MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 28, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:17 a.m., Monday, June 28, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman

      Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mr. John C. Carpenter

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. Ken L. Haller

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. John B. Regan

      Mr. Scott Scherer

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. John C. Bonaventura

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Senator Mark James

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Denice Miller

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Justice Charles Springer, Nevada Supreme Court

      Justice Thomas Steffen, Nevada Supreme Court

      Marsha Berkbigler, Nevada State Medical Association

      Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office

      Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association

      Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers

      Judy Jacobson, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers

      Dorothy North, Drug Rehabilitation Vitality Center

      Liz Breshears, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

      Michael Pescetta, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association and

            Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice

      Mark Clayton, Nevada State Gaming Control Board, Corporate            Securities Division

      William Bible, Nevada Gaming Control Board

      Tim McGinnese

      Robert Bayer, Nevada Department of Parole & Probation

      Barbara Segaske, 7-Eleven Store Owner

      Samuel P. McMullen, Philip Morris USA

 

In the temporary absence of Chairman Sader and Vice Chairman Porter, Assemblyman Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. and opened the hearing on SJR-2 of the 66th session.

 

SJR-2 OF THE 66TH SESSION           Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to remove justices of supreme court from state board of pardons commissioners.  (BDR C-971)

 

Justice Charles Springer of the Nevada Supreme Court testified in opposition to the bill, explaining to the committee the pardons board was an advisory board required to ratify all gubernatorial pardons and had been in effect for 130 years.  He stated from his perspective there was no advantage in passing the bill in its present form. The only possible advantage he had been able to think of was it made life easier for the members of the supreme court.  He thought Justice Steffen agreed with him although it was one of their most arduous tasks, it did not take a lot of time, and he thought it was in the state's interest to maintain the board in its present form.

 

Mr. Petrak questioned Justice Springer as to how many hours he was involved with pardons board duties last year.

 

Justice Springer responded one day reading the files on the cases and one day for the board meeting.

 

Justice Steffen testified against SJR-2 of the 66th session as he felt the Legislature was engaged in a project that would, if successful, provide a windfall for the members of the court.  He stated Justice Springer and he were very much aware of the  ideology of the movement, the first reason being the justices were too busy.  He noted it was a question of where priorities were placed.  There were members of the court, he reported, who found it to be a greater priority to engage in extensive speaking throughout the state.  Justice Steffen said he felt the pardons board function was extremely important, as the state had substantial assets invested in all of the convictions.  Most of those who came before the pardons board were inmates who had committed very serious crimes.  He thought the potential consequences of the action of the board was so important it was vital to continue the board as it was. Another reason given for removing the justices from the board, he claimed, was conflict of interest.  He maintained there was absolutely nothing to that, as there was no conflict of interest.  He contended they were not a sentencing body nor were they a fact-finding body, so when they sat as constitutional officers on the board of pardons they had no vested interest whatsoever.  He suggested the real motivation behind this movement was to remove the justices from a position of potential exposure to public criticism.  He maintained the pardons board had served the state long and well and recommended this resolution go no further than the committee.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked Justice Steffen for some history on the composition of the board in 1864 and why it was found necessary to place the justices of the supreme court on the board in addition to the governor and the attorney general.

 

Justice Steffen explained at the time Nevada became a state, it was determined they did not want to give exclusive pardon and reprieve power to the governor, as there had been instances across the country where the power had been abused.  As a result, he reported, the power was given to the governor, the attorney general and the five justices of the supreme court.  The governor, he explained, had the veto power but was not able to utilize it to effectuate clemency or reprieve;  he was allowed to use the power only to prevent a majority of the pardons board from granting pardon where the governor disagreed. He said in order for the governor to relieve an inmate of his sentence, he had to be part of the majority of the board.  Justice Steffan reminded the committee there were no expenses added to the state the way the board was set up currently.  The justices already had their offices, they added no secretarial staff and did not have to travel.  He added he could not think of one reason why the passing of this resolution would make sense.

 

Mr. Toomin asked Justice Springer how many pardons the governor had brought to the board in the last five years.

 

Justice Springer did not know about the statistics, but they usually had between ten and fifteen applications each of the biennial sessions, most of which were denied.

 

Justice Stephen confirmed most of the applications were denied.

 

Mr. Petrak asked about the pending legislation which allowed  those who were incarcerated with a terminal illness to be pardoned.  He wondered how the governor would be involved.

 

Justice Stephen explained if there was an emergency, the board called a special session.  If there were inmates with a dangerous history, the board made certain they were not ambulatory. 

 

Justice Springer added inmates were turned down who were judged by the board not to be totally incapacitated.  He emphasized a great deal of caution was exercised.

 

Ms. Judy Jacoboni, Lyon County Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, testified in opposition to the bill.  She explained in addition to stopping drunk driving, it was the mission of MADD to assist victims of DUI crime.  In that function, she said they attended hearings of the pardons board.  It was her organization's belief there should be an amendment providing for what types of people would replace the justices.  She pointed out the bill, as written, prevented other judges from serving on the pardons board.  Ms. Jacoboni said MADD was of the opinion the justices did an excellent job at the pardons board hearings, were the best able to hear those kinds of arguments, and were not emotionally impeded because they were used to hearing people ask for extraordinary help.  MADD, she claimed, was also of the belief elected officials had more accountability than appointed officials.  She explained the bill as written considered cases regarding health, restoration of rights and hard-core criminal cases where there were life sentences.  She said Madd was very concerned over a fast-track bill which was currently on the Chief Clerk's desk in the Assembly.  This bill, she stated, allowed the pardons board to fast-track the health hearings and claimed there were several compelling reasons not to allow the bill to go forward out of the committee.

 

Ms. Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, confirmed Ms. Jacoboni's testimony, and stated her organization was very much opposed to the bill and recommended the composition of the board be left as it was.

 

Ms. Smith asked who from the Senate side testified in favor of the bill.

 

Ms. Jacoboni responded Justice Rose represented himself and Justice Young, and testified in favor of the bill.  Justice Steffen sent a letter in opposition.

 

Mr. Anderson claimed when the bill was heard in the 66th session, one of the considerations was the pay differentiation which took place in the supreme court.  He asked Justices Steffen and Springer if left in place, would the public have a clear picture of what a justice of the supreme court actually made for serving his term.  He wondered if the justices were paid an additional sum for service on the pardons board over and above their salary for serving on the supreme court.

 

Justice Steffen responded some were paid an additional sum to serve on the board, but some were not. 

 

Mr. Michael Pescetta, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, testified in opposition to SJR-2 of the 66th session and emphasized the major problem they saw with the resolution as written was it simply removed the justices from the pardons board and did not provide a mechanism for getting cases heard by the board.  It also created greater difficulty in getting a hearing before the pardons board, he contended.  It was not a case of obtaining clemency or not, but a case of whether a person could plead his case before the pardons board.  He reported they viewed any impediment to individuals getting in front of the board as a problem.  This measure, he explained, would leave no mechanism between now and at least until the 1995 session for getting a hearing before the pardons board.  Up until now, Mr. Pescetta said, it was possible to approach a justice of the supreme court familiar with the case and to put it on the agenda. (Exhibit C)

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on SJR-2 of the 66th session.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SJR-2 OF THE 66TH SESSION.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Discussion on SJR-2 was called for.

Mr. Anderson stated he felt this particular legislation should be placed before the people, as he felt they needed to know how much a judge actually received for serving on the board.  There were other pieces of legislation that would also be in front of them, and the question was not whether they should or should not sit on the pardons board, but how much a justice's salary truly was hidden from the public.  Mr. Anderson emphasized he was not unhappy about justices serving on the parole board; however he understood their court load was the heaviest in the United States, according to earlier testimony in this session, and therefore he believed they should be freed for their primary responsibilities.

 

Mr. Gibbons spoke in support of the motion.  He felt the supreme court justices brought a great deal of expertise to the pardons boards, which was necessary when dealing with clemency issues and other matters the prisoners brought to the hearings.  Secondly, he stated there was no real conflict of interest since the justices were not deciding on the issue of determination of the legality of the sentence.  They were looking more toward whether or not the prisoner met the standards for granting clemency or pardon from the crime.  He believed since judges and supreme court justices were elected by the people, they had a greater responsibility of determination of fairness, inasmuch as they did have to answer to the public afterwards.  If the legislature removed these justices from the pardons board, during this term there would be no provision by which a pardon could be brought. 

 

      THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SJR-2 OF THE 66TH SESSION PASSED.  (ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, HALLER, PETRAK, REGAN, SCHNEIDER AND TOOMIN VOTED IN FAVOR; ANDERSON, PORTER, SCHERER, SMITH AND SADER VOTED IN OPPOSITION; CARPENTER ABSTAINED; BONAVENTURA ABSENT) 

 

Assemblyman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 268.

 

SENATE BILL NO. 268                       Authorizes limited-liability company to hold license to engage in gaming.  (BDR 41-1061)

 

Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board, testified in favor of S.B. 268 and introduced Mark Clayton, head of the board's corporate securities division.  Mr. Bible reminded the committee last session the legislature authorized limited liability companies as a form of business organization authorized to do business in the state of Nevada.  S.B. 268 incorporated that form of business structure into the gaming statutes, he explained, and allowed limited liability companies to engage in gaming. 

 

Mr. Mark Clayton, State Gaming Control Board, Corporate Securities Division, gave a brief overview of limited liability companies, a new business entity which was treated under the federal tax law as a partnership and thus allowed its owners to pass through taxation, at the same time retaining a limited liability feature of a corporation.  This bill proposed to allow a limited liability company to be licensed under NRS, Chapter 463.  Sections 2 through 5 were mostly definitional and unique to terminology that existed for limited liability companies.  They complied with NRS, Chapter 86.  Section 6 clarified safe policy with respect to the issuance of state gaming licenses.  Section 7 detailed the compliance and informational requirements of a limited liability company in order that they could be licensed.  Section 8 was technical to the articles of an organization and required gaming to be listed as one of its purposes.  Section 9 addressed the transfer of interest in a limited liability company and what procedures were available to the gaming commission if a member was found to be unsuitable to hold an interest in a limited liability company.  Section 10 provided what information a limited liability company must supply to the gaming control board.  Section 11 detailed licensing of members and managers of a limited liability company, as well as revocation of such licenses.  Section 12 required limited liability companies to report changes in key executives and keep the gaming control board current with certain information, such as annual profit and loss statements and balance sheets.  Section 13 provided the procedures in the case where a manager or employee was not suitable or had his license revolked, the limited liability company had to terminate his employment with the individual.  The last two sections  conformed changes to NRS, Chapter 86.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Clayton who had requested the bill.

 

Mr. Clayton responded it came through the request of various clients in general when he was with the firm of Vargas and Bartlett.  Several of them had raised the issue if they could use the new business structure in the gaming context.  He explained it was the opinion of the gaming control board without specific statutory authority, it would be an impediment to the licensing of the entity.  He added it came through the request of several clients in general.  He explained the bill allowed additional tax planning and business flexibility that a partnership in a corporation did not afford an individual.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Bible for his opinion of the bill.

 

Mr. Bible thought it was a good bill and provided some increased flexibility in the gaming code for these types of business organizations.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK MOVED DO PASS S.B. 268

     

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 268 and opened the hearing on S.B. 421.

 

SENATE BILL 421               Makes various changes relating to smoking of tobacco in public areas.  (BDR 15-1683)

 

Assemblyman Price announced there were two non-controversial amendments he wanted to propose on this bill.  He had contacted all the tobacco lobbyists, as well as Chairman Sader, who had no objection.  He reported one amendment cleared up language regarding leasing of a public building.  The other amendment, which he had not spoken with the chairman about, was requested by the assistant health officer in Clark County, who asked him to consider incorporating language which would make stores, under 5,000 square feet, entirely non-smoking.  Mr. Price advised Kim Morgan was currently working on the amendment.

 

Assemblyman McGaughey reported he was invited to the Clark County District Board of Health meeting.  At that time, he related, they wanted to prohibit smoking in grocery stores under 5,000 square feet.

 

Mr. Toomin asked Mr. McGaughey if a poll had been taken of the business owners to see how they felt about the matter.  He thought this possibly would create a problem with the store owner's ability to make a living, as smokers might not go into his store. 

 

Mr. McGaughey responded he did not know if a poll had been taken but pointed out it was currently a law that smoking was not allowed in grocery stores.  He added as it applied to convenience stores today, the only area allowed for smoking in the store was at the slot machines.  The clerks were not allowed to smoke in the public areas of the store.  He stated the clerks had been complaining to the Health Department about the passive smoke they had to endure because of the slot machines, which were always near the check stands.

 

Mr. Schneider wanted to confirm the bill would be amended to place a smoking ban on all convenience stores under 5,000 square feet, with the exception of designated employee areas.

 

Mr. Larry Matheis and Marsha Berkbigler, Nevada State Medical Association, testified in favor of S.B. 421.  Mr. Matheis reported when S.B. 421 originally was heard in the Senate, there were three hours of testimony, and many health organizations spoke in its favor.  He declared it was important a clear public policy statement was made.   He explained S.B. 421 tried to deal with some pieces of the problem directly.  One of those pieces was availability of tobacco products to youngsters, he declared.  He pointed out the public had to recognize the sophisticated marketing attempts made to induce a new generation to make the choice to use tobacco products.  The first reprint of S.B. 421 was the result of compromises on the part of the groups which wanted to move Nevada policy in a direction to discourage tobacco use and the various industries which would be adversely affected.  Mr. Matheis said it addressed the issues of the availability of vending machines in areas where minors were permitted and increased the enforcement of Nevada's laws.  Mr. Matheis reported the federal government could take a lot of money away from Nevada if steps were not taken to enforce these laws.  He stated S.B. 421 clarified the role of the health authorities, did not impose a particular burden on policy and public safety people, but also established a fund administered by the superintendent of public instruction to try to get some health education aimed at youngsters.  (Exhibit D)

 

Ms. Berkbigler reviewed minor changes to the bill.  She reported her organization's only concern with any amendments would be the bill would get lost at this late date in the session. 

 

Mr. Gibbons referred to NRS, Section 4.2.(a), which stated, "Collect the civil penalty, and may commence a civil proceeding for that purpose;...".  He stated he was uncertain as to whether notice and opportunity to be heard came before the collection of the civil penalty provisions, and he said the language on line 13 was unclear to him.  It seemed to him the health authorities had the opportunity to collect a civil penalty and then commence civil proceedings afterward and wondered if that was the intent of the bill.

 

Chairman Sader attempted to clarify Subsection (a) and stated he thought it was to make clear the health authority had the ability to enforce.

 

Ms. Liz Breshears, Chief of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, testified in favor of S.B. 421.  She pointed out Section 2, subsection 3, as amended, was critical to alcohol and drug treatment and prevention programming in the state.  She explained that section provided for who and what statutes enforced.  She stated her remarks were particularly targeted to enforcement of NRS 202.2493, "Sale of Cigarettes or Tobacco to Minors," which was added.  The reason this was critical to alcohol and drug abuse programming, she claimed, was last year federal legislation was revised.  Ms. Breshears referred to Public Law 102-321 (Exhibit E) which outlined three major provisions and three requirements. 

 

Ms. Dorothy North, Chairman of the Drug Commission, testified in support of S.B. 421 for the same reasons mentioned by Ms. Breshears.  She stated they were quite concerned about anything which cut further into Nevada's ability to provide treatment to persons with alcohol and drug problems.  Having run treatment centers for almost twenty years, Ms. North advised one of the hardest things to give up was nicotine.  She urged the committee to pass this bill.

 

Ms. Barbara Segaske, a 7-Eleven convenience store owner, stated she wanted to clarify in their convenience store the slot machines were not by the registers and people were allowed to smoke at the machines.  She contended if customers were not allowed to smoke at the slot machines, their business would be harmed.  She stated if there were other ways to filter the air in those areas, they would be happy to look at those remedies.  With respect to selling cigarettes to minors, Ms. Segaske claimed the Southland Corporation, who owned 7-Eleven stores, was very strict about enforcing the rule of not selling to minors. 

 

Mr. Sam McMullen, representing Philip Morris USA, stressed the health education funds referenced in line 16 would be directed to health education for minors and wanted to make certain that was clarified.  It was his understanding the Senate was going to specify the fund, but he felt it should be further clarified any dollars raised went to the education of minors.  He understood there was also a second amendment which affected Section 5, lines 14 through 20, and fundamentally gave health authorities enforcement jurisdiction in the first instance with assistance by police officers.  He wanted to make it clear for the record his organization's understanding was these funds were not to be utilized for influencing public or government policy with respect to use of tobacco, and they were to be consumer education dollars.  He wanted to make certain that was clear in the bill.

 

Chairman Sader closed the hearing on S.B. 421 and called for a vote on each of the proposed amendments.

 

PRICE AMENDMENT

 

      QUESTION:  SHOULD THE PRICE AMENDMENT BE INCLUDED IN S.B. 421?

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS, HALLER, SCHNEIDER AND SADER VOTED IN FAVOR; ANDERSON, PORTER, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GREGORY, PETRAK, REGAN, SCHERER AND SMITH VOTED IN OPPOSITION; BONVENTURA WAS ABSENT.

 

      FAILED.

 

MINORS' EDUCATION AMENDMENT - TO INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY THE FUND ESTABLISHED WILL BE USED FOR EDUCATION OF MINORS.

 

      QUESTION:  SHOULD THE MINORS' EDUCATION AMENDMENT BE INCLUDED IN S.B. 421?

 

      PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

SMOKING POLICE AMENDMENT - MAKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS AMENDMENT PRIMARY WITH THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND SECONDARY WITH THE POLICE.

     

      QUESTION: SHOULD THE AMENDMENT BE INCLUDED IN S.B. 461?

     

      ASSEMBLYMEN SCHERER, COLLINS, GREGORY AND PORTER VOTED IN FAVOR; ANDERSON, CARPENTER, PETRAK, REGAN, SMITH, GIBBONS, HALLER, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED IN OPPOSITION; BONAVENTURA WAS ABSENT.

     

      FAILED

     

MC GAUGHEY AMENDMENT - TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN GROCERY STORES     UNDER 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

           

      QUESTION: SHOULD AMENDMENT BE INCLUDED IN S.B. 461?

           

      ASSEMBLYMEN HALLER AND SADER VOTED IN FAVOR; ANDERSON, PORTER, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, PETRAK, REGAN, SCHERER, SMITH AND TOOMIN VOTED IN OPPOSITION;  BONAVENTURA WAS ABSENT.

 

      FAILED

 

     

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 421,

      WITH THE ONLY AMENDMENT BEING THE CHANGE TO SPECIFY THE   EDUCATION FUND WILL BE USED FOR EDUCATION OF MINORS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER AND COLLINS VOTED IN OPPOSITION.   

 

Mr. Sader opened testimony on BDR S-2160 and announced he had passed out to the committee a request for introduction of a bill, explaining it was a technical bill drafter's rider bill to correct some language problems.  Mr. Malkiewich was called upon to explain the BDR. 

 

Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, stated he would quickly review the sections of S-2160.  He explained as little problems with bills were discovered during the session, the Legislative Counsel Bureau made note of them and tried to fix a few of them before the end of session.  (Exhibit F)

 

Mr. Sader called Mr. Malkiewich's attention to a typographical error in Section 1, subsection 2, where it read, "Section 3 of this act becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 1991."  He pointed out it should read, "1993".

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-2160, REFLECTING THE CORRECTION IN DATE TO 1993.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS ABSTAINED)

 

Chairman Sader closed the hearing on S-2160 and opening hearing on S.B. 540. 

 

SENATE BILL 540               Provides for use of unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury.  (BDR 4-1862)

 

Ms. Patricia Justice, representing Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, testified in opposition to S.B. 540.  She stated her problem was with Section 2, subsection 1, "Knowingly makes a false statement...", and called attention to Chapter 199 of the Nevada Code, which did not have a requirement of "knowingly."  She stated this made two categories;  knowingly and willfully.  Ms. Justice explained by making these two statements, it appeared the legislature thought there was a difference.

 

Mr. Gibbons said as he looked at line 24, "knowingly" referred to knowing the issue or statement was material to the issue to which the person was testifying.  Line 26, he stated, had no reference to the materiality of the statement, just whether or not one was willfully making a statement, not knowing if it was true or not.  There was a difference, he contended, in the two types of statements.

 

Ms. Justice maintained the statute as amended did not have the two categories for statements made before a notary public, "willfully" and "knowingly".  By having it that way, she maintained, and not having it in Chapter 199 to begin with, she thought there was a problem.

 

Chairman Sader introduced Senator Mark James.

 

Senator James advised the bill came from an idea they had in committee earlier in the year, which allowed declaration without penalty of perjury to take the place of a sworn affidavit under certain other circumstances.  There was a federal law, he claimed, which allowed in any federal case where something was required to be submitted under sworn declaration to make the declaration under penalty of perjury and avoid the necessity of a notarized statement, which had the same force and effect.  He explained they were attempting to adopt a similar provision for Nevada.  Other situations where witnessed statements or notary statements were required, the law stayed the same.  This facilitated people submitting documents to the court and proved their statements without having to have a sworn affidavit or a notary which facilitated the process.  If there was a way it could be brought into line with the perjury statute, he stated he would have no objection. 

 

Mr. Sader asked Ms. Justice for the perjury statute number she was referencing.

 

Ms. Justice referred to NRS 199.120, and in order to bring the two laws together, she recommended the first four words of line 24 be changed to say, "States willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;..". 

 

Senator James stated he had no objection to that change.

 

Chairman Sader closed the hearing on S.B. 540.  

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MS. JUSTICE AND CONCURRED IN BY SENATOR JAMES.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.    

 

 

A.B. 389 - SENATE AMENDMENT 1017

 

Chairman Sader asked the committee to consider the Senate's amendment to A.B. 389 and explained this was mainly a conflict amendment (Exhibit G).  He noted the Senate had deleted Section 1 from the Assembly's version but announced his feeling was this was a change without substance. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT 1017 TO A.B. 389.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED.

 

A.B. 499 - SENATE AMENDMENT 1087

 

Chairman Sader reported the amendment included a substantive change in the threshold made by Senate Transportation from 0.15 to 0.18 (Exhibit H).   He explained Mrs. Dorothy North, from the Drug Commission, agreed to the change because the bill was not going to pass without it.  Mr. Sader further clarified the bill at least set up the mandatory drug evaluation program.

 

Mrs. Dorothy North was called upon to state if she agreed or disagreed with Mr. Sader's explanation.  She said after the testimony was heard on the Senate side, Senator O'Donnell asked her and Roxanne Clark Murphy from the Southern Nevada DUI Assessment Center to go to Judge Willis, President of the Judges' Association and see what could be done to make a compromise on the bill.  Judge Willis originally started with 0.20, and it was worked down to 0.18 on the first DUI.  All second DUI's would have an assessment, she advised.  Judge Willis' rationale, Mrs. North explained, was the fact he was concerned the offenders had to make two appearances in court, which would back up the court system.

 

Mr. Sader advised the committee it was his understanding Senator O'Donnell told Mrs. North unless she obtained Judge Willis' concurrence, she would have trouble processing the bill through his committee.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT 1087 TO A.B. 499.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Sader announced he had passed to each of the committee members copies of Senate amendments to be considered for concurrence.

 

A.B. 611 - SENATE AMENDMENT 928  (Exhibit I)

 

Chairman Sader pointed out this bill was requested by the Gaming Association on pari-mutuel wagering.  The amendment, he explained, added a reference to NRS chapter 463.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT 928 TO A.B. 611.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A.B. 481 - SENATE AMENDMENT 921  (Exhibit J)

 

Chairman Sader explained this bill was proposed by engineers, land surveyors, etc. to clarify the timing of a mechanic's lien.

The amendment, he added, provided an additional clarification.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT 921.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

A.B. 244 - SENATE AMENDMENT 962  (Exhibit K)

 

Chairman Sader stated this was Assemblyman Giunchigliani's bill relating to rape shield.  He explained Ms. Giunchigliani had requested the committee not concur with the Senate's proposed amendment.  He pointed out there were some serious problems raised with the amendment, mainly lines 18 through 20 were deleted which contained the list of items to be held confidential.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED NOT TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENT 962.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

S.B. 6 - RECONSIDER

 

Chairman Sader reminded the committee S.B. 6 had been passed with an agreed-upon amendment, was currently with the bill drafter for amendment, however had not as yet gone to the floor.  Although it was thought all parties agreed to the amendment,  Captain Oaks now said he had a problem with the amendment. 

Captain Randy Oaks, representing Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, explained S.B. 6 was introduced by Metro because of overcrowding in their jail, to try to get rid of inmates who were parole and probation violators and should have been in the custody of the state.  There were statutory provisions, he said, which stated Parole and Probation had a certain amount of time in which to hold a hearing and then, subsequent to that hearing, a certain amount of days to decide the disposition of the prisoner.  S.B. 6, when it went through Senate Judiciary, had in it a mechanism by which Metro would bill the state.  Once the state went beyond the statutory provisions, they were charged for each day the inmate remained incarcerated in Metro's facility.  Captain Oaks said it seemed the bill would not get out of Senate Finance in that form, so they amended S.B. 6 to take out the fiscal note so no one would be charged.  All they asked for, he stated, was when the state's time had run out to enact disposition of the prisoner, Metro was to have the ability to release the prisoner.  He stated he was not at the hearing, but Captain Barker, Mr. Bayer and others were there.  At that time, Captain Oaks advised, everybody left with the understanding that the second reprint of SB-6 was the amendment agreed upon by all.  He stated it came as news to him when Captain Barker told him on Saturday, moments before the hearing here in this committee, Mr. Bayer had approached him and told him it was not satisfactory and he had other amendments.  Captain Barker expressed to him he did not know what else to do but get something out of the bill, and he concurred with that.  The amendment as Captain Oaks understood it took the "teeth" out of the bill, as there was still not a definite time period when Parole and Probation had to have the hearing.  There was only a time period after they had the hearing when they could release the prisoner.  Captain Oaks stated his objective was to be able to release the prisoner once the state went beyond their statutory limitations.

 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Bayer if he agreed with what Captain Oaks wanted to do. 

 

Mr. Bayer testified he did not agree and preferred they leave the law as it existed.  He said the way it was written now, it was not functional.  For the record, Mr. Bayer said he did not approach Mr. Barker; Mr. Barker approached him and asked what kind of amendments he could come up with.

 

Mr. Sader advised as this bill had been passed by the committee previously, it would now take a vote of two-thirds to pass.

 

Mr. Porter requested clarification as to what the committee did.

 

Mr. Sader stated the committee amended and do passed S.B. 6.  The amendment was two-fold, he advised.  In Section 1, Subsection 1. (a), line 10, instead of saying, "Fifteen days after notice from the sheriff...", it would read something to the effect, "Fifteen days after the preliminary inquiry hearing...".  The committee deleted Section 3, which meant going back to the current language, "...as promptly as convenient...".

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 6.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON AND COLLINS OPPOSED)

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 6.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Amendment to be: Line 10, page 1 of the Second Reprint to read, "Fifteen days after the preliminary inquiry hearing."  Section 3, line 20, page 2 to read "fifteen days" instead of "ten days".     

 

      MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS OPPOSED)

 

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Sader adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

 

                                          RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 

                                         

                                                                

                                          Barbara D. Tonge

                                          Committee Secretary

                                         

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

June 28, 1993

Page: 1