MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
March 9, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 4:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 9, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus*
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler*
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Maddie Fischer, Primary Secretary
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Thom Reilly, Deputy Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Family Support Services
Stephen D. Hartman, Lobbyist, Representing American Express
Hugh Perkins, Washoe County Employees Association
David Sarnowski, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General
Senator James announced the meeting was a scheduled work session, to discuss those bills set forth on Exhibit A, and it was not the intention of the chairman to allow testimony on the legislation. However, Senator James added, there was to be an exception in that Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, had been asked to offer explanations regarding amendments to two of the bills to be discussed. He also explained there were several persons who missed notices of hearing on other bills, and he would allow their brief testimony.
* Committee member only present for a portion of the meeting. This is noted in the body of the minutes.
SENATE BILL 15: Requires special verdict in action in which state or its political subdivision is sole named defendant.
Senator James reminded the committee S.B. 15 had been discussed previously, had moved out of the committee on a vote to Do Pass, and was later moved to reconsider the vote, on the request of the attorney general's office. The chairman indicated he had asked legislative counsel to discuss amendments to the bill.
Mr. Malkiewich discussed Amendment 49 to S.B. 15.. He said the problem with the initial bill was one of drafting and referred to language regarding a state or political subdivision being a sole named defendant in a tort action. Mr. Malkiewich stated the language set forth was "logically inconsistent," since if a state or political subdivision were a sole named defendant, there would be "no individual defendants." He stated the amendment was not substantive, but merely cleaned up the drafting problem.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 15.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES VOTED NO. SENATORS TITUS AND ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 73: Authorizes acceptance of gifts and grants for production of booklet on adoption.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 73.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
* * * * *
* Senator Adler entered the room at 4:45 p.m.
SENATE BILL 75: Requires division of child and family services of department of human resources to take certain actions if powers and duties relating to investigation of prospective adoptive home are assigned to division.
Senator James indicated there was earlier discussion regarding language on lines 14 and 15 of the bill, pertaining to the investigative report. He said testimony indicated it would be good policy to allow the prospective adoptive parents to not only have an opportunity to review the report, but also to respond to it if they wished. The chairman stated an amendment to the bill would delete lines 15 and 16 and add language making that provision.
Thom Reilly, Deputy Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Family Support Services, asked to speak regarding amendments to S.B. 75. Mr. Reilly addressed a concern regarding possible confusion between the investigative report, referred to as a "home study," and a confidential report which was submitted to the court. He suggested the following language:
The adoptive parent has an opportunity to review and respond to the investigation of such determination with the division before the issuance of the results of the investigation...the identity of those persons who are interviewed or submit information concerning the investigation must remain confidential.
Mr. Reilly stated there was a confidential report to the court which the attorneys for the prospective parents are not even allowed to see. He said those parents could review the report of the home study. Mr. Reilly indicated the bill should be clarified regarding the type of report mentioned.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 75.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
* Senator Titus entered the room at 5:15 p.m.
SENATE BILL 77: Permits natural and adoptive parents to choose whether and how much information to exchange.
ASSEMBLY BILL 45:Revises provision concerning extent of knowledge natural parents may obtain concerning prospective adoptive parents.
Senator James pointed out S.B. 77 and A.B. 45 dealt with an identical section of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS.) He said the sponsors of the legislation had requested the passage of S.B. 77 only, since the language was more specific than that in A.B. 45.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 77.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 45.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 78: Prohibits persons and organizations not licensed to place children for adoption from advertising certain services relating to adoption of children.
Senator James stated there were extensive questions posed regarding the extent of the intent of the statute, together with those relating to constitutional limitations regarding interstate commerce and the free speech issue. Mr. Malkiewich addressed the issue of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution relating to free speech. He said there was a decision in a Florida case in 1981 which discussed a law in that state which raised many of the same issues raised in connection with S.B. 78.. (Dept. of HRS v. Friends of Children, 653 F.Supp. 1221 (N.D. Fla.1986). He said the first issue was whether or not the bill addresses "commercial speech" and said the Florida case held that it was. Mr. Malkiewich stated if that is the case, "the standards for legislation are not quite as stringent as for pure, noncommercial speech." He added one of the "threshold tests" is whether the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. Mr. Malkiewich stated if the speech concerns unlawful activity or is misleading, "it can be prohibited." He advised the first recommendation would be to "restrict the prohibited advertisement to match the prohibited activity." Mr. Malkiewich said this would put the legislation on "much sounder footing." He stressed if the bill restricted speech which was not prohibited and the speech was not misleading, "...then you will get into either commercial or noncommercial speech tests which are going to be much more difficult to satisfy."
Senator James asked if the holding of a license would make a difference and if it "would not offend the commercial speech analysis" if you had a license. Mr. Malkiewich stated the problem was "there was not a match between what you can do without a license and what you can advertise without a license." He said if that match were present, Senator James would be correct. Mr. Malkiewich added there was an additional concern, that being the issue of "extraterritorial effect...the effect of this on lawful activities conducted in some other state where someone may be licensed." He referred to the "commerce clause and stated:
To determine the constitutionality of a statute under the commerce clause, there are two different tests employed... one in which the 'Pike test' is applied. (Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 90 S.Ct. 844 (1970)...where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate legitimate interests ...that test is not nearly as stringent as the test when you have a discriminatory statute.
Mr. Malkiewich referred again to the Florida case and said it pointed out "...this [referring to S.B. 78] is a discriminatory statute because it requires licensing by the Welfare Division of the State of Nevada. He continued:
An operation in California could be licensed by the California appropriate licensing authority, it could be advertising in California...the advertisement comes into the State of Nevada...this person is engaged in a lawful activity in California...but because they are not licensed in Nevada, we are treating that California advertisement differently...than we treat licensing by Nevada.
Mr. Malkiewich said it was a problem which while difficult to meet, could be addressed in the legislation. He said with respect to the advertising portion the bill could indicate "...you could not advertise in this state unless you were either licensed by the welfare division or licensed in the state in which you do business." Senator James asked if the Pike case was one which addressed licensing, and Mr. Malkiewich said it was not. Senator James stated he felt "everybody should be licensed in Nevada...if you want to advertise in Nevada...this would not discriminate against anybody." Mr. Malkiewich referred to the Florida case and said:
In the Florida case...Georgia was the state in which the advertising originated. In Georgia, the activity was legal, and so long as they are conducting the activity in that state. ... Clearly, the agency that is licensed in California could not do adoptions in Nevada...but we are talking about stopping someone who is engaged in lawful business in the State of California...that is licensed in California...because they advertise on a television station that broadcasts into the State of Nevada...we are saying they are breaking the law. That is going to have an impact on commerce...there is not a problem with saying if you are going to do this in Nevada, you must be licensed by the Welfare Division...the problem is to say you cannot even advertise or put up something in a public medium that is going to get into Nevada....
Mr. Malkiewich stated they could "craft legislation to address the problem."
Senator Adler indicated there was an attorney general's opinion which says an attorney who sends videotapes, audiotapes, letters or other information describing prospecting adoptive parents to birth mothers in Nevada "without holding a valid license as a child placement agency" violates the statute. Mr. Malkiewich said he did not know if this issue was raised in the Florida case. He added there were restrictions on adoption advertising in 15 states and Nevada was not unique in this type of legislation. Mr. Malkiewich stated:
We are not talking about something here that is unprecedented...I'm not saying that the statute is clearly unconstitutional...these are areas where issues are raised...issues of impacting speech...of impacting the commerce clause. Even if you are not under the Pike test ...if you are under the more strict scrutiny...you can say that the state's interest in protecting against black market adoptions is substantial enough to justify it if the statute is narrowly enough drawn. The statute may be defensible...there are ways you can draft the statute that would protect it even further from constitutional challenge, which I don't believe would substantially affect what the statute is attempting to achieve.
Mr. Malkiewich stated the final concern was "potential overbreadth...or vagueness." He said paragraph (b) of subsection 2 was "fairly broad" and the activities mentioned in that section "raise the issue I mentioned before...these activities are not prohibited." He said the legislation would prohibit advertising activities and did not prohibit counseling with respect to adoption. Mr. Malkiewich stated the language needed to be "tighter" and should specify the particular service is prohibited without a license, "...and therefore you cannot advertise this particular service without a license." He said the Florida case had a problem with language which said "place or placement was unconstitutionally made," which would relate more to persons who were engaged in adoption in the private and public sector, who have a "definite understanding of what place or placement means." Legislative counsel indicated a Nevada court might have a problem with paragraph (b), in that they would not be sure what the legislation was trying to prohibit. He added:
If paragraph (b) is pinned down to the particular activities you mean to prohibit...if the entire statute prohibits conducting the activity that you are also prohibiting...advertising...and if some account is taken for lawful activity conducted out of state, then I think the statute would be constitutional.
Senator Adler stated, "If we pass this, I think we will encourage out-of-state adoptions, which is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do here." He said the penalties would be increased with reference to "local people and local attorneys...thereby shoving more kids out of the state, when what they are trying to do is keep the kids in the state for adoption." Senator Adler said he believed they were amending the wrong statute. He referred to NRS 127.285, which references the limitation of participation of attorneys in adoption proceedings. He said that statute also had many penalties for Nevada attorneys, "...which again shoves the adoptions over to the California attorneys." Senator Adler referred to advertisements in the telephone books in Nevada, which might be defined as "practicing law in Nevada." He said if those attorneys were unlicensed in Nevada, they should be subject to a gross misdemeanor. He said he believed passage of S.B. 78 would inadvertently make the problem worse.
Senator James reminded the committee of the Nevada State Press Association's testimony which indicated "they don't know what they can do and what they cannot do in terms of advertising anything which has to do with adoption." He referred to the issues addressed by Mr. Malkiewich and Senator Adler and indicated the matter should be re-referred to the subcommittee originally appointed to study the bill, chaired by Senator Adler. Senator James asked Senator Adler to attempt to make the changes, with assistance of legislative counsel.
Senator Adler asked Mr. Malkiewich, with reference to NRS 127.285, "...whether we can define that as doing business in Nevada...for an out-of-state attorney to advertise...then, if they are unlicensed, if we can have a criminal penalty associated with that." Mr. Malkiewich stated his concerns:
To the extent that a California attorney is engaged in lawful activity in California, we are going to have some problems with regulating...the second problem we have is that the Nevada Supreme Court is going to regulate the practice of law in the state. If we don't tie it into licensing as this bill does...if we don't say that those services require licensing either here or in the other state to allow advertisements in this state...we are interfering with the judicial branch. We can't cast it in the terms of practicing law so much as doing some business we can regulate.
Mr. Malkiewich stated he would be happy to work with the subcommittee, consisting of Senators Adler, Jacobsen and Shaffer. He said he believed it would be a simple amendment to add a provision which would punish the person who places the advertisement, not the newspaper, television or radio station which carries it.
There was no further discussion regarding S.B. 78.
SENATE BILL 79: Eliminates requirement that adoptive parents of child with special needs have limited financial resources to receive financial assistance.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 79.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 80: Allows licensed child-placing agency to investigate home where child is to be placed for adoption.
Senator Smith raised a question regarding what type of license would be required. Thom Reilly, Deputy Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Family Support Services, addressed the question. He said the family services division is the licensing agency, so an entity would petition that division for licensing. He said that requesting entity would have to meet strict established criteria.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 80.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 226: Expands provision concerning circumstances under which state may take unclaimed property held by intermediary in another state.
Senator James explained the bill:
When securities are issued...and there are dividend payments which are lost in the system for one reason or the other, Nevada wants to assert its dominion over those when they become abandoned...there is a large court case about who is entitled to these...Nevada, as the place of the residence of the issuer of such securities, wants to make sure they can assert their rights to those interstate. This clarifies existing law to do that.
Senator Adler referred to the language in section 2(c) of the bill, which states, "...or was otherwise located in the state at the time the property was issued...," and asked if that language referred to stocks and bonds, and if it was commonly in use.
Stephen Hartman, representing American Express, approached the committee. He indicated he had been requested to appear with respect to the language referred to by Senator Adler. Mr. Hartman indicated American Express had initiated similar legislation many years ago in Nevada. He said he believed the language of the bill "would include more than just securities." Mr. Hartman stated he thought it would include "traveler's checks, money orders and all other abandoned property." He said the issue was to have uniformity among the states. Mr. Hartman indicated if the intent of the bill was limited to just securities, "...it was clearly not a problem," but if it went beyond that, it was. Mr. Hartman asked if the term "...located in..." meant "legally doing business as...?" He said if the language referred to "doing business in the state" it would have a different meaning than stating the instrument was "physically located" in the state. Senator James answered he believed the wording modified "entity or organization," which would imply "doing business in the state." Mr. Hartman requested the language so specify.
Senator James asked Mr. Hartman to discuss the legislation with those persons who originally testified on the bill, Mr. Doug Walther and James Start. The chairman indicated the bill would be held for action on a later date.
ASSEMBLY BILL 44:Authorizes board of county commissioners in certain counties to appoint county clerk to act as commissioner of civil marriages.
Senator James stated he would allow brief testimony on the bill. Mr. Hugh Perkins, Business Manager, Washoe County Employees Association, testified regarding his concerns about the legislation. He said he felt "quite a number of people" would be affected by passage of A.B. 44, in terms of job losses or layoffs. Mr. Perkins stated it was his understanding "the county has already spread the rumor that they are going to do away with the current marriage commissioner's job...it would affect 16 of the 23 people in the clerk's office." He said the "clerk's office entity" was one of the few revenue producing entities in the county. Mr. Perkins expressed concern over the fact the Washoe County Recorder is president and treasurer of a wedding chapel within one block of the courthouse. He said it was his understanding Nevada wedding chapels were not controlled in terms of what could be charged for a service, whereas the county was controlled. Mr. Perkins said he believed the service now provided by the clerk's office being able to perform civil ceremonies was a good benefit for the City of Reno. He concluded, "If they do away with this...it is my understanding it will produce a tremendous amount of revenue for the wedding chapel that is immediately across the street."
Senator James reiterated the office of the marriage commissioner would not be eliminated by passage of S.B. 44, and specified the county would only be given the ability to make the decision to do so, rather than being statutorily mandated to maintain the office. Mr. Perkins stated he felt the office was "all but closed down" at this time and the employees had been notified of a possible loss of their jobs. He also repeated his concern regarding the potential conflict of interest "between the current county recorder and the entity he maintains within a block of the courthouse." Senator James pointed out the county recorder would have no part of the decision to close the office of the marriage commissioner and Mr. Perkins agreed. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Perkins to bring documentation regarding his allegations regarding the potential closing of the office, rather than submitting the committee to rumor or hearsay.
Senator James asked the committee to move the bill at this time.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 44.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 54:Requires written consent for release of certain information contained in state register for adoptions.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 54.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 79:Restricts use of videotaped deposition at criminal trial.
Senator James reminded the committee of the hearing in Las Vegas regarding the legislation and the questions which arose regarding "whether it did enough with the right things." The chairman said the bill dealt with a situation when a child was a witness in a sexual abuse case. He said it was traumatic for a child to testify in court, but without that testimony the defendant could not confront his or her accuser. Senator James indicated several United States Supreme Court decisions have ruled certain out-of-court statements by children, which were used as a basis for conviction, to be unconstitutional. He said the attorney general's office in Nevada was now attempting to set forth a procedure by which a court can make certain findings as constitutional predicates, in order to allow testimony to be taken out-of-court. However, the chairman pointed out, none of the United States Supreme Court decisions dealt with videotaped depositions. He said one case involved the hearsay testimony of a doctor and in one case, a screen was placed in the courtroom between the victim and the perpetrator.
Senator James asked Mr. David F. Sarnowski, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, to address the matter of possible amendments to the legislation regarding the following issue:
As this bill reads...'in the case of a victim of sexual abuse...before the deposition is taken, a hearing is held ...[before a district judge,] who finds the three predicates ...it is necessary to protect the welfare of the child and would inflict the trauma on the child of more than a minimal degree....' If that finding under the statute is made before the deposition is taken, but the trial doesn't take place until a year or six months from now, and the court doesn't make another finding of those constitutional predicates, you are going to have the same problem we have now.
Mr. Sarnowski said the state would not oppose an amendment if it were the committee's belief it would obviate problems in the future. He added:
Whether the amendment would take the form of an indication in the statute that a time certain would be a rebuttably presumptive time that the finding would remain, or require a finding contemporaneous or closely contemporaneous by the trial judge to the trial, as opposed to a finding by that trial judge well before the trial....
Mr. Sarnowski indicated the prosecutorial authorities in the state, through lobbyist Ben Graham, had asked that they be allowed to submit a proposed amendment. He indicated they would work cooperatively with the bill drafter in order to develop language which would be acceptable to everyone concerned. Senator James agreed it was a good idea. He agreed if the bill were passed as written, a court could say
the finding "was not made contemporaneous" and "throw the whole thing out."
Senator Adler asked Mr. Sarnowski if he was certain the bill would be constitutional in order to avoid the overturn of convictions in child abuse cases. Mr. Sarnowski answered, "Frankly, I wouldn't be sitting here proposing something that I thought stood a good chance of being found unconstitutional." He pointed out the courts are the "ultimate arbiters" however. He added, "Like all statutes, it would immediately subject to challenge and a wise prosecutor may selectively choose when to invoke the process in order to try to get a quick resolution of the question." Senator James added:
In the Maryland case...the procedure provided for a contemporaneous testimony...at trial, the victim went into the other room and testified and the finding was made contemporaneously. The hole that I see is that this is a deposition. When you take a deposition and have to wait six months before trial, the defendant is going to argue on appeal...there was no finding made that the victim was traumatized and could not have testified.
Mr. Sarnowski agreed there would be a "significant time lag" in many cases, and the ability of the victim-witness to testify may improve over that period of time. Senator Adler concluded:
If you are in a trial...new information arises during the trial, which would affect your ability to cross-examine the victim if you are the defense attorney...if this deposition is taken too early in the process and the prosecution wants to use it...and something did come up which you have discovered...you have allowed the defendant to use that in his or her cross-examination. They might be able to argue that their ability to confront the witness has been diminished...I can see where an argument could come up that it is not effective confrontation.
Senator James withheld action on the bill and indicated it would be considered by the committee at a later time.
ASSEMBLY BILL 86:Expands circumstances under which murderer is prohibited from succeeding to property of victim.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 86.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 146: Authorizes issuance of marriage licenses at one location outside county seat under certain circumstances.
Senator James indicated the only question remaining to discuss was whether any time limitation should be placed upon the legislation. Senator Titus stated she supported the addition of a "sunset" which would place the burden of proof on "those who are asking for a change." She said she believed with passage of the bill "...people might buy a few more marriage licenses here in Nevada instead of in California," but she added the "ripple effect" could be likened to that of a state lottery on the gaming industry. Senator Jacobsen stated his opposition to the addition of a sunset provision. Senator Adler stated his district, i.e., Carson City, would be the only one impacted negatively by passage of the bill. However, he said, "...the overall benefit outweighs any detriment to individual districts." Senator Adler stated the money added to the marriage license fee which benefits domestic violence justifies passage, "regardless of other considerations.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 146.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator James stated he was impressed by the fact there was little testimony against the bill and virtually none which indicated the need for a sunset provision. He expressed an obvious concern "...that we not harm the marriage business in Las Vegas" and said he did not believe passage of A.B. 146 would do that. Senator James indicated he would have liked to seen more statistics presented regarding the sales of licenses in Las Vegas "versus elsewhere," but that was not available. The chairman stated he supported passage of the measure without amendment.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21
OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Proposed to amend Nevada constitution to extend jurisdiction of commission on judicial discipline.
Senator James pointed out the bill would go to a vote of the people if passage was approved this session. He said the resolution would give power to the judicial commission "to fashion additional sanctions against judges...but the language doesn't necessarily say these have to become public." Senator Shaffer stated he believed the voters of the state should be given the opportunity to "decide one way or the
other." Senator James added, "I would hope this nuance would be given in the arguments for or against passage, so the people realize this."
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R 21 of the 66th Session.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James indicated there were several requests for bills to be drafted which he wished to discuss with the committee. He said the first was from Reverend John Reese, from the organization known as Nevadans Against Prostitution, who would like to have a bill drafted which would make it unlawful for anyone under the age of 21 to enter a brothel.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO NOT CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James moved to the issue of nonprofit corporations in Nevada and changes made to Chapters 78 and 82 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He said it was brought to his attention these changes "made it very unattractive for some big foundations and trusts to do business in Nevada, because they are treated more like profit corporations." The chairman stated he believed the issue had merit and the committee should request a bill be drafted.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James indicated the next request was made by Senator Adler for a bill which would amend the law to authorize a disability master of trust which would allow low and moderate income families to make a trust for a developmentally disabled child without substantial attorney's fees or minimum corpus requirements.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James referred to the "boot camp program" and indicated a Judge Jack Lehman had pointed out problems with that program. The chairman said the judge would "like to see women included." Senator James indicated preliminary discussion pointed out a substantial fiscal impact. He said the other change would relate to the time a person was in the system, which would not have a fiscal impact. Senator James stated he believed the second issue should be addressed, but not the first. Mr. Neilander indicated the current law provides for a 150-day boot camp but added 40 days are lost while being transported and admitted into the program. He said in essence participation in the program is limited to approximately 90 - 110 days. Senator Adler stated this time was devoted to going through a prison screening process, which included testing for AIDS, health and psychological examinations. He said the prisons do not like to "commingle" people who have been through the screening process with those who have not been through the reception center. Mr. Neilander indicated the request was to begin the time running when the person was already in the boot camp, rather than when the process was initiated.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE, TO INCLUDE A FISCAL NOTE.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James indicated he had a request for a bill draft which would change the uninsured motorist law with respect to the existing fine for not having insurance. He said the requester asked to raise the fine from $350 to between $1,000 and $2,000 in addition to impounding the vehicle involved. The chairman stated he believed the request was "harsh" and not necessarily the way to address the law. Senator Adler indicated there was a bill relating to this topic in the Senate Committee on Transportation and Senator James indicated he would pass the request to Senator O'Donnell, the chairman of that committee.
Senator James next discussed a request for possible revisions to Nevada's trademark law, since apparently Nevada is behind the rest of the country in this area. Senator Adler suggested passing the request to Mr. Sader, who usually requests uniform acts. Senator James indicated the reference was to a "model act" not a "uniform act." He indicated he would take the matter up with Mr. Sader, however, and discuss it with the committee at a later time.
Senator James indicated the last two requests dealt with Nevada's "long-arm" statute, NRS 14.065. First, he said, the "long-arm" statute enumerates certain acts which confer jurisdiction in Nevada and the analysis is bifurcated. The chairman indicated statutory "long-arm" jurisdiction had to be obtained, then tested under the constitution. He said most states have merged those two issues for the widest breadth of jurisdiction. Senator James stated he would like to have a law which adopted a "California-style long-arm statute."
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James said the second matter relating to the "long-arm" statute related to a motion to quash service. He said he would like to see the statute changed to a "motion to challenge personal jurisdiction, which can be combined with a request for other relief. Senator Adler suggested the request be combined with legislation regarding a "non-resident cost bond."
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Hofmann,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
March 9, 1993
Page 1