ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-First Session

May 8, 2001

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:05 a.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was simultaneously videoconferenced in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas. 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

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley (excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27

Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Judge Peter Breen, Second Judicial District Court, Department Seven, Washoe County, Reno

David Spitzer, Adult Drug Court Attorney, Washoe County Drug Court, Reno

Patrick Hardy, Clark County Regional Mental Health Coalition

Dr. Carlos Brandenburg, Administrator, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Carson City

John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, Reno

Kathy O’Leary, Washoe County Public Defender, Reno

James Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Las Vegas

Chris Oswald, State Liaison, State & Local Affairs Division, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association of America, Sacramento, California

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, Sparks

John Holmes, Citizen, 2JP Ranch, Fibers for Crafts, Silver Springs

Ike Yochum, Independent American Party

Jim Mayhugh, Citizen

Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney and Nevada District Attorneys Association, Reno

Harold Lister, Citizen, Lister’s Fine Jewelry, LTD, Reno

Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, Las Vegas

Jerry Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Las Vegas

Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 366 and acknowledged the principal sponsor of the bill, Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District 27.

Senate Bill 366: Enacts provisions governing establishment by district court of program for treatment of mentally ill offenders. (BDR 1-1006)

S.B. 366 was a bill for a pilot project in Washoe County that had been developed in conjunction with Judge Peter Breen and his task force over the last six months. Judge Breen was prepared to provide background for the development of the project, jurisdictional issues, eligibility requirements, and funding needs. There would be one amendment offered by the state mental health staff regarding the definition of mental illness; Assemblywoman Leslie and Judge Breen agreed with the amendment.

It was projected the “pilot” mental health court would serve 150 people, many of whom would have already been involved in the state system; “recycled” clients who bounced between jails, the mental health institute, the community, and utilized a huge amount of resources through the courts, law enforcement, jail, and mental health services.

Assemblywoman Leslie and Senator Randolph Townsend, Washoe District 4, proposed an additional amendment with a fiscal price tag of $500,000 a year to allow the court to contract for supported housing for the clients, as the biggest public service gap was the lack of appropriate housing resources.

Assemblywoman Leslie believed the mental health court would demonstrate cost savings as a result of reduced jail days, hospital days and court time, as well as improve the quality of life for the 150 clients. Assemblywoman Leslie believed that in the next two years, with some financial support from the state, county, and local governments, it could be proved that mental health court was an idea whose time had come.

Chairman Anderson noted the bill, as currently written, had no fiscal note. With the proposed amendment, S.B. 366 would be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Assemblywoman Leslie understood that requirement.

Judge Peter Breen, Second Judicial District Court, Department Seven, Washoe County, introduced David Spitzer, Adult Drug Court Attorney, Washoe County Drug Court, who assisted in the preparation of the proposal. Judge Breen noted, for the record, he had no objection to the two proposed amendments.

Judge Breen had just returned from participating in discussions at the National Judicial College where the mental health court “movement” was the topic. The local task force explored the possibility of creating a mental health court in Washoe County. Surprisingly, there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the mental health court from the community. There were currently four mental health courts operating in Florida, Alaska, Seattle, and San Bernardino County. Judge Breen submitted an Executive Summary (Exhibit C) and the Final Report (Exhibit D) dated March 16, 2001, from the Mental Health Court Planning Committee. It proposed a mental health court that could be part of the district court as well as part of the municipal or justice court, but it was believed the broad jurisdiction of the district court could deal more efficiently with mentally ill offenders charged with misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies; all the courts had pledged their support. The courts would transfer mentally ill offenders to the mental health court where the offenders would be instructed regarding a manner of living that would allow them to take their medication, dress themselves, and improve their quality of life; it would break the cycle of hobo jungles, the streets, fights with law enforcement, the courts, probation, release, back to court, and jail. “They cannot change without intervention.” Judge Breen acknowledged the mental health court would not be as successful as the drug courts, but it would be similar. Cost savings would become evident in less jail time and a smaller burden on the governmental services. He stated, “It is the right thing to do!”

David Spitzer said he was associated with the Adult Drug Court and was a member of the Mental Health Court Task Force. He stated that a recent east coast study indicated a homeless, mentally ill person cost public services $40,000 annually. Nationally, approximately 800,000 mentally ill would be jailed this year. In Washoe County, people in the psychiatric unit of the Washoe County jail spent twice as long in custody. The mental health court was designed to address all those problems. The misdemeanor defendants would come from the municipal courts in Reno and Sparks charged with trespassing, petty theft, disturbing the peace, and urinating in public; they were on a treadmill because they committed those offenses with regularity. There were 250 felony defendants on probation in Washoe County with a mental health treatment clause as a condition of their probation; the mental health court would take only those who were struggling, not the whole group.

Mr. Spitzer said there was a wide range of services available in Washoe County for those suffering from a mental illness, but there was no oversight or central coordination of what treatment plans should be put in place and followed for each individual. The mental health court would provide that type of “ultimate oversight” by the district court judge, “gently” encouraging those individuals to follow their treatment plan or suffer some immediate consequence. The model suggested weekly visits with the judge and created three court monitor positions, personnel highly trained in mental illness diagnosis, treatment, and resources available in Washoe County in order to monitor these people almost on a daily basis. It was estimated that $12,000 would be spent per year on each individual in contrast to the estimated $40,000 being spent currently. A “benefit acquisition and payee program” would be created to make sure each individual was receiving the federal benefits they were entitled to and that the money was being spent appropriately.

The Washoe County jail would initially benefit from the program with its overcrowding problems. The courts would benefit with a decreased caseload. District attorneys, city attorneys, public defenders, contract legal representatives, and the police departments would all benefit with the establishment of the mental health court program. This program would not solve a mental illness problem or cure a mentally ill defendant; it would put them in a position to live a crime-free lifestyle and increase their quality of life.

Chairman Anderson was concerned about those people who got caught up in the mental health care system. With this specialized court, what guarantee was there that these people would not be held longer because of their mental health problems. Would they be in the system for a longer period of time than normal. Judge Breen responded it should be a shorter period of time. In the final report (Exhibit D) a mechanism was proposed for early identification to determine if defendants were incompetent, resulting in diversion into the civil system, or if competent rapidly getting to the point of pleading guilty or disposition of the case.

Mr. Spitzer stated a mentally ill defendant spent 30 days in the Washoe County jail compared to an average criminal defendant spending 15 days in jail. Mr. Spitzer believed the identification process would take three to four days and the defendant could get out of jail within the week.

Mr. Spitzer reviewed S.B. 366 section by section:

Section 1 – Created the mental health court in the district court and allowed the justice court to transfer appropriate misdemeanor cases.

Section 2 – Allowed the municipal court to transfer cases.

Section 4 – Defined mental illness.

Section 5 – Established the treatment program.

Section 6 – Eligibility requirements for mental health court and public safety issues.

Section 7 – Terms and conditions of mental health court and sealing of records upon completion of the program.

Section 10 – Amended NRS regarding jurisdictional ability of the treatment program for mental health.

Section 11 – Covered jurisdictional requirements and the mechanism for sealing a record.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 – Dealt with sealing of a record.

Chairman Anderson verified Section 10 limited the period of probation to three years. Mr. Spitzer agreed that for felonies, similar to the statutory provisions for drug and alcohol felonies, a three-year period of supervised treatment was the maximum. Chairman Anderson asked if the intent was that those with mental health problems as well as drug problems would receive both treatments. Judge Breen agreed.

Assemblyman Nolan relayed a personal experience where the mentally ill had challenged emergency medical service and law enforcement in order to be arrested and sent to jail, especially in cold weather. Being in jail for 30 to 60 days was a good experience for those people; they received medical treatment, were put back on their medication, got out of the cold, and were familiar with the process. Judge Breen responded that unfortunately, it was the only thing that could have been done; the mental health court would help that situation with specific case management plans. Assemblyman Nolan hoped it would not cause more serious actions requiring jail.

Assemblywoman Leslie responded the bill had been designed to deal with the two biggest reasons resulting in this recurring problem: (1) people did get off their medication and the cycle started again, and (2) the lack of supportive housing, they did not have a place to live and were not getting the round-the-clock services they needed to be successful. The court would be there to apply sanctions, if needed; if they were not responding to the program, the judge would order them back to jail.

Chairman Anderson said the closer supervision of the court, the hands-on relationship between the court and the dependants, would reinforce a “dramatic change in attitude” and provide greater ability to pull people into jail for a short period of time, thus protecting the community. Judge Breen agreed and said this program was not without precedence; it had been studied extensively and was working.

Chairman Anderson asked where the amendment dealing with funding would be placed. Assemblywoman Leslie believed it would become a new section; she was willing to process the amendment in the Assembly Committee for Ways and Means.

Patrick Hardy, Clark County Regional Mental Health Coalition, supported S.B. 366.

Dr. Carlos Brandenburg, Administrator, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (MHDS), submitted an amendment (Exhibit E) which redefined “mental illness,” taking out references to “organic disorder of the brain,” and brought the definition into compliance with NRS 433.115. Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, said it was not a problem; it would be reviewed when the amendment was drafted to make sure it was consistent with the rest of the bill.

Chairman Anderson asked if the amendment would change who would be eligible for the program. Dr. Brandenburg said, “No.” The following codes were excluded from the International Classification of Disease, 9^th Edition, and currently did not receive treatment under the mental health program:

290 – Senile and pre-senile organic psychosis

291 – Alcohol psychosis

292 – Drug psychosis

293 – Transit organic psychotic conditions

294 – Other organic psychotic conditions

Chairman Anderson asked if individuals with those conditions should be included in the program to receive treatment. Dr. Brandenburg requested they not be included; historically those individuals had not benefited from treatment; these were irreversible organic conditions that did not respond well to psychiatric treatment. Dr. Brandenburg wanted to limit the program to only those who had schizophrenic affected disorders. Chairman Anderson clarified if a person had a drug problem that led to mental illness, that person could only receive help through the drug court. Dr. Brandenburg said the mental health arena did not provide treatment for amphetamine psychosis; that was an organic problem that required medical treatment. He wanted to treat only those who qualified under the definition in NRS 433.115. Chairman Anderson believed the original intent was to reach those who might be in drug court who might have a mental condition, drug induced or not, and provide a better level of treatment for the mental problems in addition to the drug treatment. Dr. Brandenburg did not have a problem with that concept, but reiterated the mental health system did not provide substance abuse treatment. He wanted it to be clear, if the primary diagnosis was schizophrenia with a secondary diagnosis of alcohol, he would treat the mental illness component.

Chairman Anderson asked Judge Breen and Mr. Spitzer to reassure him that they had reviewed the amendment and it did not hurt the model. Judge Breen had no problem with the amendment; mental illness needed to be addressed separately. He believed Dr. Brandenburg did not want the program to become a “general catch-all for things that may be something else.”

John Morrow, Washoe County Public Defenders Office, supported the bill and was neutral on the amendment.

Kathleen O’Leary, Mental Illness Specialist, Washoe County Public Defenders Office, supported the entire bill and strongly supported the mental health court concept for Washoe County. She was concerned about broadening the definition of mental illness for the purposes of the mental health court; she asked that the general definition of mental health services and requirements, as it applied in NRS 433A, not be changed but be dealt with through the mental health services in general.

James Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, had been dealing with this issue since 1991. He supported S.B. 366.

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 366.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

S.B. 366 AND REFER TO WAYS AND MEANS FOR FISCAL NOTE.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. CLABORN ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson would present the bill on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 20 and acknowledged Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe District 2, as the primary sponsor of the bill.

Senate Bill 20: Allows resident of another state to obtain permit to carry concealed firearm in this state. (BDR 15-12)

Senator Washington recalled he and Chairman Anderson had worked on Certificate for Concealed Weapon (CCW) legislation for a number of sessions, served on opposing sides and reconciliation sides, and participated in some very heated discussions. It was hoped this legislation would be meaningful and fully compatible with all concerned. Chairman Anderson agreed S.B. 20 went a long way to solve problems, but he did not want to see a gun registration bill and was not willing to say anyone could carry concealed weapons.

Senator Washington said S.B. 20 gave those outside Nevada an opportunity to apply for a CCW permit based on the regulations set by the sheriff’s department. The bill required reregistration after three years. Many tourists and business people already held permits in other states; the bill would require those people to acquire CCWs in Nevada. Chairman Anderson asked if there were any amendments. Senator Washington was not aware of any.

Chris Oswald, Nevada State Liaison for National Rifle Association of America, believed an excellent compromise had been worked out between the firearms advocates and the law enforcement agencies. Non-residents coming into Nevada could apply for a permit, but would be subject to the same training and background checks that any Nevada resident was subject to.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked how long did the paperwork and training take. Senator Washington said it depended in which county the permit was filed.

Assemblywoman Koivisto related e-mail scenarios where out-of-state people and Australians were afraid of the “wilds of Nevada” and needed to carry concealed weapons for protection. Chairman Anderson clarified it was legal to carry “open” without having a CCW.

Assemblyman Manendo asked how many concealed weapons would a person be allowed to have. Senator Washington said S.B. 172 dealt with that question, it allowed one or more.

Chairman Anderson verified the 72-hour time period to be in Nevada without a permit was not part of the amended bill. Senator Washington agreed. The application period could take up to 120 days.

Janine Hansen, President of Nevada Eagle Forum, supported S.B. 20 and read excerpts from More Guns, Less Crime – Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr., relating to non-discretionary concealed handgun laws and reduced rates of murder and other crimes (Exhibit F).

John Holmes, representing himself and his wife, spoke in favor of S.B. 20. He believed it was a step toward reciprocity, which was very scary. He and his wife had gone through the entire process in Nevada, but if he crossed the state line into California with a weapon and the permit, they were subject to a felony. Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Holmes favored a national registration. Mr. Holmes favored a national recognition of the Nevada CCW. Chairman Anderson said the computer file with drivers’ licenses was used from state to state to determine if a person was a licensed driver; such a computer file with CCWs looked like a national registry. Mr. Holmes agreed.

Ike Yochum, Vice Chairman of the Independent American Party of Nevada, read quotes from the founding fathers. Mr. Yochum felt S.B. 20 was a “small step in the right direction but it was lacking in many areas.” Assemblyman Collins commented Vermont did not require CCWs and there was a great deal of inconsistency of state laws. Nevada had one of the most lenient carry procedures for firearms. S.B. 20 was a step in the right direction, without harming Nevada. Ike Yochum said, “Freedom had to start somewhere; Nevada should be one of the leading states to encourage freedom.”

Jim Mayhugh testified from Las Vegas. He supported S.B. 20, disclosed he was a concealed firearms instructor in Henderson, and was certified in eight other states. Chairman Anderson asked what requirements he met to be certified in the other states. Mr. Mayhugh said when he applied for the permits he took training appropriate for each state.

Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorneys Association, supported S.B. 20.

Harold Lister, citizen, said he recently renewed his permit, which took five and a half hours of class time. He believed the training would benefit other jewelers like himself to prevent crime.

Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, supported the bill and believed it was a large step in the right direction. Chairman Anderson asked how long did it take in Clark County to get a CCW permit. Lieutenant Olsen said it took an average of 60 to 90 days; delays were experienced waiting for fingerprints from the FBI.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if there was a method to track when a permit holder used a handgun either in committing a crime or in the prevention of a crime. Lieutenant Olsen reported there were no incidents where a CCW permit holder had stopped a crime, but that did not mean it had not happened. Clark County had revoked a number of CCW permits not related to the use of the firearm, but because of other issues, such as domestic violence. There were in excess of 12,000 CCWs in Clark County. Chairman Anderson commented there had been concern about people “brandishing” weapons; two incidents resulted in CCWs being revoked.

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 20.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 20.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MS. McCLAIN VOTING NO AND MS. BUCKLEY

ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 172.

Senate Bill 172: Removes limitation on number of firearms for which permit to carry concealed firearm may be issued. (BDR 15-886)

Senator Washington said S.B. 172 was a simple bill. It allowed permit holders to carry more than one firearm and to be certified on several firearms.

Chairman Anderson commented on e-mails he had received and asked if the Senate had addressed the issue of whether the bill pertained to revolvers and/or automatics. Senator Washington reported the Senate had discussed that issue, concluding if a person was trained and could pass the certification or testing, either or both was allowed.

Chris Oswald, Nevada State Liaison for National Rifle Association of America, commented on the change of seasons and the need for different guns based on the amount of clothing worn. S.B. 172 added a safety factor by allowing a person to be certified in more than one firearm, giving them a choice as to which gun they might carry at any time. The education requirement did cover both revolvers and semi-automatic firearms.

Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriffs Office and the Nevada Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, saw the logic behind S.B. 172. A critical issue for the bill was that the Nevada Central Repository had their CCW module running and information would be readily available to law enforcement. Consequently, the effective date on the bill was July 1, 2002, when it was believed the CCW module would be in place. Also, in order to have multiple firearms listed on the CCW, which currently only had room for three or four, that module must be operating.

Lieutenant Olsen agreed with Captain Nadeau and commented there were different types of events when a person might choose to carry a different weapon; such as the engraved, chrome-plated, pearl-handled, small weapon for black tie affairs, and the waterproof weapons for the beach.

Chairman Anderson asked if this legislation would violate any existing Clark County programs. Lieutenant Olsen said S.B. 172 expanded the number of weapons; there would be no conflicts with any existing Clark County program.

Assemblyman Manendo asked why there would be a need for five or six concealed side arms. Assemblyman Claborn asked if S.B. 172 allowed a person to “pack” two weapons at a time. Lieutenant Olsen said current law allowed a person to have two weapons on the permit; both weapons might be carried if a person wanted. With the passage of S.B. 172 a person could carry as many as necessary. Captain Nadeau said no matter what, a person still needed to comply with S.B. 20 regardless of how many weapons they had.

Janine Hansen remarked on personal experience. She quoted the Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, regarding a citizen’s “right to bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for other lawful purposes.” Ms. Hansen supported S.B. 172.

Assemblyman Claborn said he had been having the same conversation for over 30 years. Mr. Claborn related a story where a person strapped a bomb to himself; he was armed. Ms. Hansen agreed that took it to the absurd.

Jerry Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported S.B. 172.

John Holmes and his wife had attended the Citizens Police Academy and were certified on four firearms, both revolvers and automatics. He supported S.B. 172.

Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorneys Association, supported S.B. 172. Ms. Waldron had personal experience needing a concealed weapon as a result of a threat from a gang murder prosecution. She took the classes and found she was quite proficient at shooting; her practice target hangs prominently in her office.

Jim Mayhugh, a firearms instructor, supported S.B. 172. It was his practice to carry multiple weapons in case a gun broke during training.

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 172.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 172.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MS. McCLAIN VOTING NO AND MS. BUCKLEY

ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Collins to present S.B. 20 on the Assembly floor. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Claborn to present S.B. 172 on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Deborah Rengler

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: