the show-dog bill into S.B. 396 and make all the penalties consistent. Chairman James asked if the bill was changed to prevent making it a felony to feed a service dog. Senator Titus remarked that was changed.

*****

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: