MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 9, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, April 9, 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
Ms. 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 Barbara Cegavske, District 5
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
David Gibson, Clark County Legislative Team, Las Vegas
Jack Lehman, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District, Department 10, Las Vegas
Peter Breen, District Court Judge, Second Judicial District, Department 7, Reno
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Las Vegas
Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Las Vegas and representing Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS)
Richard Tiran, Adult Parole & Probation Officer, Division of Parole & Probation, Reno and representing Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS)
Pat Hines, Nevada CURE
Noel Waters, Carson City District Attorneys Office
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, Reno
Clay Thomas, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Carson City
James Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole & Probation, Carson City
Don Means, Captain, Forensic Science Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Reno
Jeffrey Riolo, Criminalist, Washoe County Sheriffs Office, Reno
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Reno
Julie Johnson, Operations Supervisor of the Interstate Compact Unit, Division of Parole & Probation, Carson City
John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, Reno
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 574.
Assembly Bill 574: Makes changes to provisions concerning programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs for certain offenders and clarifies that eligibility for parole from consecutive sentences is based upon longest sentence. (BDR 16-1327)
David Gibson, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Clark County Public Defenders Office, spoke in support of A.B. 574. The bill had two parts: (1) pre-release Drug Court program: and (2) notice of parole eligibility. Clark County had a pre-release Drug Court program that had been running approximately five-to-six months. The names of individuals, who were still in prison and within two years of release on parole, were submitted to a panel and screened for inclusion in the program. There was a very careful screening process by a review committee that included the judge, representatives from the District Attorney’s Office, Parole and Probation, the Administrative Office of the Court, the public defender’s office, and the treatment staff. Federal grant money had been received; they were very interested in the program. Matching funds were received from the Interim Finance Committee. There were currently twelve participants in the program.
The program was set up as a result of S.B. 184 of the Seventieth Session, which provided that certain prisoners could be assigned to custody of Division of Parole and Probation (P&P) of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to participate in a program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs and made appropriation to the Second Judicial District Court and Eighth Judicial District Court. But the field of candidates was very small since it was limited to those with one prior felony. A.B. 574 became a vehicle to expand the field of candidates to include those with three or four prior felonies. Another change was requested regarding the nature of the charges that put the individual into prison, and the final change would expand the sunset provision of the bill to June 30, 2003. There should not be any fiscal impact since the money had already been made available to the program.
Jack Lehman, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District, Department 10, Las Vegas and Drug Court Judge from Clark County, remarked that Chairman Anderson had been instrumental in establishing the Drug Court, working with proponents since 1991. Of the 122 inmates screened, 16 candidates had been accepted into the program. Of those inmates denied, 42 would be eligible for the program upon the passage of A.B. 574 (Exhibit C). Funding in the amount of $416,250 had been received from the U.S. Department of Justice; matching funds of $138,750 came from the Nevada Department of Prisons, as authorized by the Interim Finance Committee. The funding was for 150 inmates from Clark and Washoe Counties. A list of the initial 12 candidates (Exhibit D) was submitted with a brief status report on each.
Chairman Anderson asked if the 42 previously denied candidates had three or four prior charges. Judge Lehman said they had three.
Peter Breen, District Court Judge, Second Judicial District, Department 7, Reno, commented on “how difficult the road has been” for the Drug Court in Washoe County. The success rate in Washoe County was 80 to 85 percent. With the passage of A.B. 574, program criteria would be expanded, and more prison inmates could be reached.
Chairman Anderson credited both Judge Lehman and Judge Breen with the success of the Drug Court.
A copy of the Re-Entry Drug Court Program (Prison Early-Release) booklet (Exhibit E) was submitted without verbal testimony.
David Gibson explained the second part of A.B. 574 dealt with parole notifications. In cases where inmates were serving multiple sentences, concurrently or consecutively, the longest or most severe sentence should govern parole notification. Currently, parole notifications were sent out whenever an individual neared the end of his sentence with a possibility of parole, even if a second sentence would retain the prisoner for a longer term. This situation had caused confusion and false hope on the part of the inmate, fear and hurt on the part of the victim or victim’s family. A.B. 574 would stop such notices, allowing notification to be sent only when an inmate was “eligible” for parole.
Chairman Anderson reminded Ben Graham that discussions had been held regarding an amendment (Exhibit F) to A.B. 574.
Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, District 5, had answered a constituent’s call that led to further discussions with the parole board, the District Attorney’s office and the Attorney General’s Office, trying to ascertain whether a person serving two life sentences could actually get out on parole after serving only two years. The situation brought attention to a loophole in the law, which led to the writing of A.B. 574. Assemblywoman Cegavske wanted to assure Nevadans that “a life sentence meant a life sentence.”
Mr. Graham said the notification statute could create a “cruel hoax” for all those involved, inmates as well as victims. The proposed amendment (Exhibit F) had been discussed with the Department of Prisons (DOP) and Risa Lang, Committee Counsel.
Chairman Anderson clarified his understanding of A.B. 574 with a short scenario. Mr. Graham said the number of sentences and when they occurred did not matter; the most severe sentence should govern the parole notification. Chairman Anderson asked if there would be a fiscal impact. Mr. Graham replied there should actually be a cost savings when A.B. 574 was enacted.
Assemblyman Manendo asked if a person had convictions from another state and came to Nevada where he received another conviction, how would that be affected by A.B. 574. Mr. Graham said A.B. 574 only dealt with sentences effective in Nevada and those prisoners within Nevada’s jurisdiction. The bill did not affect eligibility for parole or probation; the bill only affected the notification process.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 574.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA, MR. NOLAN, MR. COLLINS
AND MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson said he would present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 573.
Assembly Bill 573: Revises provisions concerning restitution and reclassifies parole and probation officers. (BDR 14-654)
Andy Anderson, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS), introduced Richard Tiran, Vice President of NCOPS and an Adult Parole & Probation Officer with Division of Parole and Probation (P&P).
Richard Tiran reported P&P was tasked with collecting restitution fees from the clients it supervised. A.B. 573 would enable P&P to carry out its mission statement more effectively and efficiently. Mr. Tiran said P&P was in “the people business.” Its primary goals were to protect and serve the community; supervise parolees, probationers and inmates; provide rehabilitation and programming; register, access and track all sex offenders in the state; and provide objective information as sentencing recommendations to the courts. P&P was not a collection agency. Mr. Tiran believed A.B. 573 was well written and the county as reflected in the bill would be able to handle the task more effectively.
Chairman Anderson asked what was the accounting process within P&P? Mr. Tiran replied when P&P received a request for a presentence investigation it would contact the District Attorney’s Office regarding restitution. P&P would then contact the victim via letter or phone call. Once the individual was sentenced, it was up to the sentencing court to take the information and make a determination as to the loss. The money would be received by P&P, placed on a ledger, deposited into bank accounts, and then the Central Office reconciled it. Mr. Tiran was unsure how the money was disbursed to the victims.
Pat Hines, Nevada Citizens United to Rehabilitate Errants (CURE), supported A.B. 573. Ms. Hines said if P&P was relieved of the duties as a collection agency, they could spend more time on rehabilitation of probationers and parolees, which was part of their mission statement.
Noel Waters, District Attorney for Carson City, spoke in “qualified opposition” to A.B. 573. Mr. Waters was concerned with the shifting of the administrative burdens of collection of restitution to the counties and the District Attorneys offices. The bill did not relieve P&P of their responsibility of collecting restitution from offenders as ordered by the court. Section 3, subsection 6 detailed the collection and disbursement duty was still imposed upon P&P; the difference was it shifted the actual duty for paying out restitution to the counties without support for the administrative costs. A duplication of efforts would result with the transfer of information to the counties in order to track the money before it could be forwarded to the victims. P&P enforced terms and conditions of probation, which included gainful employment, laws of conduct, regular reporting, collection of supervision fees, and restitution. Even if funding issues could be addressed, Mr. Waters was still concerned it was adding another bureaucracy between the victim and P&P, which was neither necessary nor warranted.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Waters if he was familiar with Judge Adams’ concerns in regards to turning over the function of restitution collection to the court clerks. Mr. Waters said he was only aware of what he had read in the newspapers. The information-gathering burden existed no matter who handled the collection of restitution. Carson City would need to create a new entity and provide staff to fulfill that function. Chairman Anderson asked if it was a proper burden for P&P, along with the other responsibilities they had. Chairman Anderson asked if a collection agency was used to assist in collections. Mr. Waters said collections were not referred out.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked who established the amount of restitution, where did that originate? Mr. Waters replied the sentencing court fixed and established the amount of restitution. The restitution was fixed at a present value sum; no estimates for future expenses were allowed, out-of-pocket expenses, no pain and suffering. Once fixed, the restitution became part of the judgment of conviction, copies of which went to P&P and/or the State Prison System. Assemblywoman Koivisto said it came from the court and would need to be “reassigned” to P&P, which created another step. Mr. Waters answered once a person was transferred to the jurisdiction of P&P or the State Prison System, P&P or DOP took on the obligation for the supervision of that person such as search and seizure for a presence of a controlled substance, restitution laws and conduct, limits upon association and urine testing.
Gemma Waldron, Washoe County District Attorneys’ Office, was familiar with the situation in the Second Judicial District Court, where a person was about to be expired on his probationary term and the judge found out restitution had not been collected by P&P, although a judgment of conviction had been obtained on behalf of the victim to get the restitution amount by way of civil judgment. That court clerk had redefined and set aside Tuesday afternoons to collect restitution payments, experiencing a 100 percent collection rate.
Chairman Anderson asked if Ms. Waldron knew how the court clerk did the accounting: the dollars coming in, how it was accounted for, and the dollars going out. Ms. Waldron was unsure how that particular court clerk did it; she did know the court recently received a new computer system and software. Chairman Anderson asked if the court clerk was bonded. Ms. Waldron was unsure; except for that one court clerk, all other restitution was collected by the County Clerks’ office. Chairman Anderson asked if the judges would want restitution collection mandated as part of their process? Mr. Graham replied the committee could ask the judges next door.
Chairman Anderson was concerned about “freeing up time” for those in P&P so that they could have more time supervising the people within their jurisdiction and less time doing what might be considered an administrative paperwork function. How could it be expected for them to do the collection process and also be physically out on the street, unless we take something away from them so they could put more time on the street? Ms. Waldron was concerned that P&P had bills against the pre-sentencing investigation, they wanted to contract that function out; they did not want to collect restitution any longer; they had asked for more computers; and they had asked for more funding for their operation. P&P was charged with the responsibility of supervising someone who had been given the “privilege of probation”; they knew where that person was. The district attorneys’ office did not know because they did not supervise anyone; they did not know where the people were. Ms. Waldron felt the emphasis was wrong in placing that responsibility in the district attorneys’ lap because they did not supervise the person. Mr. Graham felt P&P had the day-to-day contact with the parolee or probationer; what they were doing and what they were trained to do needed to be reinforced in their contact with those they supervised.
Chairman Anderson was concerned with the court clerk who was now required to maintain the accounting process. What could be done if payments were not made? Ms. Waldron said the clerk had the judge’s ear, he could issue an order to show cause, and have that person brought in. Chairman Anderson asked why the clerk had the judge’s ear but the people from P&P did not. Ms. Waldron believed P&P did, they provided the P&P violation report; but it required the P&P officer to make the judge aware with enough time left in the probation period to make the person start paying.
Mr. Graham said there was a drug court, a mental health court, domestic violence, and etcetera. Maybe a restitution court was needed.
Assemblyman Collins said one of the conditions of probation was restitution. If a person was not released until restitution was made, P&P could continue to collect a monthly fee and that person would continue until the restitution was paid. Mr. Graham explained how probation periods were set; it was not based on dollar issues. Chairman Anderson said it could become an issue of whether a judge wanted to send someone to jail or prison for not paying restitution, thus incurring a fiscal impact on the county or state, or not paying the restitution to the victim. Assemblyman Collins said the point was that they would not be released from probation until restitution was paid. Were there any statutes of limitations that required release after a certain amount of time? Mr. Graham said there was definitely a statutory procedure for when probation would end, resulting in an honorable or dishonorable discharge from probation.
Chairman Anderson believed it was still a dollar question and P&P was being made a scapegoat when they should not have been. Mr. Graham said victims of crime were told the chance of getting restitution was not good.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was a downside if A.B. 573 were to be passed. Ms. Waldron said A.B. 573 would result in an unfunded mandate with not enough people to take on the responsibility. If the county were 100 percent successful with the court clerk, why would the county not be successful with the way chosen to handle it knowing the judge would have to set up such a statement? Ms. Waldron said the way the bill was written, it did not put the responsibility on the judge; it put the responsibility on the district attorney. The district attorney was the county entity, not the judge.
Chairman Anderson recessed the meeting due to faulty equipment.
Chairman Anderson reconvened as a subcommittee; the equipment had been repaired. Chairman Anderson took role and noted a quorum was present. Chairman Anderson recognized Ms. Waldron and Mr. Graham at the witness table; both had concluded their testimony.
Chairman Anderson asked those present from Parole and Probation (P&P) to approach the witness table.
Clay Thomas, Deputy Chief, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), Division of Parole and Probation (P&P), commented, “Nothing was impossible for the person who did not have to do it themselves.” What had occurred was the collection of restitution function had defaulted to P&P along with other situations, expanding their duties well beyond that of supervising parolees and probationers. The number of offenders in the state required to pay restitution was 3,990, not thousands and thousands. If a judge had a 100 percent success rate, it was because of the position of authority the judge had to ensure that restitution payment was made. A P&P officer did “his best” to collect that restitution, but the P&P officer did not hold that power or authority to make a decision that could ultimately affect the individual. The P&P officer did bring the individual back before the judge, or notice the judge, when restitution payments were delinquent or not made. Ultimately, the decision rested with the judge as to what he would do with that.
Chairman Anderson recounted a scenario with a probationer required to pay restitution, and asked what role P&P would play. Mr. Thomas restated restitution would be determined based on the presentence investigation; whatever that amount was, it would be averaged over the period of probation. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Thomas to trace the dollars. Mr. Thomas said the individual would make a payment to one of the district offices; at the end of the day it would be reconciled and forwarded to the central office of the Division of Parole and Probation; it would be calculated and forwarded to the comptroller’s office; an order would be requested that the victim be paid out of the specific account where the offender paid the restitution; that request would be forwarded to the treasurer’s office who would be responsible to cut the check for the victim; and from there it went to the state mail room where it was stuffed in an envelope and mailed to the victim.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the judge was notified immediately when a person had not made their restitution payment. Mr. Thomas said individuals were given up to 90 days to make their payment. If during that 90-day period they could not make their payment, the judge would be notified. Assemblyman Carpenter said within 90 days that person could be three payments behind. Mr. Thomas agreed.
Assemblyman Carpenter was confused as to who would collect restitution payments according to A.B. 573. The bill proposed collections would be turned over to the district attorneys’ office. Mr. Thomas agreed. Mr. Tiran agreed the district attorneys’ office would have the primary contact with the victims and be given the responsibility to collect. Chairman Anderson clarified that A.B. 573 assured that P&P retained the responsibility to supervise but took away the collection business.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if there would be a fiscal note associated with A.B. 573. Chairman Anderson said it was an unfunded mandate to the local governments with a dollar savings to the state. Mr. Thomas said a fiscal note was being prepared for P&P showing a savings of $132,965 in FY2002 and a savings of $143,367 in FY2003. That did not take into consideration any savings that might be experienced by comptroller’s office, the treasurer’s office or the state mailroom. Assemblyman Carpenter observed the district attorney’s offices probably could not perform the function for that kind of money. The district attorney’s offices would need to hire extra help. In reality, the clerk’s office would be more in tune with what went on and what the sentence was.
Chairman Anderson felt P&P needed their responsibilities be made very clear. Chairman Anderson asked for questions and comments from the committee. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the committee could ascertain where the 3,990 were physically located, the large counties or the small counties. Assemblywoman Koivisto commented that P&P was understaffed, underpaid and had requested new computers, were there not enough computers for the staff; she thought it was a good bill.
James Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, spoke in “qualified” opposition to the bill and agreed with Mr. Graham; it placed everyone in an “impossible situation.” P&P officers were the ones with the daily contact; they knew where their clients were. They were already collecting supervision fees; there was an accounting process in place. Probationers were mobile; the continuity of contact by P&P was necessary. As far as revocation of probation and restitution, the Supreme Court had dealt with that issue as debtors’ prisons were dealt away with.
Assemblyman Gustavson did not see how A.B. 573 would improve the collection process and was concerned about creating an unfunded mandate for the local governments.
Chairman Anderson had not heard any testimony in opposition to Section 5, which removed P&P officers as a category 2 peace officer, and Section 7, which made P&P officers category 1 peace officers. Did that mean everyone agreed? Could something be salvaged in terms of language that could become more specific? Should the bill be divided in half? Mr. Tiran recommended the bill be divided.
Assemblyman Collins did not understand why it would be a problem for the district attorney’s office, since they already had a collection process within their office.
Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, commented that the bill was a two-part process that was unrelated. In regards to the Cat 1 and Cat 2 issue, the training for Cat 1 was substantially longer than that for Cat 2; not all aspects of Cat 1 training were appropriate for a P&P officer. If the bill was passed, a change in the curriculum would be requested. For those additional weeks it would take for the Cat 1 training, it should be understood that the P&P officers would not be supervising their caseloads. The restitution issue was a very complicated issue and he understood the county’s reluctance to take on the function; but it had been demonstrated that the courts were able to effectively collect restitution. As presented earlier in session during an overview, P&P does collect restitution at an accelerated rate and was expected to exceed the anticipated amount this year. However, if the county wanted to perform that function, P&P would be happy to assist them in providing the appropriate documents.
Assemblyman Collins repeated his question regarding why the district attorney did not want to be in the restitution collection business. How would that be a different management scheme than what was already in place? Why was there opposition when the district attorney was already in the business? Mr. Graham said each obligation previously discussed had federal mandates for child support, legislative authority and provisions for bad checks, a structure was set up for funding; some were 90 percent federally funded.
Chairman Anderson believed it would be in the best interest of A.B. 573 to divide the bill. Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 573 and entertained a motion of amend and do pass A.B. 573 with the retention of Section 5.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 573.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Anderson commented that if P&P officers were asked to go out, they must be given the best opportunity possible to survive in the field, which included the traffic question. If a little extra training would help them in the field, it should be made available for those who dealt 100 percent with the bad guys.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN.
MOTION PASSED 12-0 WITH MR. GUSTAVSON ABSTAINING AND MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman McClain to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 489.
Assembly Bill 489: Requires genetic marker analysis to be obtained from all offenders convicted of felony. (BDR 14-1038)
Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District 32, approached the witness table with Don Means, Captain, Forensic Science Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. DNA testing, genetic marker testing, had become one of law enforcements most effective tools in not only identifying suspects, but had also proved the innocence of many suspected criminals. The state of Virginia collected DNA samples from all convicted felons, which had dramatically affected the prosecution and conviction of rapists. When DNA evidence found at rape scenes was compared against the “all felon” database, research found that 40 percent of the successful matches were from felons who had been included because of nonviolent offenses such as burglary. Consequently, states that only collected DNA from violent offenders reduced their likelihood of catching rapists by as much as 40 percent. A.B. 489 would expand DNA testing in Nevada to include all felons. There should be little fiscal impact, since there existed many grants including those resulting from the recent passage by Congress of HR 4640, which would provide $170 million in grants over the next four years to conduct criminal DNA analysis. A proposed amendment (Exhibit G) was submitted by Washoe County; Assemblyman Gustavson explained the changes.
Captain Don Means, Forensic Science Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, said it would be impossible to select all categories of crimes for this bill. It would be easier to include “all felons” with the current list so that those committing gross misdemeanors could still be tested.
Chairman Anderson asked if the costs for the DNA testing could be passed on to those that were convicted of crimes. Captain Means said for those registering as sex offenders, a fee could be added. At the time of sentencing, it could be ordered. There had been problems collecting the fee in the past, leaving the Department of Prisons (DOP) or Division of Parole and Probation (P&P) as the only source to pay for the testing.
Jeffrey Riolo, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, agreed with Captain Means regarding the wording “all felons” and keeping the current list in the statute so that the gross misdemeanors were not missed.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the grants available to pay for the testing. Captain Means believed there was money available, which should be able to handle the backlog as well.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Gustavson if he had shown the amendment language to Ms. Lang prior to the hearing. Assemblyman Gustavson replied, “No.”
David Gibson wanted assurance there would be no fiscal impact; there would be a burden on the counties if the federal grants were not available. Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Gibson for the question and went on to say that it should be considered because even though there might be funding today, it did not guarantee that funding would be available in a couple of years.
Mr. Thomas asked the committee to be aware that two other bills were currently being heard that contained language changes to NRS 176.0913: A.B. 54 revised provisions relating to time within which prosecution for certain felonies must be commenced and certain provisions concerning genetic marker testing; and S.B. 548 made various changes concerning sex offenders and other persons convicted of crimes. Assemblyman Gustavson was not aware of any conflicts between the three bills.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 489. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion of amend and do pass with the amendments as outlined.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 489.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Gustavson to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 584.
Assembly Bill 584: Requires posting of bond by probationers and parolees who request permission to reside in another state. (BDR 14-513)
Mr. Thomas introduced Julie Johnson, Operations Supervisor of the Interstate Compact Unit, Division of Parole and Probation. The intent of A.B. 584 was to insure that offenders who wished to leave the state via the Interstate Compact would post a bond to offset any costs associated with extradition and/or restitution and supervision fees not collected at the close of supervision. The bill would reduce costs the taxpayers must absorb to pay for extradition to bring individuals back when that individual had absconded or failed to comply with the special conditions of the Interstate Compact.
Chairman Anderson asked about the written waiver. Mr. Thomas said the reason for the waiver was for those situations where the individual being brought back could not pay the complete cost of the extradition. Last year 93 individuals on the Interstate Compact were returned from the border states for a total of $22,790, an average cost of $245 per individual. From all other states, 34 individuals were brought back for a total of $23,068, an average cost of $678.50 per individual. If the bond was set too high, individuals would not leave the state and it might increase the number of individuals absconding because they could not pay the bond. The Federal Poverty Guidelines were used to set the standards.
Chairman Anderson asked if the language in the bill mirrored what was used in other states. Mr. Thomas replied only two other states had a bond as it pertains to the Interstate Compact: Idaho and Williams County, Texas.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the ability of the people to get a bond. Mr. Thomas replied when an individual requested to leave the state there had to be a reason, such as going to be with a family member or they had a job opportunity. Individuals were not randomly allowed to leave the state; there was a process in force to insure the probability of success. When the individual completed their parole or probation, the bond would be released back to the individual. If there were any outstanding restitution or supervision fees still owed, that amount would be deducted from the bond and any amount left would be returned to the individual.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if Idaho had been contacted to determine the success of their program. Mr. Thomas said both Idaho and Williams County, Texas had been contacted. Chairman Anderson asked how long Idaho had their program in place. Ms. Johnson said Idaho had passed legislation in their last session, giving them one year’s experience.
Assemblyman Brower asked for a brief overview of how the system worked. Ms. Johnson said someone sentenced to probation in Nevada belonged to Nevada; they answered to the Nevada courts. Assemblyman Brower queried whether a person on probation could leave the state. Ms. Johnson said probationers could leave Nevada under certain circumstances. Where their home state had a legitimate, viable program; Nevada would ask that state to supervise the individual’s probation. Assemblyman Brower asked if the bill were passed, would it provide another way for those individuals to leave, posting a bond? Ms. Johnson said posting the bond would be a condition of the transfer.
Assemblyman Collins clarified that whenever a person wanted to leave the state, they were required to obtain permission from P&P. Mr. Thomas agreed that an individual who wished to enter into the Interstate Compact and leave the state of Nevada where he was currently being supervised, would have to have the bond in effect to offset any extradition costs and fines, fees or restitution that he had not paid before released off supervision. Assemblyman Collins said even with the bond, P&P still would determine whether they could go. The bond did not guarantee that individual could leave the state. Mr. Thomas said the state the individual wanted to go to had to agree to accept the individual.
Chairman Anderson asked if Nevada paid other states to take the transferring probationer. Ms. Johnson replied other states were able to impose their own supervision fees and the Nevada transferee would have to pay those fees.
Chairman Anderson stated a scenario where the new state was not happy with the transferred probationer, wanted him returned to Nevada, and Nevada would want assurance that the transferred probationer could pay his way back; that was one purpose of the bond. Mr. Thomas agreed. Chairman Anderson continued if the transferred probationer completed his probation, then the bond would be returned to him. Mr. Thomas again agreed.
Assemblyman Brower asked if Nevada was importing more probationers than it was exporting. Mr. Thomas replied Nevada was exporting more with a 2-to-1 ratio. Actual figures were 1,085 from other states with Nevada sending out 2,290.
John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, commented that A.B. 584 was a good concept but might not be a workable plan. He believed A.B. 584 was not necessary; there was a mechanism already in place to collect extradition fees. Would the bond process not slow down the Interstate Compact process? Another question to be considered was whether the probationers were bondable, what collateral would be attached?
Chairman Anderson understood that Mr. Morrow believed one result of the bill would be that Nevada would lose its 2-to-1 ratio of transferred probationers, fewer would be willing to leave. Mr. Morrow said there would also be greater risk for those detached from their family and support to reoffend. Chairman Anderson said in a situation where the family moved and the probationer wished to go with the family, it put that individual between “a rock and a hard place.”
Mr. Gibson believed if the bill was passed, even if the probationers were not bondable, those individuals would still leave (flee) and then the extradition costs would go up.
Assemblyman Collins asked if raising the monthly supervision fee by $5 would cover this problem. Would the bill solve one financial problem by creating another financial dilemma? Mr. Morrow said most parolees and probationers had nothing but the clothes on their backs. Mr. Gibson said most probationers were not from Nevada and were just returning to their home. Usually they did not have a car, or the car was the reason for their troubles.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 584 and sent it to work session on April 16, 2001.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: