MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE SENATE committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 2, 2001
The subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Maurice Washington, at 9:30 a.m., on Monday, April 2, 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 Maurice Washington, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Clark County District Attorney
Kirby Burgess, Director, Family Youth Services, Clark County
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association
Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Senator Washington opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 230.
SENATE BILL 230: Makes various changes relating to juveniles. (BDR 16-575)
Robert Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Clark County District Attorney, introduced Kirby Burgess testifying from Las Vegas via videoconference. Mr. Teuton said he had put together a proposed amendment which addresses all the concerns related to S.B. 230 and eliminates any language for fiscal impact.
Mr. Teuton suggested section 12 (of the current bill) be retained. It would allow the committing court to commit a juvenile parolee to a juvenile detention facility or, if he or she is over the age of 18, to an adult jail. Mr. Teuton’s suggested amendments are included in a distributed memo (Exhibit C). Continuing, Mr. Teuton said the second change would amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 62.271, which currently authorizes probation violators over the age of 18 years to be committed to an adult jail.
Mr. Teuton added, “At the time I faxed this to Ben Graham [Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney’s Association] to distribute I had not spoken with Willy Smith [Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Family and Child Services], but it is my understanding that she has no problems with the proposed amendments except that NRS 62.271 allows probation violators to be committed to a prison.” He said, “Miss Smith asked to have the language, ‘commitment to a prison,’ stricken.“
Mr. Teuton remarked, within the 20 years of his experience in juvenile court, there has never been a parole violator sent to prison, and he believes the provision is unconstitutional. Further, Mr. Teuton declared he would not have a problem striking the wording, “commitment to prison,” and therefore NRS 62.271 would read, “Probation parole violators would be committed to a facility for detention of juveniles if under the age of 18 years or committed to the county jail.”
Continuing, Mr. Teuton said the second area of the amendment deals with what to do with the parole violators, as well as others, pending the actual adjudication and sentencing for the violation. Mr. Teuton said the amendment is addressed on page 1 of the distributed memo (Exhibit C), and would amend NRS 62.170 to read, “A child over the age of 18 who is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and who has been ordered detained may be temporarily housed in an adult jail or lock-down facility during the pendency of the juvenile proceedings.” Mr. Teuton indicated the amendment would address the concerns of the parole violators, and would also address concerns of any person who is legally defined as a juvenile between the ages of 18 and 21.
Kirby Burgess, Director, Family Youth Services, Clark County, testifying from Las Vegas, said he concurred with Mr. Teuton’s statements.
Senator Wiener said she would defer to Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, and Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, to decide whether the proposed amendments would work.
Mr. Wilkinson said the proposed amendment to NRS 62.271 appears to conflict with the new provision in subsection 6, of section 12, and section 14, of the bill, because under the new language in section 12, the court could not only order the confinement of the parolee for no more than 30 days, but could also take any other appropriate action. This would specifically conflict with the provision in NRS 62.271, which would simply allow detention for not more than 30 days. Mr. Wilkinson noted, “I do not know that the amendment to NRS 62.271 really does anything other than conflict with the new language in section 12.” Continuing, he said, “I am not clear if there are any other proposed changes in section 12, specifically the issues in subsection 2 and 3 of the bill as currently written.”
Clarifying, Senator Washington read from section 12, subsection 2(b), of S.B. 230.
Mr. Wilkinson responded to Senator Washington, “Yes, and as I understand, Mr. Teuton’s . . . other proposed amendment, which would add a general provision to chapter 62 of the NRS about placing juveniles who are 18 years or older, is designed to address the issue of placing those 18-year-olds in the county jail. But, if we did not amend subsection 2 of NRS 210.250, which is in section 12, that new provision . . . would also conflict with NRS 210.250.”
Senator Washington expressed he was unclear whether all of the provisions had been worked through, and wanted to work out any conflicts before the bill was submitted back to the full committee.
Mr. Teuton replied he was unaware of the conflicts, but was willing to work with Mr. Wilkinson.
Senator Wiener addressed Mr. Burgess in Las Vegas, “You are president, and before we go forward, would those be the two goals your organization wants to accomplish with the legislation?”
Replying, Mr. Burgess said, “I have not spoken to the full body of juvenile justice administrators . . . but, yes, this is the direction we want to take.”
Senator Washington requested Mr. Burgess meet with Mr. Wilkinson to work through the conflicts.
Senator Washington asked for a vote.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 230.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 230 and opened the hearing on S.B. 231.
SENATE BILL 231: Revises provisions relating to detention homes for temporary detention of children. (BDR 5-574)
Senator Wiener began the testimony on S.B. 231 giving the description of the bill stating:
This bill would allow a juvenile facility and an adult facility to co‑locate their facilities, which would allow the [juvenile] detention facility to be located on the same grounds or share the same facilities or common grounds with an adult jail or lockup, not an adult prison. A caveat is that there be separate management, separate security, and separate direct‑care staff.
Senator Washington asked Mr. Wilkinson what work needs to be done to the bill. Further, he questioned, “Is it that the facilities would be co-located on the same property and share the same services, but have different management?”
Replying, Mr. Wilkinson addressed Senator Washington’s question, “As I recall, Chairman James had [questioned] . . . whether the language in [section 1] subsection 3, [of S.B. 231], Any detention home built and maintained under this chapter must be constructed and conducted as nearly like a home as possible’ . . . was appropriate to keep in the statute.” Mr. Wilkinson noted, “[The statute] says, ‘as nearly like a home as possible,’ but it is not a strict requirement now.”
Senator Washington questioned whether the language should be deleted.
Senator Wiener commented she had been informed the facilities are created to be as home-like as possible, and she did not recall Chairman James’s recommending the language be deleted. Further, she said, she thinks an important part of the message should be that it not become a penal institution. Senator Wiener recommended not taking the language out, because she believed doing so would make a statement the committee does not want the facility to be home-like.
Mr. Burgess stated he supports S.B. 231. He said the additional language was requested by the juvenile justice administrators for efficiency purposes, “especially in rural areas, where adult and juvenile facilities can share common facilities.” Mr. Burgess also recommended leaving the language in subsection 3, because it embodies the philosophy of the juvenile justice system and speaks symbolically to the programming.
Senator Washington asked for a motion.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 231.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Washington closed the hearing on S.B. 231, and opened the hearing on S.B. 232.
SENATE BILL 232: Provides for collection of information on economic background of child referred to system of juvenile justice and requires division of child and family services of department of human resources to determine whether children of racial or ethnic minorities and children from economically disadvantaged homes are receiving disparate treatment in system of juvenile justice. (BDR 5-573)
Senator Wiener gave an overview of the bill, saying:
This is a by-product recommendation coming out of both Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 57 [of the Sixty-Ninth Session] and A.C.R. 13 [of the Seventieth Session] subcommittee concerns.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 57 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of system of juvenile justice in State of Nevada. (BDR R-1869)
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to continue study of system of juvenile justice in Nevada. (BDR R-224)
This was concerning the issue Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell, who was our consultant, had directed attention toward both times he came to consult with us. His concerns [were] about the disproportionate representation regarding custody, detention, and referrals to the juvenile justice system, and the disproportionate representation of minority ethnically diverse populations. It does specify the involvement at each level of the juvenile justice process and their assessment of this concern, as well as any plans they may recommend to revise or eliminate policies, practices, or procedures that might result in disproportionate representation.
There are reporting mechanisms, there are assessment mechanisms, and there is also the development of plans to address any concerns. There are also protections built into S.B. 232, protections from disclosure that are provided in the law ordinarily. I might add that one of the concerns the chairman had during the full committee [hearing] was, “disproportionate in reference to what.” Since then, I have received information that “disproportionate” may apply to the general population and any populations along that continuum of services. I have learned . . . there is a bill moving through the Assembly that would provide for research dollars, I believe at the University of Nevada, Reno, targeted at gathering statistics and processing them, which could supplement . . . or alleviate any fiscal concerns this bill might impose.
Ms. Combs said one of the concerns was the “disproportionate to what” factor, as far as the study is concerned. She added, Senator James noted perhaps the real goal of the legislation was to try to answer the question of whether the state has the continuum of care to care for the children. Ms. Combs said there was also an amendment requested on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association to delete them as one of the reporting agencies.
Senator Wiener commented on her notes, which said, “If we delete the district attorneys, we do not have a meaningful study.”
Senator Washington mentioned he had a suggestion for the ethnicity study. He said:
As we describe “disproportionate to what,” based on the definition given by Senator Wiener, my thought was on the continuum of care, from the first time the juvenile enters the system to the actual closing of records or [the juvenile’s] exit from the juvenile system into the adult system, on what type of care is being provided . . . where they come from, the family situation, schooling . . . and compiling a study based on those factors . . . Maybe [the study] would depict areas in which our system is weak, or create some preventative measures. I think that is what you are trying to get out of this . . . I want to make sure that is what this study is going to do.
Senator Wiener said she strongly supports the continuum of care and the “seamless” operation to deal with the juveniles in the system. She added:
From dealing with this issue for the two interim studies, I understand, based on the dialogue coupled with this throughout those studies, the continuum of care is an important concept . . . But I am not sure it is going to address the concerns the bill addresses as to whether there are children, based on ethnicity or race, involved in the system who maybe should not be, and their involvement is because of race or ethnicity.
Senator Wiener said she thinks Senator Washington’s suggestion is important. Once it is recognized a child needs to be in the system, the continuum of care is critical, but “this bill addresses whether or not they should be in the system in the first place,” she said.
Mr. Teuton commented there is a Washoe County deputy district attorney who testified in opposition of S.B. 232 and had asked that district attorneys be removed, “which would pretty much gut the bill.” Further, he said, “As I read this, it looks like the Legislature is empowering the Division of Child and Family Services to develop the standards and procedures to make these assessments at each stage, so there would be . . . an assessment of whether or not there is a disproportionate impact of people initially coming into the system via the police departments, disproportionate sentencing practices by the district attorneys, screening and pleading decisions by district attorneys, and disproportionate sentencings by courts. I believe the bill addresses both the disproportionality of children coming into the system in the first place, as well as any additions that may take place as the child is processed. So, it would address the concerns you had expressed . . . Authority to . . . develop the standards and procedures, exactly what data needs to be kept and what statistical models need to be applied to determine whether a particular ethnic group or racial group is disproportionately represented, should be left to the division and to statisticians.” Adding, he said he supports S.B. 232, and does not believe any amendments are needed. However, he noted, there is a significant impact to S.B. 232. For instance, Mr. Teuton said, “My office has no extra body to gather this information.”
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, said she is opposed to the bill because the district attorney’s office in Clark County does not have the computer software or the personnel to collect the statistics. Ms. Greene Waldron noted the bill would cause a “significant retooling” of the system. Questioning, she asked, “What is it that you are looking for, because the district attorney does not have control over who comes into the system.” Ms. Greene Waldron mentioned the disproportionality begins with the police department as it initiates the case.
Senator Wiener commented that Ms. Greene Waldron’s concerns were also raised in the full committee. She mentioned there were concerns, beyond the district attorney’s office. “There is a disproportionate representation in the facilities of ethnic or racial minorities,” she said. Senator Wiener indicated there was testimony in the full committee “that it has got to be the entire spectrum, because we get what we get; we have no control over what children we get into the system.”
Ms. Greene Waldron continued, saying, “Mr. Teuton indicated the district attorneys would be involved in the screening, to decide if we would go forward with a prosecution.” Further, she said, “In 9 years of being a district attorney, the only time I ever looked to see what color a person was, is if I recognized the name and then I would give the case to another district attorney.” Ms. Greene Waldron declared she did not see where race played a part in the district attorney’s process.
Senator Washington acknowledged Ms. Greene Waldron’s concerns. “I realize that your specific job is to prosecute cases, and it does not matter what ethnicity they are,” he stated. Senator Washington recognized Senator Wiener’s note that a bill was coming from the Assembly dealing with juvenile statistical information, and the bill would be one avenue to compile and compute the information.
Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County, said the suggestions by Mr. Teuton had merit. He added, “Most of this information is already collected by the counties, and we report this information to the state, as required by law.” Mr. Cook testified Douglas County had submitted a report to the state on ethnicity in detention facilities.
Senator Washington asked where the information collected by the counties goes. Mr. Cook replied the information goes to the state. And he said, “I think we should let the state statisticians tell us what they need, because a lot of this information they already have.” Mr. Cook suggested what is not addressed is when children are taken into custody.
Clarifying, Senator Washington asked, “You are suggesting we need to define ‘taking into custody,’ whether it is actually being arrested?” Mr. Cook responded that he is not sure what the committee is looking for. Senator Washington said, “It says, ‘taking into custody, detained, or referred to a system.’” Mr. Cook pointed out the information on detainment, by race, is already being collected. Senator Washington questioned, “If the state is already taking the information and compiling the statistical data, would the state have a problem submitting it to the university system to extrapolate, to give specific categories?” Mr. Cook replied he could not speak for the state, but said he did not believe it would be a problem.
Mr. Teuton also replied to Senator Washington’s question, saying:
As far as the number of kids that go through the door of the juvenile justice system, the state receives that information. But they do not receive, as an example, [information that] one [is] white and one black, or one poor and one rich . . . The rich kid, black or white, is not going to get referred to the court, because the police officer is going to contact the parents and take care of the situation outside of the court process. The poorer child will get referred. To some degree, we need to find out what police are doing in the community, not just [with] the kids the police bring to the court itself. They have already made the decisions that we see the fruit of. I agree with Mr. Cook that most of this information is collected, but the one piece of data that is not collected, at least not consistently, is the economic background of the people being referred. I personally think that economics has everything to do with this issue.
Senator Washington asked Stan Olsen, “In section 1, subsection 1(a), the meaning of the word ‘custody’ . . . It begins with the officer reporting to the scene of the crime . . . What type of information does the officer gather, whom do they pass it on to, and where does it go from there?” Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, replied to Senator Washington, “We train and look differently between detention and custody; custody is once we have taken the kid in and are going to book him.” He added, “If we field-interview someone, there is a card that is filled out and the card is then routed to several different places within the department. For example, if the kid is thought to be a burglar, it will go to the burglary detail . . . ”
Senator Washington inquired, “Basically, it is for departmental use?” Mr. Olsen replied affirmatively. He said the card is not always conducted; it depends on the situation. He added, once the child is taken into custody, multiple forms (arrest report, affidavit) are filled out, “and most of those go to Mr. Teuton.” Senator Washington said, “That is what we are looking for, not the field report; once they are taken into custody there is a report filled out and sent to Mr. Teuton.”
Interjecting, Mr. Olsen said, “Arrest reports and affidavits eventually find their way into the hands of the district attorney, whether for adult or juvenile, and from there I assume into the courts.”
Senator Washington reiterated, ”What the committee is looking for is economic background and disproportionality . . . race does not really make a difference one way or the other.” Senator Wiener commented, “I do not think there is a reason to exclude race or ethnicity; we could add economic status and then there would be three criteria.” Senator Washington pointed out he was not suggesting excluding race.
Disagreeing, Mr. Olsen stated, whether the child is released to the parent is more dependent upon the type of situation, rather than the family’s wealth. He added the police would not have any way of knowing if the child is wealthy. Senator Washington clarified the issue, stating, “I want to narrow this down. We are dealing with economic status, family situation, ethnicity, and the type of crime.“
Ms. Greene Waldron noted the economic status might not be able to be determined at the police level, but would be determined at the court level because of appointment of a public defender.
Mr. Cook said of Mr. Olsen’s remarks concerning custody, “If you are going to define ‘in custody’ as the child’s being taken down to the police station, then that information is already being collected.” Senator Washington said he understood the information was currently being collected, but there are individual pieces of the information the legislation is requesting. Mr. Cook said the economic information is not currently being collected, but the family status, such as, the type of home and how many parents in the home, is being collected.
Senator Wiener said, under NRS 62.910, all of the information is being collected, except the economic information. She said she would like to propose the economic information be included in the bill. Mr. Burgess commented, “Senator Wiener captured the essence of what I was going to say. My question is, what are we going to do with [the data]; how are we going to design programs . . . to address this issue.” Mr. Burgess requested to read into the record information to illustrate this is a systemic problem:
The data was collected by the youth law center out of Washington; the study was done by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. The key findings of the study were: African‑American youth with no prior admissions were six times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than white youth with the same background. Latino youth were 3 times more likely than white youth to be incarcerated. In every offense category [person, property, drug, public order], a substantially greater percentage of African‑American youth were detained than white youth.
Minority youth are over-represented in the detained population in nearly all states. African-American youth are more likely to be formally charged in juvenile court than white youth, even when referred for the same offense. Minority youth are much more likely waived from juvenile court to adult criminal court than white youth, even when charged with the same offenses. Nationally, custody rates were five times greater for African-American youth than white youth. Custody rates for Latino and Native American youth were two times the custody rate of white youth. In 1997, 7400 new admissions to adult prisons involved youth under the age of 18, and three out of four of these youth were minorities.
Mr. Burgess concluded, saying, “You can see we have a very serious problem. I think this bill puts some teeth into the data collection so we can use it, not to point fingers, but to use it to define programs.”
Senator Washington commented that the subcommittee would follow up on Senator Wiener’s suggestion to insert the economic status of the juvenile in the bill and send it to the juvenile justice commission for inclusion in a plan to be submitted to both the Legislature and the new committee Senator James is forming to deal with S.B. 286. Senator Washington requested Allison Combs to take the information and extrapolate a definition for “disproportionate,” to satisfy Senator James’s concerns.
SENATE BILL 286: Revises provisions relating to certain committees that review issues pertaining to criminal justice. (BDR 14-774)
Senator Washington asked for a motion to amend.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 232.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
There being no further business, Senator Washington closed the subcommittee meeting at 10:36 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Heather Dion,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice Washington, Chairman
DATE: