MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 6, 1995 The joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Bernie Anderson, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, February 6, 1995, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Mike McGinness Senator Dina Titus Senator O.C. Lee ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David Humke, Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Mike Schneider Mrs. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Carpenter (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Denise Miller, Senior Research Analyst Lori Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Joseph Oliver Maviglia, President, H & E Training Schools, Inc. Roxane Clark Murphy, Ph.D., DUI Evaluation Center, Las Vegas Municipal Court Cheryl Sonnenberg, Administrator, Health Services Division, Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 71 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of drug and alcohol abuse among criminal offenders. Mr. Anderson surrendered the chair to Senator James, in order to testify in front of the joint committees. Chairman James indicated Mr. Anderson would present an overview of Assembly Concurrent Resolution 71 of the Sixty-Seventh Session (A.C.R. 71 of the 67th Session). He introduced Denise Miller, Senior Research Analyst, who would join Mr. Anderson at the witness table. Mr. Anderson spoke from a prepared statement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. He specifically referenced a portion of that statement, at page 9 regarding structural accountability. Mr. Anderson said it was one of the most important areas and overwhelming theme of studies of successful programs. He said prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, treatment providers, police officers and prison officials all agree that treatment was important, and the best way to reduce the rate of recidivism. Mr. Anderson stated he hoped cooperation would be evident in the committees' efforts this session to curb crime and substance abuse. Following Mr. Anderson's presentation, Denise Miller, who served as staff to the A.C.R. 71 of the 67th Session subcommittee, provided to the joint committee members a copy of Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 95-9, entitled "Drug and Alcohol Abuse Among Criminal Offenders." The study is attached to the original of these minutes as Exhibit D, and housed in the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Library. Ms. Miller stated the study contained a detailed analysis of what the subcommittee studied, some of the problems they tried to examine and the solutions the subcommittee reached. She said the nature of her comments at this hearing would be divided into four parts: two disclaimers, one brief explanation and a discussion of the study. Ms. Miller said the first disclaimer was as follows: "As a member of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, I cannot promote or oppose any legislation, and therefore my comments should not be seen as advocating legislation." She said the second disclaimer had to do with the actual form of the bill drafts themselves. Ms. Miller stated a legislative subcommittee formed during the interim "takes an in-depth look at the issues the Legislature finds to be important." She said the subcommittee studies those issues, receives recommendations from concerned members of the public and state agencies, then develops ideas for legislation. Ms. Miller added the recommendations which are approved are submitted for bill drafting. She stated it was her intent to explain to the joint committees "what the subcommittee intended and the recommendations they reached." Ms. Miller added, "However, if you have actual questions as to whether the bill draft that came out...is the best interpretation of that recommendation, you may find it more valuable to address the people who are going to be here discussing the bills." Ms. Miller said the subcommittee looked at several ideas which are not in bill draft requests which the joint committees will be studying. For example, she stated, the subcommittee examined the idea of a substance abuse camp and a life skills center. Ms. Miller indicated those subjects were handled in the Governor's Executive Budget. She said the matters of after care and a substance abuse coordinator were not addressed in the budget. Ms. Miller next advised the joint committee members regarding bills which have been drafted and introduced as a result of the interim study. She enumerated them as Assembly Bill (A.B.) 83, A.B. 82, and A.B. 81. ASSEMBLY BILL 83: Requires peace officers to receive training in detection of use and abuse of alcohol and controlled substances. ASSEMBLY BILL 82: Requires certain information concerning use of alcohol or controlled substances to be included in records of criminal history. ASSEMBLY BILL 81: Provides for study of effectiveness of programs for treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. Ms. Miller stated all the above bills address the feeling of the subcommittee members that there was a lack of statistics available concerning substance abuse in Nevada. She said there were national statistics available, but the subcommittee felt statistics were needed which would relate to Nevada. Ms. Miller stated A.B. 83 regarding training and A.B. 82, which would require that an assessment regarding alcohol and drug use was included in a police report, were related. She said A.B. 81 would direct the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse to conduct a study of the effectiveness of treatment programs. Ms. Miller said one of the concerns of the subcommittee was the rate of recidivism and the fact there were no statistics to measure that rate. Ms. Miller next referenced A.B. 84 and A.B. 85. ASSEMBLY BILL 84: Expands circumstances under which certain criminal offenders may elect treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs before sentencing. ASSEMBLY BILL 85: Revises provisions governing placement of criminal offenders in programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol and drugs before sentencing. Ms. Miller stated both pieces of legislation dealt with civil commitment statutes found in chapter 458 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). (See discussion on pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit D.) She said A.B. 84 would increase the eligibility for civil commitment to those with certain previous felony and gross misdemeanor convictions. Ms. Miller added A.B. 85 is intended to encourage the use of the civil commitment statutes, particularly in the rural areas. She indicated the subcommittee had received testimony that the civil commitment statutes were not being applied uniformly throughout the state. Ms. Miller referred to a third group of bills, which have to do with drug courts, an idea which received a great deal of attention during the interim study. ASSEMBLY BILL 88: Makes appropriation to Eighth Judicial District for expansion of its program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. ASSEMBLY BILL 87: Makes appropriation to bureau of alcohol and drug abuse in rehabilitation division of department of employment, training and rehabilitation for support of certain programs of treatment for criminal offenders who abuse alcohol or drugs. ASSEMBLY BILL 86: Expands circumstances under which proceedings and sentences for persons convicted of certain offenses relating to controlled substances may be suspended or reduced. ASSEMBLY BILL 96: Provides for deferred prosecution of certain persons accused of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. Ms. Miller stated the subcommittee had listened to a presentation from a drug court judge in the state of Oregon. She said there are many drug courts throughout the United States and the trend appears to be growing. Ms. Miller added the drug court existing in Las Vegas has been successful, but apparently lacks funding. She indicated A.B. 87 provides for an appropriation for Washoe County, to encourage the establishment of a drug court. Ms. Miller stated if Washoe County establishes such a drug court, if A.B. 88 passes and if no other drug court is established, Washoe County would receive the entire $90,000 appropriation. However, she added, if A.B. 88 does not pass and A.B. 87 does, the appropriation would be split between the two counties. Senator Adler asked if there was any provision for implementation of a drug court in any of the rural counties on a periodic basis. Ms. Miller answered the idea of establishment of a drug court on a periodic basis was not explored by the subcommittee, and was not included in the legislation. However, she said, the way the legislation is constructed, if a drug court were established in another county, the appropriation would be split between Washoe County and that county. Ms. Miller indicated passage of A.B. 86 would increase the eligibility for drug court. (See page 13 of Exhibit D.) She said this is intended to maximize the drug court's potential. Ms. Miller said although A.B. 96 does not directly relate to the drug courts, it is intended to apply the drug court model to driving under the influence (DUI) offenses. She said she attended a drug court conference in Miami, and listened to a presentation concerning the applicability of the drug court model to other situations. Ms. Miller next discussed A.B. 97 and A.B. 93, which involve DUI treatment. ASSEMBLY BILL 97: Requires offender convicted of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance for first time to be placed in program of treatment under certain circumstances. ASSEMBLY BILL 93: Makes various changes to provisions governing assignment of offenders to program for treatment of abuser of alcohol or drugs established by director of department of prisons. Ms. Miller stated A.B. 97 would require, rather than allow, the court to accept a person's application for treatment. (See page 15 of Exhibit D.) She said this bill addresses the concern that the provisions which allow someone to elect treatment prior to sentencing are not applied uniformly throughout the state. Ms. Miller added the bill also addresses testimony heard by the subcommittee that it is important to be treated after a first misdemeanor offense, rather than waiting until a person has been charged with a felony DUI. Ms. Miller referred to A.B. 93 and said the subcommittee heard a great deal of testimony on the "305" program, which provides substance abuse treatment and counseling to felony DUI offenders. (See page 19 of Exhibit D.) She said while the subcommittee felt the program was successful, they felt some changes could be made in order to make the operation of the "305" program even better. Ms. Miller stated the intent of A.B. 93 was to require offenders to enroll in Phase II of the program, which is residential confinement. She said the subcommittee received testimony that certain offenders would go through Phase I (completed in prison), "...but never make it through Phase II, either because they were ineligible...or because they simply elected not to go through with Phase II." Ms. Miller stated statistics are quite clear that an offender who completes both phases of the program has a very good chance of not going back to prison. Therefore, she added, it was the subcommittee's intent that everyone going into the "305" program completes both phases. Ms. Miller said there was one additional intent which was not included in A.B. 93, and that was if an offender did not meet the requirements for residential confinement, the offender could complete Phase II in prison. She indicated this subject would be brought up at the time there is scheduled testimony on the bill. The next group of bills which are discussed by recommendations on pages 20 through 22 of Exhibit D involve juveniles. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2: Urges peace officers to identify and arrest, and courts to impose prompt, meaningful and consistent sanctions upon, juveniles who violate laws related to alcohol and drugs. ASSEMBLY BILL 92: Requires revocation of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who drive under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. ASSEMBLY BILL 94: Requires revocation or delay in issuance of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who unlawfully purchase, consume or possess alcoholic beverage. ASSEMBLY BILL 95: Requires finding that juvenile was driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance to be included in his driver's record for certain period. ASSEMBLY BILL 91: Requires evaluation and treatment relating to abuse of alcohol or other drugs for juvenile offenders under certain circumstances. Ms. Miller stated the subcommittee received testimony indicating the best time to approach a substance abuse problem is at its inception, and that the sooner patterns are stopped, the better the success rate. With respect to A.B. 92, she testified it would provide for a mandatory 6-month revocation of a driver's license for a first DUI violation. She said A.B. 94 provides for a mandatory 90-day revocation of a driver's license for a minor who is found guilty of purchasing or consuming alcohol, and if the minor does not yet have a driver's license, it provides for a 6-month delay in eligibility. Ms. Miller stated these two pieces of legislation were the result of testimony that for a juvenile, a driver's license is extremely important, and such mandatory provisions "would be a quick way to get their attention." Ms. Miller said A.B. 95 would require a juvenile DUI offense to be on an adult driving record for a period of seven years. She stated A.B. 91 would require a juvenile DUI offender to undergo an evaluation to determine if he or she is an abuser of alcohol or drugs, and if so, he or she would be ordered into treatment. Senator Adler referred to the proposal contained in A.B. 95, concerning a DUI record for a seven-year period, and stated, "I don't see how that can be used as an enhancement, since the constitutional standards are different in juvenile court than in adult court." Ms. Miller admitted there may be a problem and added the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) currently has various retention schedules for DUI offenses. She added the department does not receive juvenile DUI offense information. Mr. Anderson indicated when the subcommittee approached the problem, it was not based on the idea of enhancement, but rather an opportunity to get into drug treatment programs which are more commonly being opted at the adult level. He added the subcommittee felt law enforcement officers might feel stronger about pursuing questions regarding drugs if a program were available. Ms. Miller advised the committee members that the proposal was recommended by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In further response to Senator Adler's question, Mr. Perkins recalled conversations held during the subcommittee hearings, and said the matter of the constitutionality of a delinquent act versus the crime may have been overlooked. He concurred with the remarks of Mr. Anderson that the focus was to look for treatment programs for juveniles with a history of substance and/or alcohol abuse. Senator Washington agreed the suspension or revocation of a driver's license would act as a deterrent if it was imposed after a first offense. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the subcommittee considered any indirect deterrent effect if a DUI record was kept for seven years, in terms of insurance penalties, etc. Ms. Miller replied that was not included in the testimony before the subcommittee. Ms. Miller stated the final "miscellaneous" bills introduced as a result of the subcommittee's study, were A.B. 89, A.B. 98, and Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 15. ASSEMBLY BILL 89: Eliminates mandatory minimum penalty for unlawful use of certain controlled substances. ASSEMBLY BILL 98: Establishes within department of prisons position of coordinator of programs for treatment of offenders who abuse alcohol or drugs. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 15: Urges Congress and President of United States to oppose legalization of certain controlled substances. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 76 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of criminal justice system. Ms. Miller stated A.B. 89 indicated in earlier testimony before the A.C.R. 76 of the 67th Session and the Assembly Concurrent Resolution 71 of the Sixty-seventh Session (A.C.R. 71 of the 67th Session) joint committee hearing, there were advocates of eliminating mandatory minimums across the board. She said the arguments included the matter of an increase in judicial discretion. Ms. Miller said the A.C.R. 71 of the 67th Session interim study committee "limited their focus on the mandatory minimums to drug and alcohol offenses only." She said there were a series of drug and alcohol offenses which were considered, and only one was approved, i.e., "unlawful use of a controlled substance." Ms. Miller said A.B. 98 deals with a substance abuse coordinator for the department of prisons, a position which had been funded by a federal grant which has run out. She said the final recommendation is A.J.R. 15, which would oppose the legalization of drugs. Mr. Anderson thanked Ms. Miller for her presentation and complimented her on the work which went into the study. He added, "For the record, you are a great staff person." Mrs. Buckley indicated she had heard testimony in another hearing suggesting that the legislators look at the controlled substance statute which classified trafficking, as there was a concern some heavy personal users were being charged with trafficking. She asked Ms. Miller if this matter had been discussed by the subcommittee. Ms. Miller responded they had not, other than to indicate they were not comfortable with recommending mandatory minimums in this area. Mr. Anderson added he believed the A.C.R. 76 of the 67th Session subcommittee may have dealt with that matter, and asked Senator Adler for his input. Senator Adler stated they looked at the trafficking laws but did not make any recommendations. He said the subcommittee may look at that matter again. Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, stated a resolution has resulted from the study of the criminal justice system, which is based upon a recommendation for another interim study to look at mandatory minimum sentencing. He said this study would include the trafficking statute with respect to mandatory minimum sentencing. Senator James advised the joint committee members the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold a hearing on the matter of mandatory sentencing next week. The next witness to appear before the joint committee was Joseph Oliver Maviglia, President, H & E Training Schools, Inc. Mr. Maviglia presented an open letter to the Nevada Legislature, dated February 6, 1995, which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Mr. Maviglia said he was pleased to appear before the joint committees, since he had been unable to attend the hearings of the subcommittee. He added, "What I have to say is not going to be very appealing to some of you, after you have worked so hard on these committees, ...I am venomously opposed to the drug court." Mr. Maviglia stated it was interesting to him to hear of all the bills which were described to the committee members at this hearing. He said it was surprising how much money would be made available for the drug court, i.e., approximately $350,000. Mr. Maviglia added, "If I had $350,000 in front of me and lit a match to it...is about the benefit you are going to have with this drug court." He said the motivation is excellent, but there is a lack of money to do what has to be done to correct the drug, crime, pregnancy, welfare and "all the other problems which are facing this country." Mr. Maviglia said the drug court "would be nothing more than another temporary Band-Aid." He indicated he would keep appearing before the legislative committees, "until you get it right." Mr. Maviglia stated "the solution is so simple and so apparent, that it boggled my own mind to figure out that intelligent people...could not figure out the simple problem." He said it boils down to one word, "economics." Mr. Maviglia said first, the problem must be identified, with respect to the youth of the country. He said when a youth has no education and no decent job which will lead to an economic future, "...then they jump out of school...public job training flops...." Mr. Maviglia pointed to testimony regarding "offender education." He said he has found a way to "do the job" by networking everyone, that is police departments, parole departments, education departments, senators, assemblymen, neighbors, and everyone who will "come out of the woodwork and work for the one common effort, to turn the dropout in our society back into the mainstream of our society." Mr. Maviglia reiterated society is "losing the battle," as is evidenced by the overflowing prisons. He said the young people of today must be taught how to function, and added, "We have to teach them how to get the hell out of bed in the morning." Mr. Maviglia said the young people need to be given the supportive tools they need to go up the ladder and become professional in a field of employment if the drug problem is going to be cut. Mr. Maviglia stated young people have to be told they can succeed. Mr. Anderson stated some of Mr. Maviglia's remarks address the matter of a drug court and some are more appropriate to other pieces of legislation. He asked if Mr. Maviglia would reserve the balance of his comments to specific pieces of legislation which would be heard at a later time in other hearings. Mr. Maviglia closed by saying, "You are not going to win the battle unless you come to your senses...and you are not coming to your senses with this legislation." He said he would like to make one recommendation as to how to obtain the necessary funds to do all the things which have to be done. Mr. Maviglia suggested, "Do it by sponsorship...by current technology...steer them into economic jobs which they can handle and then...education becomes an important factor...." He indicated he supports "self- teaching tools which the kids need so they can climb the ladder of success...then you won't have to build all these jails, because you won't have any clients." Mr. Maviglia closed, "You will throw what I have said into the trash and go ahead and do the stupid thing you plan on doing." The next to testify was Roxane Clark-Murphy, Ph.D, DUI Evaluation Center Coordinator, Las Vegas Municipal Court. Dr. Murphy referred to the matter of a drug court, which basically deals with felonies. She said since 1976, the Las Vegas Municipal Court has utilized alternative sentencing. Dr. Murphy said in the DUI Evaluation Center, "I see loads of things other than just DUI...narcotics, domestic violence, batteries, lewdness...contributing to the delinquency of a minor...." She said what she does not want to happen with regard to new alternative sentencing options, is to look completely and totally at the drug court and not at the misdemeanors. Dr. Murphy said of the misdemeanors they see, 62 percent have felony records, and added, "Of those that have felony records, 91 percent committed their felonies at the time they were using a substance." She said other courts, even though they had limited jurisdiction, "are doing things." Dr. Murphy asked the committee to look beyond just the "drug courts." She said she conducted a count of the number of persons seen by the DUI Evaluation Center in the past four years, and found a success rate of 84 percent. She reiterated her statement that she did not want to see the focus completely turned to the "drug courts" which handle felonies, while forgetting the lower courts which handle misdemeanors. In response to questions from Senator McGinness and Senator Washington, Dr. Murphy said when a person has been directed to the DUI Evaluation Center, the center checks the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records to see if he or she has a record in another jurisdiction. Senator Washington stated it appeared the center "dealt with the whole person...his lifestyle...as opposed to just focusing in on one specific incident...." Dr. Murphy answered they attempt to do this "in a nonpartisan way." She said they need to look for treatment as a continuum "that has very many parts to it...." Mr. Anderson stated the interim committee tried to see the program as a "three-step process," one step of which is the drug court. Ms. Ohrenschall asked Dr. Murphy to describe some of the treatment alternatives used by the center. Dr. Murphy answered a person is tested, their DMV & PS records are reviewed, their family history is studied as it relates to a "biogenetic propensity toward alcoholism," their finances are reviewed and their insurance coverage is studied to determine where the person might best be treated. Dr. Murphy said often a person is sent to a "court education program" or one of the various treatment programs which exist throughout the southern part of Nevada. The last person to testify was Ms. Cheryl Sonnenberg, Administrator, Health Services Division, Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County (EOB). Ms. Sonnenberg addressed the joint committee, saying, "It is always gratifying to know that public persons are interested in such a serious disease that has such a devastating effect." She provided the joint committee with a statement entitled, Criminal Justice System, which is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Ms. Sonnenberg spoke from the prepared statement, and asked the committee to support a total legislative package, which includes not just early intervention, but also payment for post-prison release treatment for those individuals who cannot otherwise afford such treatment. There being no further business to come before the joint committees, the hearing was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _ ___________________________ Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _____________________________ Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman DATE: _______________________ ___________________________ Mr. David Humke, Chairman DATE: _______________________ Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: __________________________ Joint Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary February 6, 1995 Page