MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
March 17, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 9:07 a.m., on Monday, March 17, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Lora Nay, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Public Safety
David Smith, Management Analyst 3, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Public Safety
Gerthie Polk, Chief, Youth Parole Bureau, Department of Human Resources
Chairman Amodei:
I request committee introduction of two bill draft requests (BDRs), BDR 14‑1278 and BDR 15-435.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 14-1278: Revises provisions pertaining to issuance of search warrants. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 316.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-435: Prohibits placing of cigarette vending machines where minors are permitted to loiter. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 315.)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 14-1278.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NOLAN, TITUS, AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-435.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NOLAN, TITUS, AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing is open on Senate Bill (S.B.) 232.
SENATE BILL 232: Makes various changes pertaining to duties and authority of State Board of Parole Commissioners. (BDR 16-551)
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Public Safety:
I am accompanied by David Smith, Management Analyst 3. There are several changes requested by the State Board of Parole Commissioners which will help our operation. The first change, under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 213.017, asks to separate out the position of executive secretary to the State Board of Parole Commissioners. As the statute now stands, the executive secretary to the State Board of Parole Commissioners must also be executive secretary to the State Board of Pardons Commissioners. The change would allow the State Board of Parole Commissioners discretion to appoint someone different to be executive secretary to the State Board of Pardons Commissioners, which is a different board. We did not request funding for the position at this time. We just want to change the statute to be able to legally hire a different person should there be enough money in the future to fund the position.
The next change is under NRS 213.1517 in regard to the 60-day clause for parole violators. As the statute now stands, a parole violator must be seen by the State Board of Parole Commissioners for a parole violation within 60 days. Should a parolee have new criminal charges, in addition to the parole violation, he or she may attempt to manipulate the 60-day clause to keep from having to appear before the State Board of Parole Commissioners. The changes would not require the State Board of Parole Commissioners to see the parolee within 60 days should he or she have new violations, but the parolee must appear within 60 days of his or her return to prison. The new charge will be resolved at county jail. When it is resolved the parolee will be transferred to the prison for the parole violation, and then must be seen by the State Board of Parole Commissioners within 60 days. It will prevent parolees from playing the system.
Senator Care:
I gather conviction of a crime while a person is on parole is an automatic violation of the terms of parole, but what about arrests or charge of a crime while a person is out on parole?
Ms. Salling:
It is not automatic. The Division of Parole and Probation supervises offenders and has to charge them with parole violation. There could be instances in which the parolee commits a minor violation, such as shoplifting, which is serious while on parole, but he or she may not be convicted of it. The Division of Parole and Probation might wait to see whether or not the parolee is convicted if it is dubious before he or she is arrested and returned to custody. It depends on the offender.
Senator Care:
Section 2, subsection 4 of S.B. 232, says, “If probable cause for continued detention of paroled prisoner is based on conduct which is the subject of a new criminal charge,…” it obviously does not mean a conviction because final adjudication is addressed later in that subsection.
Ms. Salling:
There are technical violations of parole wherein a violation would not be a crime if committed by someone other than the parolee, such as failing to report or having alcohol in their house. It would not be a new criminal charge, just a technical violation of parole.
The last change is in NRS 213.1519 which addresses mandatory parole credits. At the present time, when persons released under mandatory parole eligibility violate parole, they are returned to custody and their parole revoked. By law, their mandatory good-time credits must be taken away. The credits sometimes amount to 300 or 400, which is a little more than a day. Sometimes it is not really warranted. There are occasions when a parolee has violated parole and should be returned to parole. Perhaps the parolee is a month away from expiration of his sentence, has served 5 or 6 years, and done very well. It is very unfortunate. The State Board of Parole Commissioners hates to send a parolee back to prison for 2 or 3 years for a minor violation.
Senate Bill 232 requests the State Board of Parole Commissioners be given discretion to take away the parolee’s credits, but not be required to do so. It would be good for the prison system and the offenders. If offenders have done well in the community, it would be a travesty of justice to lose their homes, their apartments, or their jobs for a minor violation.
Senator Wiener:
Please explain the language being deleted in regard to committing a crime in another jurisdiction.
David Smith, Management Analyst 3, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Public Safety:
In the 1999 Legislative Session, new statutory language was added that allows the State Board of Parole Commissioners to take action if somebody is convicted of new charges in a foreign jurisdiction, but also stops them from earning time. Therefore, it superseded this language. Once parolees are convicted in a new jurisdiction, their time stops and they cannot run out. After consulting with the Division of Parole and Probation, it was decided to delete that part of the statute.
Senator Wiener:
If that was the new language in 1999 and this was still on the books, it was conflicting policy. How did you handle that?
Mr. Smith:
We just dealt with the new language.
Chairman Amodei:
What is the pleasure of the committee?
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 232.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing is open on Senate Bill 242.
SENATE BILL 242: Makes changes pertaining to Interstate Compact on Juveniles. (BDR 5-1198)
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit C).
Currently North Dakota is the only state that has already adopted the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, but the legislation has been introduced in 19 other states this Legislative Session. It has already been sent to the governor of New Mexico and passed by at least one state chamber in three states.
In conclusion, for your information I distributed a background information sheet (Exhibit C) on the reasons the compact is needed.
Senator Wiener:
Is there a contract administrator at the present time? If not, how has the Interstate Compact on Juveniles been handled up to this point?
Gerthie Polk, Chief, Youth Parole Bureau, Department of Human Resources:
I submit my written testimony (Exhibit D).
An interstate compact administrator and an interstate compact correspondent do the work that comes through the State for children in interstate compact services. Currently, the position is overwhelmed with the amount of paperwork. An individual recently started in that position and is about 5 months behind on paperwork, and so forth. Basically, the interstate compact correspondent does the majority of the work.
Senator Wiener:
Article IV, subsection (1), page 7, line 36 of S.B. 242 says, “To provide for dispute resolution among compacting states.” Please describe a typical dispute and how it would be resolved.
Senator Washington:
Dispute resolution could be removal of a juvenile from one state to another whether or not the state is complying with the interstate compact. A dispute could be whether or not there is a support structure in place for the juvenile, or whether the state is willing to accept, reject, or return the juvenile. Therefore, the interstate compact gives mechanisms by which the states can come to some agreement concerning the juvenile.
Senator Wiener:
Does it only have legal force on the states that are members of the interstate compact? Did you say it is pending in 19 states?
Senator Washington:
Correct, it is pending in 19 states. In the 2001 Legislative Session we dealt with adult offenders and at least 35 states had to ratify the interstate compact.
Senator Wiener:
There is a report sent annually to the Legislature. Do we currently receive that report?
Senator Washington:
Yes, for adult offenders.
Senator Wiener:
Do we receive a report for the juvenile interstate compact?
Senator Washington:
I am not sure whether or not a report is received. There were problems with California during the 2001 Legislative Session because California’s probation is usually set by the counties.
Senator Wiener:
Is this new language, or is the annual report mentioned in the Interstate Compact on Juveniles as established in 1955? I do not remember seeing this report and wonder if the current interstate compact is where the problem exists in regard to receiving the information.
Senator Washington:
I assume this is new language. I worked with the Council of State Governments (CSG) and no reports are given from the states unless each state calls its respective parole officers or probation office to receive a report on a specific juvenile.
Senator Wiener:
I am curious whether this is part of what is required. As we proceed we might want to monitor it. Article VIII, Finance, page 13, line 43 of S.B. 242 talks about the movement of juveniles in each compacting state, and I hope some of the information would be in that report. It also talks about the population in each compacting state. Does Nevada tend to have heavier traffic in and out of the State? We should get a sense of our needs for corrections and movement in Nevada. Do we tend to have a lot of movement for the population of Nevada versus other comparable states?
Ms. Polk:
I would say we do.
Senator Wiener:
Is that in and out of the State?
Ms. Polk:
There are probably more coming into Nevada than going out.
Senator Wiener:
Are they juveniles who committed an offense in Nevada, fled, and are being returned?
Ms. Polk:
I would say it is more juveniles coming from other states who have committed crimes there and fled to Nevada.
Senator Wiener:
Therefore, they are returning.
Ms. Polk:
The parents may have moved to Nevada and the juvenile may have been in a correctional facility in the state of origin. Upon release, the youth is sent to Nevada for supervision.
Senator Wiener:
Would that also involve status offenders, such as runaways?
Ms. Polk:
Runaways are immediately returned to the jurisdiction from whence they came.
Senator Wiener:
Article XIII, section B, subsection (4), page 18, line 34 of S.B. 242 says, “In the event any provision of this compact exceeds the constitutional limits imposed on the legislature of any compacting state, the obligations, duties, powers or jurisdiction … .” Do things become ineffective if it conflicts with the Nevada State constitution? Have there been any conflicts between the Nevada State constitution and the interstate compact in the terms of the 1955 interstate compact?
Senator Washington:
I am unaware of any conflicts with the Nevada State constitution. Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, might research that question. In the 2001 Legislative Session there was an issue dealing with ratification of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. Some provisions were put in to protect the Nevada State constitution and we may want to do that again to ensure the constitution supersedes any interstate compact ratified by the State.
Senator Wiener:
I remember concern about it in committee. Perhaps we can take a look at it.
Senator Care:
Section C, Judicial Enforcement, page 17, line 24 of S.B. 242 says, “The Interstate Commission may, by majority vote of the members, initiate legal action … to enforce compliance … .” How do you get out of the interstate compact?
Senator Washington:
Any state can exit the interstate compact, if they so desire, by requesting a letter through the administrator from the governor’s office or from the legislative body, indicating the state wants to exit the interstate compact.
Senator McGinness:
Article IV, subsection 18, page 8, line 42 of S.B. 242 says, “To coordinate education, training and public awareness regarding the interstate movement of juveniles for officials involved in such activity.” Does it require notification, such as for adult offenders, when juvenile offenders move into the State?
Senator Washington:
Very few states abide by the outdated Interstate Compact on Juveniles which is currently in existence. This problem was precipitated by lack of use of the current Interstate Compact for Juveniles. The updated interstate compact attempts to bring the states in line to share communication and data regarding juvenile delinquents and track their movements.
Senator McGinness:
The names and pictures of adult offenders …
Senator Washington:
We are not going to do all that with juvenile offenders.
Senator Wiener:
Since this has not been updated since 1955, it is a landmark movement. Thirty‑five states are needed to create an effective Interstate Compact for Juveniles. What would transpire between a compacting state and a non‑compacting state?
Senator Washington:
That is a good question. In the adult interstate compact, if a state does not participate in the ratification of the compact, the states belonging to the compact can refuse to take or give back an offender if they so choose. Therefore, that state could be excluded from participation.
Senator Wiener:
How many states are in the current Interstate Compact on Juveniles?
Senator Washington:
I am not sure. If it is like the adult interstate compact, probably very few states participate currently.
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing is closed on S.B. 242.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing is adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: