MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 14, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:00 a.m., on Monday, May 14, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Heather Dion, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott Garner, Concerned Citizen
Thomas Christensen, Attorney, Las Vegas
Leonard Pugh, Director, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Vice Chairman Porter called the meeting to order. Senator Porter said Assembly Bill (A.B.) 27 would be the first bill heard. Senator Porter announced the hearing would start as a subcommittee until the other members joined the committee.
ASSEMBLY BILL 27: Prohibits entity that supervises juvenile who is ordered to perform work or community service from placing juvenile on highway except under certain circumstances or other dangerous situation. (BDR 5‑671)
Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23, stated he was the sponsor of A.B. 27. Assemblyman Perkins referred to A.B. 27, as a “bill born out of tragedy.” He continued, “On Sunday, March 19, 2000, six Las Vegas area teens were fulfilling their obligations by performing community service along Interstate 15. They were a part of a roadside cleanup crew, made up of youths in the Clark County Probation Work Service Program.” Assemblyman Perkins stated the day the youths were picking up trash, a young woman, Jessica Williams, drove off the roadway and killed all six youths.
Assemblyman Perkins stated Jessica Williams was convicted for driving under the influence of a prohibited substance and sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in prison. Assemblyman Perkins thanked Senator Porter for his efforts with the law making driving under the influence of a controlled substance a felony.
Continuing, Assemblyman Perkins said those youths who were along the roadway were there because government told them to be there. He declared, “We want to encourage personal responsibility as a large part, but it is unconscionable for government to place our children in any dangerous situation.” He noted, during the 1995 Legislative Session, the Legislature passed several bills increasing the use of community service. Also, in 1997, A.B. 22 of the Sixty-Ninth Session created six different areas where the use of community service was increased.
Assemblyman Perkins expressed he does not believe the additional laws, created in the prior sessions, were wrongly made. He said he thought it was important for the legislature to impact the youths in a way that promotes personal responsibility. However, he stated, community service is a good trend, but it must be performed in a safe environment.
Assemblyman Perkins testified A.B. 27 addresses the safety concerns many people have about youths performing community service. He added, “This bill places needed restrictions on how community service is to be performed along Nevada’s highways. Also, supervising entities are required to notify the parent or guardian of the nature and location of the community service to be performed, before the child performs the work.” Assemblyman Perkins voiced support of the amendment provided by Scott Garner (parent of victim), which clarifies the training and safety requirement of the supervising entity (Exhibit C).
Assemblyman Perkins said, “This has been an extraordinary tragedy, there have been no winners here but I believe supporting this bill can keep us from incurring these types of tragedies in the future.” He added it is important for the legislature, as a public policy statement, to acknowledge the importance of community service, but stressed community service cannot be used as an unsafe tool for children.
Senator Porter commented he appreciated the assemblyman bringing the bill forward. He lamented though he had watched from afar, he felt the pain of the victims’ family members. He added, “We, as a Senate and Assembly, passed laws to penalize those that take a life, but it is so very difficult to make sure these things do not happen.”
Senator Wiener said she knew there are provisions for adults who work on the highways, but questioned if A.B. 27 mirrored the requirements used in the adult population.
Assemblyman Perkins responded he did not know the answer but reasoned, “The difference for me is, as an adult, you are able to make decisions for yourself, but as a juvenile, you are still the responsibility of an adult.”
Vice Chairman Porter said the committee now had a full quorum present.
Senator Care said he had practiced juvenile law, and the situation had an impact on him personally. Senator Care proposed an amendment to increase the wrongful death awards cap from $50,000 to $250,000.
Responding, Assemblyman Perkins said he would support Senator Care’s proposed amendment. However, if the proposed amendment would place the bill in jeopardy, perhaps the concept would have to be rethought, he added. Continuing, Assemblyman Perkins said, “Whatever immunity is given to governmental employees in these cases, perhaps looking at that area, so the person who makes the decisions will think a little closer about the decision.”
Senator Porter asked Assemblyman Perkins who the supervisory group was in the incident.
Assemblyman Perkins replied the supervisory group responsible was the Clark County Probation Services, a division of Child and Family Services.
Senator Porter queried, “Did they follow existing standards that particular day, standards already established?”
Assemblyman Perkins answered, “As far as I know they did, and I know Mr. Garner and Mr. Christensen are much more intimately knowledgeable about the circumstances. I believe for the most part, the current safety provisions in place may have been followed.”
Senator Porter remarked, “Certainly not adequate, if in fact they were followed.”
Senator Washington asked if parents or guardians decided they did not want their children to participate in any road services, are there other options from which the children could choose. Senator Washington offered different options include tasks such as pool cleaning and park cleanup.
Senator Washington stated, “Yes, there are other things to do, you know, graffiti is a big thing, and park cleanup.” Assemblyman Perkins said the bill focuses on highways, but it also lists any other hazardous situations.
Senator Washington further questioned Assemblyman Perkins, “I know the bill specifically targets safe conditions, but my concern is, as a parent could I go to juvenile probation and tell them I do not want my children participating in roadside programs, do parents have that option?”
Assemblyman Perkins said today parents do not have the option, and as the bill is written, parents would still not have the option. However, he added, “Mr. Garner and Mr. Christensen have added as an amendment to this bill, a written permission from parents (Exhibit C), and I think that would then bring this to the level to which you are speaking.”
Scott Garner, Concerned Citizen, introduced himself to the committee and said he was a parent of one of the children who was killed in the incident where the six children were run down, while performing community service, along Interstate 15, near Las Vegas.
Mr. Garner said he wanted to tell the committee about some of the children who were working along Interstate 15 and, “Some of the minor offenses that were involved. There was one child out there for curfew (violation) and another child for (stealing) a videotape.” Mr. Garner stated he is not opposed to a work program to have the children live up to their responsibilities.
Mr. Garner referred to earlier testimony: “You asked a question about safety issues brought into it, and in this particular case, there was nothing there.” The (Clark County) Family and Youth Service did not have permission from any governmental entity, Mr. Garner said. And, he added, the children were 10 feet from the edge of the road. Mr. Garner testified there were not any signs to notify oncoming traffic there was a road crew working.
Mr. Garner pointed out Martin J. Manning (Director of Public Works, Clark County) had not given permission for the work crew to work along Interstate 15. Mr. Garner remarked, “He will not even place juveniles in that kind of a position, and will not place people in that situation.”
Continuing, Mr. Garner asserted he had not been given any awareness his child was going to be on a freeway picking up trash. He added, had he known his child was going to be placed on a freeway, he would have written a check for the fine instead of placing his son in a dangerous scenario.
Mr. Garner referred to Senator Washington’s previous question. “If we have something in place where the parents have a choice . . . no, I do not want them to do that; I will pay the fine,” he stated. Currently, if there is a restitution to pay, one can take advantage of the option of paying the fine instead of community work service, said Mr. Garner.
Mr. Garner questioned why children are not placed in other areas of community service. He recalled testimony in the Assembly where the public needed to see the children performing community service. And, he asserted, there are other options for children to perform community service. Mr. Garner added, even with the safety requirements there could be instances where a flag, blinking light, or road barrier would not protect the children.
Mr. Garner said he knows of rules and regulations currently in place, and in this particular incident, they were completely ignored. He added, his situation could happen to anybody, “And now you are going to a funeral. I do not want to see anyone go through what I go through, and what I still go through every day, and will continue to go through for the rest of my life.”
Senator Porter acknowledged Mr. Garner’s work on the bill, and said he appreciated him bringing the idea forward. Senator Porter asked Mr. Garner, specifically about his concerns, “Are you saying the bill itself should be changed?”
Mr. Garner replied he would like to see the children off the freeways and highways completely. However, he said, “If we have to put them in a place that is a two-lane road, then I think the restrictions in here are fine, but I think we need to add the amendments (Exhibit C) we proposed.” Also, Mr. Garner pointed out the government entity should be complying with every rule and regulation set forth.
Thomas Christensen, Attorney, Las Vegas, pointed out an article distributed to the committee, “Inmate on cleanup duty killed,” by Steve E. Swenson, staff writer, The Bakersfield Californian (Exhibit D). Mr. Christensen said the inmate was working in Bakersfield, California. He referred to the sixth paragraph of the article, “A Caltrans spokesman said his agency does not keep track of injuries to inmate crews, but the last and only fatal crash he is aware of was in spring of 1994 on Interstate 880 in Oakland, where a ‘big-rig’ (truck) killed a Caltrans worker, three inmates and a civilian.”
Continuing, Mr. Christensen explained he brought the article to the attention of the committee to demonstrate the dangerous nature of this kind of work. He pointed out several rules and regulations, already in place, refer to “workers,” not to youth services.
Mr. Christensen said he is concerned with the amendments from the Assembly. “We originally said not to put them on the highway at all,” he stated. However, the amendments out of the Assembly allow children to be put onto the highways with particular safety procedures, he noted. Mr. Christensen continued, “My concern is that the legislature is trying to enact stuff that is covered with hundreds of pages of rules and regulations already.” He stated the reason for the two additional proposed amendments (Exhibit C) was the children were going to be put onto the highways, and the amendments require additional safety procedures.
Senator Porter concurred with Mr. Garner and Mr. Christensen, saying, “I do not think they should be out there at all. We have not been involved in the debates in the other house, but I do not see that as a necessary punishment to risk a young person.”
Mr. Christensen replied with a question about Senator Porter’s comment: “What safety procedures did they follow, that particular crew, and the Family and Youth Services in Clark County?” He said the only safety precaution the children were given was orange vests and gloves. The crew did not have an amber light on the vehicle, which is a requirement. Also, another requirement is a supervisor for every five juveniles, however, in this particular case, there were two vans full of youths, and only two supervisors [two supervisors for thirty children]. Mr. Christensen said perhaps only six youths were killed, but there were many others present and in harm’s way. He proposed, if the division of Family and Youth Services was following the requirements, then the children would not have been in the median, but they would still have been in a dangerous situation. Mr. Christensen stated strong restraints should be placed on the entity to ensure they get proper input from agencies in authority.
He further asserted the division of Family and Youth Services should not be the entity responsible for controlling the safety regulations. “They do not have a clue about safety on roads, but the public works department does,” he said.
Mr. Christensen called attention to another amendment not listed. “The notification to the parents could be changed to ‘The supervising entity shall notify and obtain the consent of the parent or guardian.’”
Senator Porter commented, “There is a serious problem on that stretch of road with trash, and certainly the reason we are here today is to prevent a tragic loss of life again, but, at some point, we need to look at those businesses that are contributing to the problem.” He stated the heavy amounts of trash on Interstate 15 facilitates the need for more people to be out there cleaning, and suggested looking into a way of controlling the amount of trash strewn onto the roadway.
Mr. Christensen responded, “With regard to the rural counties and roads less frequently traveled, the likelihood of an event such as this happening is smaller, but does not eliminate it happening.” However, he pointed out, because there was so much litter on the interstate highway, and because it was an intensive project, the tragedy was going to happen sooner rather than later.
Senator Porter asserted, “What is important is to find a way to prevent this from happening again, and the fact this is a high traffic, high garbage area is a separate issue.”
Leonard Pugh, Director, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County, offered his written testimony as a part of the record (Exhibit E). Mr. Pugh’s written testimony proposed an amendment to A.B. 27, and the reasons for it. He said section 4 [line 2 through line 12] states, “The supervising entity shall notify the parent or guardian of a child whom it supervises of the nature and location of the work or community service to be performed by the child before taking the child to perform such work or service.”
Mr. Pugh said he supports the fact parents have a right to know where their child is working, but this requirement creates some logistical issues, described in Exhibit E. Mr. Pugh recommended section 4 of A.B. 27 be amended to read:
At the time a child is assigned dates to perform work or community service, the supervising entity shall notify the parent or guardian of the child whom it supervises of the nature and general location of the work or community service to be performed. Information regarding the specific job site shall be available upon request of the parent or guardian before taking the child to perform such work or service.
Senator Washington said he read the language, but wondered why other witnesses were in opposition to the language.
Mr. Pugh replied, “The last time, in the Assembly, there was no real testimony about this, and I was remaining neutral.” He added he was asked to give testimony in the Assembly about how the Department of Juvenile Services works. Through his testimony, the amendments proposed by Mr. Garner and Mr. Christensen was added. Mr. Pugh said he believed the language was put into the bill because there were statements made regarding the parents not knowing where the children were working, and if, had they known, would not have allowed it. Continuing, he said, “We still work behind sound walls and cement barriers.” He contended his department has no problem notifying parents; however, the program needs to run efficiently. Mr. Pugh said his proposed amendment was a workable suggestion to remedy the problem.
Senator Washington consulted the written testimony:
Your statement says you have “60 youths per workday.” You have a problem with inconsistent phone numbers, change in weather, finding optimal workdays, transient parents, [and] job site changes. I am curious about the inconsistent phone numbers.
Senator Washington asked Mr. Pugh, “As the juvenile goes through the proceedings in the court process, aren’t there usually viable phone numbers that your department or the judge picks up?”
Mr. Pugh said,
Typically, that child would not present any problem, because we would keep track of the child’s whereabouts and phone number . . . It is a kid receiving what we refer to as a “sole sanction,” a kid who comes in with his parent, typically for a less serious offense, [who] would be assigned community service as a sanction; but we are not supervising [that kind of case].
Senator Washington asked if the committee could request, in the bill, the court have a viable phone number prior to assigning the child to community services.
Mr. Pugh said, currently, on the sign-up form, there are phone numbers. However, at times, the phone numbers do change and make contact difficult. Also, he said, in Washoe County, the children are separated according to what type of offense they committed. By separating the children, an issue is created of not knowing to which crew they will be assigned.
Senator Porter remarked it is not necessary to have young people working on an interstate highway system, even with parental approval.
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, said he needed to clarify a few points. Mr. Edgington stated the Nevada Department of Transportation is in full support of this bill, and they were the department responsible for much of the language in the bill.
Mr. Edgington commented, “This is more than a punishment service for the kids; they do provide a very good service for the state when they clean up the areas on the highways.” Mr. Edgington acknowledged the tragedy of the incident in Las Vegas. However, he mentioned the Nevada Department of Transportation looks at the bill in a broader scope and would like to be able to continue using the work crews.
Continuing, Mr. Edgington said, there are adopt-a-highway crews on the highways also using children in the make-up of their crews. He asserted if the bill passed, and did not allow children to be on the highway, it would also affect the adopt-a-highway programs.
Mr. Edgington stated, “I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that more efforts should be keyed on the businesses that are doing the littering to remove the necessity to have people out there.” Mr. Edgington pointed out even those people from the Nevada Department of Transportation who work on the highways have requested hazardous duty pay.
Senator Porter asked, “Do you feel you can adequately protect a young person that is working on a highway? Can you say that with trucks doing 80 miles per hour?”
Mr. Edgington responded there is not a way to protect a child if an 18-wheeler goes out control.
Senator Porter declared again, the children should not be out on the highways.
Mr. Edgington said, “We think, under normal conditions, stray vehicles will be deflected back on the roadway by a barrier rail.”
Senator Porter drew attention to the fact there are thousands of miles of roads, certainly, there should be restrictions of where the children should, and should not work.
Mr. Edgington agreed, “Yes, that would make a huge difference and that is why you see this language, ‘place them behind some kind of safety.’”
Senator Porter, “Let us take a moment to talk about those entities that create a high volume of trash, is there arrangements currently, with the Nevada Department of Transportation to take care of the expense of the cleanup?”
Responding, Mr. Edgington said, “We have got requirements . . . we have a new program that is similar to the adopt-a-highway program, called sponsor-a-highway program.” He said the sponsor-a-highway program involves an independent agency, sponsored by the community, who trains workers to clean up the highways.
Senator Porter declared the committee would take a short recess at 10 a.m. and then begin a work session. All information, proposals, and amendments for the bills heard in the work session can be found in the work session document (Exhibit F).
Chairman James reconvened the hearing at 10:05 a.m. and remarked that the first bill, A.B. 33, would have no action taken on it.
ASSEMBLY BILL 33: Expressly validates the trust of care for animals. (BDR 13-17)
Moving to A.B. 77, Chairman James said the issue raised was the question of changing the bill back to its original version. He added there would be a fiscal impact of $10.7 million, and would be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
ASSEMBLY BILL 77: Revises provisions governing unclaimed property. (BDR 10-410)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B.77.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Continuing with the work session, Chairman James asked Senator Porter whether he had received all the information regarding A.B. 108.
ASSEMBLY BILL 108: Makes various changes to provisions related to county clerks. (BDR 1-444)
Senator Porter said he was satisfied with the bill.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 108.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James moved to A.B. 110, and said there were no amendments.
ASSEMBLY BILL 110: Revises provisions governing summoning of jurors by justice’s court in certain counties. (BDR 6-179)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 110.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James said Assembly Bill 125 had no proposed amendments.
ASSEMBLY BILL 125: Prohibits business from employing, allowing or using person less than 18 years of age to distribute promotional materials that include offer for alcoholic beverages. (BDR 15-131)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 125.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James continued, “A.B. 220 has one proposed amendment, and there were a number of questions but I am not sure where it stands.”
ASSEMBLY BILL 220: Revises provisions governing duties of certain peace officers when certain felonies are committed or attempted in their presence or in area that is within their jurisdiction. (BDR 14-141)
Senator Porter said he remembered the hearing, and recalled there were many different law enforcement agencies present.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 220.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator McGinness commented, “I might ask the maker of the motion to provide some information on why we should exempt the university and community college system. It seems if we start exempting one, next session we will be back trying to carve out someone else.”
Senator Titus responded, “As I recall from the testimony, the two arguments were that these police departments at the university system are employees of the state and have inter-local agreements with the local police departments already.”
Chairman James told Senator Titus he supported the amendment. However, he said,
My problem with the bill is the policy consideration is that these other agencies do not have the proper tools to handle the investigations of [Category] A felonies. You can understand that. But, there is a part in the bill that throws me off. It is where it says, if they enter into an agreement, they can handle them anyway.
Senator Titus, replying to Chairman James, “My feeling was the police departments would not enter into an agreement with them if they did not feel they were capable of handling them.”
Senator Porter said he understood the intent of the bill was larger departments are performing certain services, and are being held liable, in some cases, for those services. He added, “What you are looking for is some arrangement in advance or some limit of liability for your worker.”
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), said he could clarify some of the concerns of the committee members. He commented, “That is partly correct, Senator Porter.” Concerning the requirement to enter into inter-local agreements, Mr. Olsen added:
During the subcommittee on the Assembly side, a couple of the smaller agencies, referred to as “limited jurisdiction” agencies, felt that if they gained certain expertise then they could later enter into a separate inter-local [agreement] allowing for certain things . . . In the case of METRO, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and the southern part of the state, METRO is the only one that has a forensics lab in southern Nevada. All of these crimes require significant forensic operations. North Las Vegas, while they have details that specialize in Category A [felonies], work with our forensics lab, as does Henderson. That was the reasoning behind that.
Senator James asked Mr. Olsen about the school district police.
Mr. Olsen replied METRO would not enter into an agreement, releasing the Category A felonies, if the bill would pass. Also, he said, there are many times when task forces are developed between the different agencies, and would be involved in the arrest but are staffed and supervised by primary law enforcement agencies.
Senator James further inquired to the justification for exempting the university police.
Mr. Olsen stated, “In the case of the university, they are a state police agency but they are already working with us on serious felonies.”
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James stated Assembly Bill 277 has two proposed amendments.
ASSEMBLY BILL 277: Revises provisions relating to settlement of certain claims or actions against governmental entities and officers and employees thereof. (BDR 3-378)
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 277.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Wiener was appointed as a subcommittee to review A.B. 294. She said she was pleased with the information she was given.
ASSEMBLY BILL 294: Revises provisions pertaining to sealing of juvenile records. (BDR 5-690)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 294.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO.)
*****
Since Assembly Bill 305 had no proposed amendments, Senator Care said he had reservations about moving the bill. Senator Titus concurred with Senator Care.
ASSEMBLY BILL 305: Prohibits video voyeurism and distribution of product of video voyeurism. (BDR 15-118)
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, said he supported the bill but believed the committee could hold off from making a motion on it. There was no action taken on A.B. 305.
Chairman James continued A.B. 308 has a proposed amendment that is found under tab C of the work session document (Exhibit F).
ASSEMBLY BILL 308: Revises provisions concerning waiver by juveniles of right to counsel. (BDR 5-464)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 308.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Continuing, Chairman James addressed A.B. 325, “There are a number of amendments proposed here. Are these all opposed by the sponsor, Senator Care?”
ASSEMBLY BILL 325: Revises provisions concerning rule against perpetuities. (BDR 10-46)
Senator Care stated, “I do not have a problem with the bill, but I did express reservations with the [proposed] amendments.” He said he objected to proposed amendment 1. The unlimited power of the trustee ought to be “express,” not “express or implied,” he stated. As to proposed amendment 2, Senator Care said he did not think the language in the bill should be reversed. He said if the rule against perpetuities applies in an instrument creating a trust, the instrument should be required to affirmatively state it does apply. Regarding proposed amendment 3, Senator Care said paragraphs (a) and (b) should be stricken. He said, “I think, if you want to execute [a trust] here and it is going to be governed here, that is fine . . . And, an entity qualified to do business in Nevada can be an entity from another state that does have a rule against perpetuities. I did not have a problem with [proposed amendment] 3, [paragraph] (c).”
Senator James said proposed amendments 1 and 2, and paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed amendment 3, for A.B. 325, would be stricken, and the only proposed amendment that would be left in the bill is paragraph (c) of proposed amendment 3.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 325.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
The next bill in the work session, A.B. 344, had three proposed amendments.
ASSEMBLY BILL 344: Revises definition of criminal assault. (BDR 15-977)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 344.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Assembly Bill 375 had no proposed amendments, Chairman James stated.
ASSEMBLY BILL 375: Enacts provisions governing possession, use, manufacture and distribution of certain items employed to commit theft. (BDR 15-1462)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 375.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James said Assembly Bill 399 had one proposed amendment to clarify language and remove language regarding the staging of an emergency.
ASSEMBLY BILL 399: Provides for civil liability for false reporting of crime or emergency. (BDR 3-422)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 399.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
No action was taken 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 provisions concerning sentencing of certain persons sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole. (BDR 16-1327)
No action was taken on A.B. 576.
ASSEMBLY BILL 576: Revises provisions concerning stay of execution and appeal of certain judgments. (BDR 2-1153)
No action was taken on A.B. 581.
ASSEMBLY BILL 581: Makes various changes concerning orders for protection against domestic violence. (BDR 3-480)
With no further business to discuss, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:58 a.m.
Heather Dion,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: