MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 22, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:43 a.m., on Wednesday, February 22, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Mrs. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Ms. Vonne Chowning, District No. 28 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Myla C. Florence, MPA, Administrator, Nevada Welfare Division John C. Morrow, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender Martin J. Roberto, Criminal Investigator, Financial Investigation Unit, Nevada Welfare Division Hans Crail, Criminal Investigator, Financial Investigation Unit, Nevada Welfare Division Gary L. Stagliano, Chief of Investigations and Recovery, Nevada Welfare Division Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Craig Pittman, Reno Police Department Helen Foley, Lobbyist, Pardee Construction Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney's Association Kevin Higgins, Attorney General's Office Richard A. Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney Stewart L. Bell, Clark County District Attorney William E. Schaeffer, Eureka County District Attorney Brian Kunzi, Mineral County District Attorney Patricia Justice, Lobbyist, Clark County Bob Larsen, Public Defender, Clark County ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 125 - Authorizes juvenile court to place certain children under supervision of public agency to work on projects to eradicate graffiti. Assemblyman Ohrenschall, District No. 12, testified A.B. 125 is a bill that authorizes juvenile court judges to impose graffiti detail on children in need of supervision. Assemblyman Chowning, District No. 28, testified and urged support of A.B. 125. As a small business owner, she expressed her frustration about graffiti. It decreases property valuation. It sends a message of fear to our elderly people. As a former teacher, Ms. Chowning is very much in favor of this bill because it sends a good educational, hard work message to juveniles. Ms. Ohrenschall pointed out additional concerns: 1) property devaluation, 2) message of fear for elderly. Costs of repainting graffiti are a financial strain for the elderly living on fixed incomes. It is important that a statewide message be sent giving the discretion to juvenile judges. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, introduced Officer Craig Pittman, Gang Specialist. Graffiti is a growing problem across the country. The police average about 15-25 calls per month for graffiti vandalism. During a three month period from January 1994 to March 1994, that number increased 432%. The City of Reno spent over $25,000 to remove graffiti from city property during that time. Aggressive programs were formed, but the problem continues to grow. Officer Pittman explained the differences between tagger and gang graffiti. The quicker the graffiti is removed, the less likely it will reoccur. To remove the graffiti, Mr. Carpenter inquired if city-paid crews are doing the repainting. Officer Pittman advised that Washoe County has a hotline for graffiti removal. Several agencies do the graffiti removal: Wittenberg Hall, JOIN residents, and the community homeless project. Mr. Goldwater inquired about workers' displacement if the court allowed juveniles to do the cleanup. Officer Pittman replied no. He believed work projects like this would be beneficial. Mr. Manendo commented that in Southern Nevada graffiti is atrocious. Fiscally, where you have people that are detailing overtime, this could help by getting the kids out there repainting to give them a message. By having less graffiti to cover up, it would save money. Lieutenant Galeoto advised that it was cost prohibitive to pay police officers to clean up the graffiti. Mrs. Steel pointed out that ultimately the taxpayers pay for supplies and labor to repaint. Officer Pittman advised the City of Reno provides paint and materials. Donations are used to keep the costs down. Mrs. Steel summarized that if we lost some jobs in this area it would be to the taxpayer's benefit. Chairman Humke inquired if every child adjudicated to be delinquent or on informal probation by the juvenile court could be assigned to work program under this bill. Lieutenant Galeoto replied they are willing to accept youth assigned from any source, i.e., courts and volunteer programs. Chairman Humke expressed his concept should this bill be enacted they would be able to accept formal and informal probation children. Currently, they have a program for the children from Wittenberg Hall probation program. Ms. Ohrenschall advised the Chair that was her understanding also. It is an amendment to N.R.S. 62.211, addressing powers of the court to adjudicate a child in need of supervision. Chairman Humke inquired about liability coverage for the youth work program. Ms. Ohrenschall assumed liability coverage already exists for the current statute. The proposed amendment may be included with the existing statute. Chairman Humke called upon Bill Lewis, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer in Carson City, to answer his concern. Mr. Lewis stated there is a statute that pertains to juvenile offenders being ordered into a juvenile work detail where there is kind of a SIIS responsibility to cover their liability. Specifically, under N.R.S. 62 juveniles have to be supervised. This aspect is important to this bill and others pertaining to community service. Mr. Lewis related the success of Carson City's juvenile work program. As a matter of diversion, most youth are placed on community service to benefit the community. With graffiti under the present statute, youth can be placed with a public agency to work on a public project, i.e., state highways, and bridges. The Department of Transportation (DOT) provides the paint. Carson City enacted an ordinance in 1989 that addresses graffiti, Carson Municipal Code, Section 8.36.05, making the parents responsible for the graffiti removal. Unfortunately, not many graffiti suspects are found. Other youth performing community service clean up graffiti. If youth were sent over to a business to clean up a 12' wall, there is a danger and a liability there. The business would be somewhat responsible. The adult work program has been of great assistance in graffiti removal. Carson has tried to follow the example Reno provides. Mr. Lewis advised graffiti is out of control. This bill was a good piece of legislation. Mr. Schneider stated it seemed Carson City is already doing the job. Mr. Lewis advised enough cannot be done. Youth cannot be sent out unsupervised to paint a private business. He felt this legislation addresses the private property owners. Mr. Carpenter inquired if parental supervision in repainting graffiti would resolve liability coverage. Mr. Lewis felt it still may rest with the property owner. Under parental supervision in conjunction with the juvenile probation department, public works department, or sheriff's department, problems cannot be foreseen, such as a slip and fall accident. Private property liability factors may have to be researched. Hopefully, Mr. Carpenter stated we would not let that get in the way of a good program. Mr. Lewis commented with thousands of youth assigned to community service over the years, only three minor incidents occurred. Proper supervision is the critical element. Mrs. Steel stated she is also drafting a bill that addresses the graffiti problem. This bill will put responsibility on the parents for removal. If they have no funds for graffiti removal, the parent will also be required to perform community service. She enlisted Mr. Lewis' assistance to present good legislation. Ms. Buckley commented she did not see the provision in the statute with regard to the SIIS coverage which would eliminate liability from the department and the business owner. She requested research be done to ensure that liability provision is in N.R.S. If not, an amendment should be drafted so the bill will not fail because of liability concerns. Ms. Ohrenschall pointed out the bill deals with graffiti where the suspects are not known. There would be a problem making parents of children adjudicated in need of supervision by juvenile court responsible for graffiti removal. Secondly, the bill is drafted broadly giving the juvenile court discretion in assigning graffiti detail. Chairman Humke recollected that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the parent or guardian of a minor declared a Child In Need of supervision (CHIN) or delinquent. Three other bills regarding graffiti are forthcoming. Mr. Schneider polled approximately 50 police officers in Las Vegas who agreed we should handle graffiti the way Singapore does. Officer Pittman said it would be ideal if there were more effective probation terms and punishment from juvenile courts. Education of judges and prosecutors has had significant effect and improvement. Mr. Manendo requested clarification of 100-hour graffiti investigations. Officer Pittman outlined investigation procedures. Property damages are in the range of $25 to $2,500, depending on the repairs. Mr. Manendo stressed the importance of different deterrents to eradicate graffiti. Mr. Sandoval inquired what was the typical sentence for graffiti eradication. Mr. Pittman advised the average sentence was 12 hours community service, possibly probation. Currently, first-time offenders receive a sentence of full restitution to the victims, letter of apology, and formal probation with suspended commitment to Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC). Community service hours may go up to 40-80 hours. When juveniles have to go out and paint over graffiti they have not done, peer pressure is great on these individuals. Ms. Helen Foley, Lobbyist, representing Pardee Construction, stated her client has built homes for 45 years in Southern Nevada. Pardee Construction has worked with Chief Meyers of Las Vegas on the graffiti problem. In the older neighborhoods once graffiti starts, it is very difficult to curtail it. They have purchased materials, contributed to Secret Witness Program, and provided signage. It is almost impossible to catch the perpetrators of graffiti. Once they are caught, it is very difficult to get adequate punishment. They like Ms. Ohrenschall's bill very much because a specific graffiti violator does not have to be identified. It is used as punishment for different juvenile offenders. They are also very interested in Mrs. Steel's proposed legislation addressing graffiti. Parental responsibility should be provided in the legislation; and, they look forward to working with the committee on those issues. Chairman Humke closed the hearing on A.B. 125 and opened the hearing on A.B. 132. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 132 - Eliminates certain crimes relating to federal food stamps. Ms. Myla C. Florence, MPA, Administrator, Nevada Welfare Division, stated Gary Stagliano, Chief of Investigations and Recovery Unit, accompanied her. She testified as set forth in (Exhibit C), attached hereto. The purpose of the bill is not to eliminate certain crimes relating to Federal food stamps, but to bring the language more in line with current programming. Chairman Humke asked the status of the 104th Congress proposal in regard to states handling all welfare in exchange for the Federal Government handling all Medicaid. He asked where food stamps fall in the proposed shuffling. Ms. Florence replied there are several different variations with regard to the food stamp program: 1) combine food stamp program with Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental food program, along with the school lunch program, as one block grant to states; 2) public assistance programs (AFDC, food stamps, etc.) to the states in exchange for Medicaid that is not in contract with America. Other proposals with regard to capping entitlement programs would have some bearing on this program. No one knew the outcome of the aforementioned proposals. Significant changes are probable to the state's administration of these programs. Chairman Humke asked if this bill was premature since there are some waves of changes that may be washing over the country with regard to these programs. Ms. Florence did not agree. Whether the program is totally state administered as opposed to federal administration, there will be a need to continue to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the issuance of food stamp assistance. As a personal comment, the Chair would favor holding off final action on this bill until federal changes are known. Mr. Goldwater stated the more specific the language can be clarified in the statute, the better we are as a state. He further inquired as to the intent of sales and purchase language. Ms. Florence replied the intent is to ensure that food stamps are in the hands of approved people in the program. She advised the homeless have access to expedited four-five day service of food stamps. Mr. Anderson was curious as to the intent in changing the word acquires to sales and purchase. Ms. Florence stated she would refer this question to Gary Stagliano, Chief of Investigations and Recovery Unit. He clarified the intent was to identify those situations where a buy or sale actually occurs. In the past, there were prosecution difficulties because of the word acquires. This legislation will be used when food stamps are transacted as a second currency. Mr. Perkins advised there is a huge trade of stolen food stamps in the drug trade. He felt the direction of the amendments would help to prosecute those offenders. He concurred that sales and purchases make it easier in court and show that the burden was met and the elements of the crime existed. Mrs. Steel inquired if homeless persons had any relief while awaiting expedited four to five day receipt of food stamps. Ms. Florence replied that the system has discretion. Hopefully, cases are processed quickly. Ms. Buckley suggested the penalties be differentiated for type of violation. If someone is selling or purchasing food stamps for individual use (i.e., if they were hungry), the penalty could be a misdemeanor and require community service be performed. For individuals who are abusing the food stamp program on a large scale basis or in connection with the drug trade, the change would be appropriate with the penalty of a felony. Ms. Florence stated she would be happy to work with the committee on this. Chairman Humke invited Mr. Martin J. Roberto, Criminal Investigator, Financial Investigation Unit, Nevada Welfare Division, to come forward and testify. Hans Crail, Criminal Investigator, Financial Investigation Unit, Nevada Welfare Division, stated they were here to give testimony on investigations involving individuals and businesses in transactions of food stamps for less value in cash. Mr. Roberto testified as set forth in (Exhibit D) attached hereto and made a part hereof. Chairman Humke closed the hearing on A.B. 132 and opened the hearing on A.B. 151. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 151 - Requires criminal defendant to serve notice to district attorney of witnesses defendant intends to call at trial and allows criminal defendant and district attorney to discover certain matters. Assemblyman Stroth, chief sponsor, testified as set forth in (Exhibit E), attached hereto. Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney's Association, testified the Clark County District Attorney's Office has an open file discovery policy. A simple request is made and copies of nearly everything in the file, with a few exceptions, are automatically provided to the defense attorneys. The state wishes to have reciprocal discovery from the defense attorneys. This legislation would prevent trial by ambush. Nevada has been a conservative state in providing reciprocal discovery. Mr. Anderson asked how this legislation would impact the concept you are innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Graham responded in essence the Supreme Court and constitutional amendment states you shall not be a witness against yourself and not be forced to testify. There are exceptions where the self-incrimination issue is not present. The state has the entire burden of proof proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Goldwater inquired of the constitutionality of bearing witness against yourself. Mr. Graham replied that it has been tested in Federal court cases. Mr. Richard A. Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, gave a history of his career. He urged support of A.B. 151 to establish a reciprocal discovery agreement between prosecution and defense attorneys. The trial is a truth-finding function throughout the entire trial process, so get the truth early. If the defense does have something that negates the charges it can be brought out early to dispose of that case. Mr. Schneider asked how to prevent supplying of witness names at last minute before trial instead of complying with the 30-day requirement. Mr. Gammick advised the entire discovery process is based on good faith and people acting as professionals. The court could be asked for sanctions against an attorney for not complying. Mr. Anderson referred to Section 3, p. 2, ll. 46-47 and asked if there was any danger of compromising medical confidentiality. Mr. Gammick expects to see the results and reports of medical examinations intended to be used at trial. Prosecution is prohibited through case law and ethics to call the defense's expert witnesses used in trial preparation. Mr. Anderson inquired in exclusion of witnesses from observing the trial, if persons were subpoenaed just to exclude them from the courtroom. Mr. Gammick stated it has happened. The court could be advised if it is being abused. Further, Mr. Anderson speculated this legislation may increase that abuse. Mr. Gammick replied the majority of attorneys will comply with the law and did not expect it would be a problem. Chairman Humke commented that Ms. Stroth sponsored a bill that would provide for victims to be present and would not be subject to the exclusion rule as witnesses. Ms. Buckley posed a question to Mr. Stewart L. Bell, Clark County District Attorney. It seemed to her there are two things being attempted: 1) work on the trial by ambush; 2) discovery requiring disclosure of written or recorded statements from any witness in the attorneys' possession. With regard to the physical and mental exams, it would seem they are done by expert witnesses. In the civil arena under Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 26.b, you are required to disclose those experts and tests intended to use during trial. Mr. Bell indicated that was the intent of this bill. Ms. Buckley stated the bill does not say this. Mr. Bell outlined the proposed process. Trial presentation depends on defense theories. The amendment of disclosure of expert witnesses and reports intended to be used during trial was not objectionable to Mr. Bell. Ms. Buckley asked if there were any downsides to this bill. Mr. Bell advised when a similar bill was heard on the Senate side, they said there was no problem with open reciprocal discovery if they could get from the Attorney General and Washoe District Attorney the same kind of open file policy Clark County practiced. He further indicated the Attorney General's Office had no problem with the policy. Mr. John C. Morrow, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, testified against A.B. 151. He indicated a major concern regarding the 30-day notice, as in the context of public defender service is an impossibility. He requested the 30-day language be stricken and allow the court in its discretion to order that the reciprocal discovery be provided in a timely fashion. Mr. Morrow advised in some situations where either party discloses witnesses late that the court be directed by statute to allow the other side time to prepare. In summary, the proper way to try a case is with openness on both sides given the ability to find out the things you need to know. Mr. Perkins inquired if we go back to the 21-day requirement would it not be feasible to provide the witnesses and reports with continual obligation to provide reports to prosecution. Mr. Morrow would prefer not to have any firm deadline imposed. Objections could be raised if lists are not provided in the time frame. He requested that the courts be allowed the discretion to exercise the time frame. Mr. Carpenter noted there was no fiscal note on this bill right now. He asked if there would be a major fiscal note if compliance of a time limit were imposed. Mr. Morrow stated he was very concerned. In reality of the high volume practice the public defender has, it is seldom known a long time in advance if the case is going to trial. He foresees a danger of preparing every case for trial which could produce a tremendous fiscal impact. Discretion of the court is key to allow the court to tailor the discovery process in each individual case. Mr. Carpenter supposed it was defeating the purpose of this bill. Mrs. Steel expressed confusion and thought attorneys wanted speedy trials, and 30 days is not enough time for trial preparation. She felt early preparation would determine if one had to go to trial or not. Mr. Morrow stated they work in a high volume area where 20 lawyers handle 6,000-7,000 cases a year. Prosecution typically has 30% more staff for the work load. They are concerned with speedy trial and enough time for trial preparation. The average time needed depends on the individual situation, for example, a last-minute eye witness. As an attorney, Mrs. Steel stated you need a cutoff date, otherwise one may drag his feet. Mr. Kevin Higgins, Attorney General's Office, testified briefly that Mr. Gammick and Mr. Bell stated their position. His office is willing to do full open discovery if it was reciprocal. Mr. Bob Larsen, Assistant Public Defender, Clark County, testified and focused on a few relevant issues. The time frame of 30 days is unworkable and he would prefer to have something substantially less, even if left to the discretion of the trial judge. This legislation will have sizeable fiscal impact on the counties. Realistically, the public defender's office would need additional staff in order to comply with the 30-day provision. Mrs. Steel inquired how soon trial has to commence if speedy trial is not waived. Mr. Larson advised there is a 60-day rule within the district courts. Depending on the calendar of district court, after a defendant is arraigned, trial may proceed 60 or 90 days later. The public defender is working behind the curve and with limited resources. Their caseload is appointed by the district court. Ideally, if they had additional resources and staff for trial preparation, they could comply with the 30- days requirement. Mr. Batten made several points based on his law enforcement experience. Offenders should not commit the crime if he has no money to get a good attorney. Mr. Perkins indicated he served on the money committee last session and is very mindful of unfunded mandates received from the Federal Government. He asked if the public defender could complete trial preparation closer than the 2l-day limit and still not be in violation of this bill. Mr. Larson responded and advised that even 21-days out they still do not have all those things together. Defendants are more agreeable to plea bargain when trial is imminent rather than 30 or 21 days away. Mr. Larsen indicated 21-day notice would be difficult to comply with. Ms. Buckley suggested Mr. Larson work with the district attorneys to accomplish the goals of ensuring it is not trial by surprise, but to ensure that with the 8,800 plea bargained cases, attorneys do not have to do unnecessary work. Mr. Carpenter inquired when the public defender receives the witness list from prosecution. Mr. Larson replied under current practice, just a few days from initial arraignment in justice court they will have timely discovery of relevant police reports in all cases. When asked why this process was not commenced sooner, Mr. Larson responded it would be a waste of resources to prepare every case for trial when in all probability it will be negotiated. The system has functioned in this manner for years. If jury trials were prepared for every case, the cost would be astronomical to the counties. Patricia Justice, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified against A. B. 151. There are 45 public defenders in Clark County, of which 30 prosecute felony jury trials, eight do death penalties, two in administration, two in juvenile, two in municipal court, and one does appeals. In the last six months there have been 4,315 felony cases, and 513 gross misdemeanors, totaling 4,828 cases handled by the Clark County Public Defender's Office. There were 489 misdemeanor trials. Of the 4,828 cases, 32 cases went to trial in the last six months of 1994. In other words .006% go to trial. There were 4,796 cases negotiated or pending trial. Fifteen district courts and six justice courts handled 32 cases. The average cases per attorney was 161 or 6.4 hours per defendant with no court or trial time. Ms. Justice advised S.B. 166 would have no fiscal impact to the counties. She further advised the public defender's office would be impacted 1.4 million dollars per year under A.B. 151. This would require eight more investigators and six more attorneys. Chairman Humke requested Ms. Justice to provide in writing to Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, this information regarding fiscal impact. In this manner it will be evaluated. Chairman Humke stated he saw Ms. Justice's testimony in the vein of an unfunded mandate and does not accept that criticism. If there is an unfunded mandate it came from the Supreme Court and not from this Legislature. Mr. Anderson requested to know the type of misdemeanor trials in the 489 cases. Ms. Justice advised these were mainly where people skipped paying for meals, i.e, petit larcenies. Mr. Anderson asked if this bill would impact the ability of the drug court to stay in place. Ms. Justice advised their office is very supportive of the drug court. The drug cases encompass the 4,796 figure. Ms. Stroth asked why there was no fiscal impact in S.B. 166, yet there was in A.B. 151. Ms. Justice advised of an amendment to S.B. 166. The amended version addresses the expert witnesses and is silent on the percipient witnesses or eye witnesses. Mr. Carpenter requested clarification on time restraints and fiscal impact on S.B. 166. Ms. Justice believed the time restraints were much less, 48 hours before the trial. At the request of several committee members to have the district attorneys who were present make comments, Chairman Humke invited the district attorneys of Clark and Washoe Counties to come forward. Clark County District Attorney Bell, whose department handled 13,000 felony cases last year, described the process of criminal case procedure for the committee. Washoe County District Attorney Gammick suggested several amendments: Line 3, change to 21 days, line 6, insert the word "known" witnesses who are intended to be called for trial. In regard to S.B. 166 he stated his position is a list of all witnesses (expert, percipient, etc.) they intend to call at trial. Trial by ambush has no place in the courtroom. It does not serve justice. Ms. Stroth stated she did not have any objections to the suggestions. She urged the committee to keep the language in the bill to apply to all witnesses. Mr. Goldwater questioned who is responsible and accountable for plea bargaining. Mr. Bell responded that if the public wants to eliminate the concept of plea bargaining, the district attorneys around the state would have no problem with that. Instead of eight judges, we would need 320 judges a week to try cases. It is a fact of life the public does not understand and is unprepared to make the fiscal commitment needed if we do not have plea bargaining and paroles. There are only so many court days. They have to be used wisely. District Attorneys feel compelled to be honest with the defense attorneys to obtain needed information that will make the system work as best it can with what we have. Mr. Gammick stated prosecution has no control over a defendant's choice to plea bargain. Mr. Carpenter inquired from the district attorneys their response to the large fiscal impact that has been discussed today. Mr. Bell said there was not going to be any. In the major felony cases the defense is assigned and we know they are going to trial and the witness lists can be furnished. It is not expected witness lists be furnished, for example, on a stolen bike case. If a minor case unexpectedly goes to trial, then the witness list will be furnished as the case is prepared for trial. Understand, it is not so bad being ambushed in a stolen bike case compared to. a death penalty, murdered children, or sexual assault cases that we know are going to trial. The public is entitled to that type of preparation. The point is, it is not going to have any fiscal impact. Mr. Carpenter inquired if certain crimes could not be plea bargained, would it tie prosecution's hands. Mr. Bell advised there are certain crimes which are non-plea bargainable now, for example, felony DUI. Those are rules with which they can comply. Understand that not every crime is black or white or every murder is guilty or not guilty. Sometimes, they are in fact manslaughter. When a defendant deserves a death penalty, they will not plea bargain. As a matter of policy, habitual criminals who commit a crime of violence are not plea bargained. There will be some fiscal impact if the ability to plea bargain is reduced. The more flexibility, the better the job can be accomplished in getting the violent criminals to answer to the bar of justice. Mr. Gammick further stated that ultimately they answer to the people of their counties as to how well they plea bargain. In Washoe County the scavengers on society do not receive plea bargains. Other cases have to be put in perspective with the limited resources they have. To say there will be no plea bargaining will have a tremendous impact upon the entire system. Mr. Bell summarized the importance of the bill. It is important they be able to identify through the trial process and have guilty people be responsible for their conduct and innocent people sorted out. Chairman Humke closed the hearing on A.B. 151. Mr. Anderson advised of one Bill Draft Request to abolish the refusal of testing in a first time DUI arrest that would substantively change N.R.S. 484.383, as outlined in the Washoe County District Attorney's letter. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO ABOLISH THE REFUSAL OF TESTING IN FIRST TIME DUI ARREST. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Carpenter advised of a Bill Draft Request from the Pershing County District Attorney to amend N.R.S. 7.105 to clarify the restrictions against using private practice attorneys in order to hire special prosecutors which is important for rural counties. He requested the committee's permission to request a Bill Draft. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO AMEND N.R.S. 7.105 TO CLARIFY THE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST PRIVATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS TO HIRE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Humke adjourned the meeting at 11:32 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary February 22, 1995 Page