MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 20, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:03 a.m., on Tuesday, February 20, 2001. 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
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Las Vegas, Nevada
David Gibson, Legislative Representative, Clark County Public Defenders Office, Clark County, Nevada
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter
Roll was called and Chairman Anderson noted a quorum was present. The hearing was opened on A.B. 111.
Assembly Bill No. 111: Authorizes law enforcement agency to inspect certain records during investigation of senior abuse. (BDR 15-421)
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and representative of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, requested that A.B. 111 be temporarily postponed because responses from the detectives involved in senior abuse investigations had not yet been received.
Chairman Anderson indicated the committee could indefinitely postpone the bill or take no action. Absent a motion Chairman Anderson would put the bill “on the back burner” but could not guarantee it would be heard in the future. No motion was made.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 112.
Assembly Bill No. 112: Permits law enforcement agencies to review certain criminal records to determine suitability of applicant for employment as peace officer. (BDR 14-423)
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and representative of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, told the committee that A.B. 112 was requested by the background investigators of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). The intent of the bill was to allow law enforcement background investigators to access sealed records of persons who applied for police and correctional officer positions. Lieutenant Olsen indicated there was concern that a person with a felony conviction at age 17 or 18 could have their record sealed and apply for a position as a police officer at age 21. Background investigators needed to be sure that applicants were not sealing records of crimes such as sexual assault, armed robbery or driving under the influence. Investigators would not look at every criminal arrest and deny employment simply because a criminal background existed, but rather they would weigh each offense individually. Some offenses would be grounds for denial of employment while others would not. Lieutenant Olsen felt that if the background investigator could not investigate the applicant’s sealed records there was no way to know whether an applicant was suitable for employment.
Chairman Anderson requested Lieutenant Olsen to explain what kinds of issues were taken into consideration when determining the suitability of an applicant, and, by way of example, asked about the use of false identification. Lieutenant Olsen reiterated that each individual arrest of an applicant was looked at and weighed separately. The majority of job applicants with LVMPD came from outside the state of Nevada and the department must be able to look into their backgrounds to determine whether they were suitable candidates. If a candidate used false identification to assume another person’s identity, Lieutenant Olsen felt employment would be denied, however, if a candidate used false identification to get into a bar or purchase alcohol while underage, that arrest would most likely not be a factor in determining suitability for employment. The background investigator tried to determine with each offense whether there was any true malicious intent on the part of the applicant.
Mr. Collins noted that some states physically destroyed criminal records when the records were expunged or sealed, making it impossible for background investigators to view those records. Mr. Collins pointed out that an out-of-state person might be less suitable for employment than a person from Nevada, but the out-of-state person would not be denied employment because his records were destroyed while the person from Nevada would be denied employment because sealed records still existed for investigators to view. Lieutenant Olsen responded that the majority of states had a process similar to Nevada’s in sealing records and even when a record was expunged a trail was left behind. Lieutenant Olsen acknowledged that some people may slip through, but indicated his main concern was to ensure the department got a quality candidate the first time around. The department cannot hire people who would be a liability to the community or the organization in any way. Lieutenant Olsen informed the committee that because of the liability issue, if a candidate would not voluntarily open their sealed records or if the department could not otherwise obtain access to those records, the department would not hire that person.
Mr. Carpenter asked why the department would want to hire someone who would not allow the department to look at his sealed records. Lieutenant Olsen advised that persons with sealed records often believed they did not have to bring the matter of their sealed record up under any circumstances. Accordingly they would not volunteer any information on the matter when seeking employment. Mr. Olsen indicated that a sealed record might be something very minor and the applicant may make an excellent police officer but there was no way to determine that if background investigators could not access sealed records.
Mr. Nolan indicated he was in favor of the intent of the bill, but inquired whether increasing the amount and type of information available to the background investigator also increased the potential risk and liability to the department. For example, if a background investigation revealed a candidate was convicted at age 16 for driving under the influence and the candidate was still hired, would it not increase the department’s liability should that officer ever be found driving under the influence while at work? Lieutenant Olsen indicated the department’s liability may indeed be broadened by the amount of background information it obtained.
Mr. Nolan wondered whether the pool of applicants would be limited by the amount of information obtained by background investigators because the more the department knew about an applicant the more the department could be held liable. Lieutenant Olsen indicated the department needed to know enough about a candidate to be sure it was not putting someone into the community who would abuse the authority of the position and commit acts for which the department could be held liable. If that meant reducing the pool of applicants, then so be it.
Chairman Anderson questioned if the practice of denying employment based on an applicant’s refusal to open sealed records to a background investor was a common practice among law enforcement agencies. Lieutenant Olsen believed that other states and federal agencies used the practice of denying employment based on an applicant’s refusal to open sealed records to a background investor, as did the Nevada gaming industry.
David Gibson, Legislative Representative, Clark County Public Defenders Office, Clark County, Nevada, stated that, generally speaking, when a record was sealed it was because there was an arrest but not a conviction. Mr. Gibson felt it was important to understand that distinction. Further, Mr. Gibson noted when records were sealed in the state of Nevada it was possible to get those records opened under certain circumstances, if the person was charged with a similar offense. Mr. Gibson hoped police departments would use good judgment if A.B. 112 was passed, and would not deny otherwise good candidates employment because of a stupid incident that occurred during their youth.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Gibson if he sought to have A.B. 112 amended. Mr. Gibson felt that language indicating that sealed convictions could be opened for inspection, rather than sealed arrests, would be helpful.
Chairman Anderson noted that young people who were placed in drug or alcohol treatment programs often were encouraged to participate in the program with the promise that their record would be sealed if they completed the treatment program. Mr. Gibson agreed with Chairman Anderson and felt the promise to seal the record upon successful completion of the program made a significant difference in getting kids to participate in and complete drug treatment programs.
Lieutenant Olsen advised that in the state of Nevada when a juvenile turned 18 his record was sealed, however, Lieutenant Olsen noted that times had changed and juveniles were participating in serious crimes. If a juvenile participated in a drive-by shooting at age 16 but was not convicted, it did not mean the person was innocent of wrongdoing. Lieutenant Olsen felt the department needed to be aware of such an incident. Also, Lieutenant Olsen reminded the committee of the problems LVMPD had already experienced with some of its officers and stated that if the department did not have the ability to pick the best candidates, law enforcement would have some big problems in the future.
Chairman Anderson noted the committee was mindful of the difficulty of both the job and selecting appropriate applicants for the job. Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 112 and indicated he would put it on a future work session.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 125.
Assembly Bill No. 125: Prohibits business from employing, allowing or using person less than 21 years of age to distribute promotional materials that include offer for alcoholic beverages. (BDR 15-131)
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, sponsor of the bill, explained he brought A.B. 125 forward after discussions with a couple who related a recent experience and requested Mr. Manendo’s assistance. While the couple walked along the Las Vegas strip they were approached by several minors who were distributing promotional materials for free drinks and/or coupons for discounts on alcoholic beverages. When asked, the minors informed the couple they were 16 and 17 years of age. Mr. Manendo felt it was logical that if a person could not drink or sell alcohol, that same person should not be able to promote alcohol.
Chairman Anderson noted the bill contained a specific exclusion for paperboys and those persons distributing magazines which might contain promotional material for alcohol.
Ms. Buckley questioned what good the bill accomplished; she noted that young people needed jobs and passing out promotional material for alcohol was not the same as consuming alcohol. Ms. Buckley was concerned that the bill would interfere with a young person’s opportunities for employment. Mr. Manendo felt there were other types of work young people could do, even within the gaming industry, which did not directly deal with gaming and the promotion of alcohol. Most casinos now had amusement rides, bowling alleys, movie theaters and other types of job opportunities for young people which were not directly related to gaming or alcohol.
Mr. Collins noted that young people were allowed to fight in wars or participate in adult entertainment but pursuant to A.B. 125 would not be allowed to pass out literature on alcohol. He also noted that young people handled alcohol and prepared displays of alcohol in grocery stores, but could not sell alcohol at the cash register. Mr. Collins felt A.B. 125 would further interfere with employment opportunities for young people. Mr. Manendo acknowledged Mr. Collins’ point and advised that the intent of the bill was not to prohibit a person from moving stock around in a store; it was to prohibit a young person from handing out flyers for free alcohol in a parking lot.
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter, felt that if it was not illegal for young people to pass out promotional material for alcohol, it certainly was inappropriate. Ms. Stadler stated kids and alcohol were a bad mix and allowing young people to be involved with the promotion of alcohol perpetuated the false image of fun times that young people associated with alcohol.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 125 and brought the bill back to committee. He questioned whether the bill would have an impact on young people who set up displays in grocery stores. Risa Lang, committee counsel, did not think A.B. 125 would affect setting up displays for alcohol since the bill was drafted to apply only to the distribution of promotional materials.
Chairman Anderson informed the committee that he had a request from the District Attorneys Association for a Bill Draft Request that would increase the eligibility for prerelease drug courts and change language found in Nevada Revised Statutes 209.4314 and 209.4315.
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE ELIGIBILITY FOR PRERELEASE DRUG COURTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:54 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: