MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 16, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:22 a.m., on Thursday, March 16, 1995, Chairman Anderson 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. 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: None Chairman Anderson introduced the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) as prepared by Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst. Mr. Neilander stated the Work Session Document consisted of a summaries from subcommitte hearings and the Chairman of the subcommittees would address specific comments. ASSEMBLY BILL 82 - Requires certain information concerning use of alcohol or controlled substances to be included in records of criminal history. Mr. Neilander explained there was significant testimony at the subcommittee from several peace officer groups setting forth the method of statistical data collection was not realistic or feasible at this time due to computer technology and the substantial fiscal impact resulting from the passage of A.B. 82. However, a study is underway by the Uniform Crime Reporting Advisory Committee and the overall evaluation from this committee will address the concerns raised in A.B. 82. There was also testimony that the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a highly advanced computer system, may be available for the collection of criminal data in a two to five year time frame. The subcommittee decided to either direct the Uniform Crime Reporting Advisory Committee by a letter of intent or transfer A.B. 82 to a resolution in order to address the needs of the statistics attempting to be obtained. Mr. Perkins stated Mr. Neilander's comments accurately reflected the discussions and testimony of the A.B. 82 subcommittee hearing. He added whatever role is taken (letter of intent or resolution) a message should also be sent to every law enforcement agency throughout the state to let them know it is the committees' intention in the future to gather this statistical data because the data is crucial in the legislative attempt to combat crime. Getting the message to these agencies early on will allow them to plan for the future. Mr. Anderson stated approximately one year ago Nevada moved to its own type of criminal reporting record. Prior to that time, Nevada had been relying upon the FBI's statistical gathering methods. Ms. Ohrenschall asked what the difference was in a resolution and a letter of intent. Mr. Neilander clarified to adopt a resolution it would become a part of the statutes of Nevada, not Nevada Revised Statutes, but the statutes of Nevada. A letter of intent would reflect the intent of the judiciary committee but not the entire Assembly. A letter of intent would allow the committee to provide notice to the agency and ask them for a recommendation of progress of what has taken place since the letter of intent was made. Ms. Ohrenschall also asked which was more binding and easier to enact. Mr. Neilander stated the letter of intent was easier because he drafts it and it goes out under the signature of the two chairmen. The resolution would possibly be more forceful because it expresses the intent of the entire Assembly and not just the judiciary committee. Further, neither form is any more binding than the other. Mr. Perkins expressed his disappointment this data has not been collected for some time. He elaborated on his personal feelings regarding the meaning of resolutions and letters of intent. Ms. Steel suggested the letter of intent should require a report back to the committee because possibly in two years the technology will be available to gather the information without such a fiscal impact. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if a resolution would enable a report back from the agencies to the committee. Chairman Anderson and Mr. Neilander clarified further the letter of intent process versus the resolution and bill process in accordance with on-going or annual reporting methods. Mr. Perkins relayed the testimony during subcommittee hearings revealed most agencies throughout the state are operating at a maximum capacity as far as computer software goes and they are all looking at a technology update which would include the statistical data required in A.B. 82. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO SEND A LETTER OF INTENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WITHIN THE STATE TO LOOK TOWARD THE GATHERING OF THE DATA A.B. 82 WOULD ACCOMPLISH AND THE COMMITTEE IS IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEPTS OUTLINED IN A.B. 82. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Anderson clarified the committee is in favor of the concept of A.B. 82 and the letter of intent shall reflect this proposal. Mr. Goldwater stressed he was in favor of the concept, the motion, and is in favor of open records as he was concerned his earlier comments were misinterpreted. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. * * * * * Chairman Anderson commented the next item of business regarding A.B. 82 was to indefinitely postpone the bill but without the normal idea of killing the bill as the committee is positively in favor of the concept of A.B. 82. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 82. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 84 - Expands circumstances under which certain criminal offenders may elect treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs before sentencing. Chairman Anderson directed the committee to the five recommendations set forth in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C). Ms. Steel, Chairman of subcommittee on A.B. 84 concurred the substance of the subcommittee is outlined correctly in the Work Session Document. She further addressed with specificity the contents of that document. Ms. Buckley added, as a member of the subcommittee on A.B. 84, testimony was presented at the subcommittee hearing and what they tried to do was strike a balance without losing the bill. The original intent of the bill was to get drug addicts and alcoholics into treatment rather than occupying prison beds. Ms. Steel added the testimony they heard from various treatment centers reflected there were not many available beds currently and they are all dealing with waiting lists so the subcommittee was a bit hesitant to open up the program even more when there was not currently bed space available. Ms. Ohrenschall agreed with the fine-tuning language addressed in subsection 7 regarding allowing a participant in a program more than once. Chairman Anderson stated the exact language would be taken up with the bill drafters. Ms. Steel requested the language be clear in stating that if an individual has had treatment two times within the last five years they will not get treatment again. Chairman Anderson advised the committee Judge Lehman has pointed out the drug court and treatment programs are relatively new. Chairman Anderson did not feel judicial discretion should be taken away in determining if a participant is eligible for a program. Ms. Steel strongly felt the discretion was not being taken away from the judges. Mr. Sandoval expressed his thoughts about A.B. 84 at length and still felt that the bill unfairly treats persons without drug or alcohol problems who commit the same crime. However, he felt that since the greater good is served by treating these people he will vote in support of the bill and its amendments, especially the inclusion of the community service portion of the bill. Ms. Steel addressed the issue of felony charges remaining on the record of the offender. This being one area of contention during committee (Point 5 of the Work Session Document). ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 84 WITH AMENDMENTS PRESENTED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENTS. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 85 - Revises provisions governing placement of criminal offenders in programs of treatment for the abuse of alcohol and drugs before sentencing. Chairman Anderson distributed a letter he received from Honorable Charles M. McGee regarding A.B. 85 wherein Judge McGee requests the word "may" be included in the bill rather than "shall". Mr. Carpenter stated he called Judge McGee because he could not recall hearing any recommendation from the courts regarding this bill and from previous sessions he has learned when the discretion is removed from the judges you get into a very contentious area. Mr. Carpenter stated discretion should remain with the judges but the remainder of the amendments addressed in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) pertaining to A.B. 85 were fine. Chairman Anderson clarified lines 20 and 21 are the only portions of the bill containing the language Mr. Carpenter is addressing. Mr. Neilander stated if it was the intent of the committee to give the judges discretion on the condition of deferring sentencing then you would need to delete the brackets in lines 16 and 17 and reinstate the language "may impose" which would probably be the way the bill drafter would prepare the same. Ms. Buckley stated, with regard to Judge McGee's letter, the bill still allows the discretion of the judge and she agrees with Mr. Carpenter's comments. She was convinced to support the amendments to A.B. 85 by reviewing lines 14 to 16 which requires a court determine the person is indeed a substance abuser, will likely be rehabilitated from treatment, and is a good candidate for treatment. Ms. Steel stated, with regard to Judge McGee's letter, discretion for the judges is contained in A.B. 84 and A.B. 85. To change the language to "shall" would not be allowing the bill to operate as was intended. Further discussion was held regarding Judge McGee's request to change "may" to "shall" and the definition of those terms. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 85 REMOVING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO SHALL AND LEAVING THE REMAINING CHANGES TO THE BILL. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON CLARIFIED THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE RETAINED AT LINES 16-17 BY REMOVING THE BRACKETS AND DELETING NEW LANGUAGE AT LINES 18, 20, AND 22 AND RETAIN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, SUBSECTION 4 AND INCLUDE FROM THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT THE AMENDED LANGUAGE IN RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 134 - Revises provisions governing short-term tenancies. Mr. Goldwater provided the committee with a report regarding the subcommittee on A.B. 134 (Exhibit D). Mr. Goldwater was the Chairman of the subcommittee on A.B. 134, along with members Mr. Anderson, Mr. Carpenter, and Ms. Stroth. The document presented represents a unanimous decision of the subcommittee. Ms. Buckley stated she would not be voting or advocating for the bill but she may choose to participate in a discussion if held. Mr. Goldwater stated initially he was opposed to A.B. 134 because it went too far and did not allow the proper notice or fairness to renters. However, the subcommittee moved forward with the bill. Mr. Goldwater further stated the committee was also directed to act on the bill because of the Governor's veto on Assembly Bill 687 from the last session. The Governor agreed with the sponsors of the bill he would not kill the bill again and was now willing to work with the parties to reach a compromise. Mr. Goldwater stated although the document (Exhibit D) refers the committee to Amend & Do Pass A.B. 134, he feels the action should be to Amend the bill. Mr. Goldwater then outlined each item in the Subcommittee on Assembly Bill 134 document (Exhibit D). Upon Ms. Ohrenschall's inquiry, Mr. Goldwater responded the date binding on the tenant is the day all three things are completed: 1) mailing; 2) notice to constable to serve the tenant; and 3) posting. Mr. Sandoval requested clarification on the constable/sheriff issue. Reflecting on previous testimony, it was noted at times it takes a week for the sheriff or constable to serve notice so would the requirement of having service accomplished in 48 hours cause an undue burden on the sheriff or constable which could not be met. Mr. Goldwater stated he called the constable and sheriff's office in research of that question. He was informed there are different kinds of notices the sheriffs and constables serve. Some take a week and some do not. Judges can require the constable to serve documents within certain time periods. The mandate on the constable would be coming from the Legislature rather than a judge and Mr. Goldwater does not believe it is an unreasonable request. Mr. Sandoval again stressed his concern if the constable is unable to meet the 48- hour deadline the bill will be defeated. Secondly, why were the former portions of the bill deleted completely with just having someone accompany the landlord to witness the service. Mr. Goldwater described his vision of an unscrupulous landlord. Chairman Anderson stated the subcommittee recognized and addressed that concern and a compromise had to be reached. Mr. Carpenter stated a time frame needed to be in place in order to not defeat the entire bill and further recognized the argument that was involved in personal service. Chairman Anderson clarified the possibility of the process server not accomplishing the service within the time period is a concern shared by the committee. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 134 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Carpenter commented Mr. Goldwater conducted the subcommittee very well in light of the testimony and the attempt for everyone to reach a compromise. Chairman Anderson thanked all the subcommittees for the hard work in these bills and their presentation of recommendations thereto. Ms. Stroth and Mr. Anderson echoed Mr. Carpenter's comments regarding the excellent presentation and handling of the subcommittee by Mr. Goldwater. Chairman Anderson assigned A.B. 84 to Ms. Steel for floor introduction and A.B. 85 to Ms. Buckley for floor introduction. Chairman Anderson announced the work session for Friday, March 17, 1995 was canceled. No further business coming before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 9:37 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary March 16, 1995 Page