MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 11, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 7:03 a.m., on Tuesday, April 11, 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. 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 Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assembly House Speaker, Joseph Dini Assemblyman Jack D. Close Assemblyman Wendell Williams STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Harris, Gang Specialist, Washoe County School District Patricia Justice, Legislative Representative, Clark County Fred Griisser, National Rifle Association Harry Pappas, Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Margaret Springgate, Governor Miller's Office Jenelle Smith, Intern, Speaker Dini Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Deborah Schumacher, Washoe County Juvenile Master Helen Foley, Pardee Construction Company Sue Edmonson, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County ASSEMBLY BILL 393 - Makes various changes related to possession of firearms by children and increases penalty for sale of certain firearms to children. Assembly Speaker, Joseph Dini, District 38, primary sponsor of A.B. 393, introduced Margaret Springgate, Governor Miller's office, and Fred Griisser, Nevada Rifle Association, to assist in his presentation of the bill. Mr. Dini stated A.B. 393 was co-sponsored by all 42 members of the Assembly in an attempt to do something about juvenile crime. He stated the National Rifle Association supports the passage of A.B. 393 as indicated in their letter attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Mr. Dini stated A.B. 393 prohibits persons under 18 years of age from possessing a firearm except with parental permission for hunting, target shooting, competition, or other lawful purposes. Mr. Dini further detailed the bill for the committee setting forth the penalties that could occur if A.B. 393 is adopted. He added A.B. 393 protects the right to possess and own guns yet gives law enforcement the necessary tools to stop the degradation of what is happening throughout the state. Fred Griisser, Nevada liaison, National Rifle Association, spoke in support of A.B. 393. They feel the bill balances the rights of minors in Nevada to engage in lawful activity with a firearm against the concern of the community of juvenile firearm use in unlawful acts. He pointed out some redundancy may appear in the bill with regard to the definition of a loaded firearm located at section c), page 5, line 48 and explained that section with specificity. Mr. Carpenter asked if a minor has to have a hunting license in order to carry the firearm yet he did not believe it was necessary to have a hunting license to hunt varmints. Margaret Springgate, Governor Miller's Office, stated the section Mr. Carpenter addressed is contained on page 7, section 12 which provides for hunting with license and permission or "engage in other enumerated activities" which would include target shooting, etc. However, they would have no problem if the committee wanted to add some specific language to address that area. Mr. Carpenter felt specific language should be crafted to address hunting varmints that normally would not require a hunting license. Mr. Humke commented on page, 7, section 12, subsection 2 which creates an offense for an adult for their child's act of carrying a weapon. Also, subsections 2(b) and c) set up a felony offense for what appears to infer a parent would have to be a mind reader to know what may be the criminal intent of their child and wondered if that was a bit harsh. Ms. Springgate stated the specific activity for that section was to address the 18-year old gang banger who has a 13-year old in the car and hands them the gun. That provision would most likely not be used in any other incident. Ms. Monaghan inquired about the "written permission" provision on page 8, lines 7-8 and line 40. Mr. Griisser stated that section makes a distinction between handguns and long arm shotguns and concealable weapons. If you are hunting with a shotgun you can do so but if you are hunting with a handgun you would need to have written permission. Ms. Monaghan asked if the written permission was necessary each time or if one note could be laminated for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Griisser stated the bill does not specify that condition so it would be left up to the parent to specify. Also, the bill does not allow the minor to travel with a loaded concealed weapon, meaning you may have the gun in your possession together with ammunition but it cannot be loaded. Mr. Sandoval asked if a juvenile used a firearm in their parent's vehicle without their knowledge, is the vehicle still subject to forfeiture? Ms. Springgate stated no it would not apply in that situation. Further, that scenario is covered in lines 32-34 of page five of the bill. Ms. Steel asked about the liability of the parent for the conduct of the child and wondered why the term "knowing" was included in the bill. Ms. Springgate stated NRS 41.470 of the current law states the parent is liable for up to $10,000 for the willful misconduct of their children which does not require any knowledge by the parent. She stated NRS 41.470 would still come to play in A.B. 393; however, if the parents know the child has had a problem in the past and they allow that child to use a firearm and cause damages, the parents will be liable without the $10,000 cap. Additionally, Ms. Steel inquired about the lack of time factors regarding felonies on page 7, section 12(2)(b). Chairman Anderson stated the observation was valid but it was more appropriate at a work session. Lastly, Ms. Steel wondered what the counseling involvement entailed in the bill. Ms. Springgate stated that provision was apparently a drafting requirement pursuant to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and in compliance with A.B. 317 as the language is identical to the counseling provisions of that bill. Mr. Humke asked how the passage of A.B. 393 would be affected if Congress appeals the assault weapons ban of last year. Ms. Springgate speculated A.B. 393 would not have to be changed because the bill just gives the tools to law enforcement to enforce the laws regarding the lawful and unlawful use of guns. In addition, this bill only addresses kids 18 years of age or under so nothing would have to be repealed or changed in any way. Mr. Carpenter inquired about a description of "fully automatic firearm." Mr. Griisser stated he believed Nevada law describes that as a firearm capable of expelling more than one cartridge with one single pull of the trigger--similar to a machine gun. Mr. Carpenter asked about the provision on page 14 which requires the parent to sign the application for the minor's hunting license in compliance with this bill. He believes it should be in layman's terms for concise understanding rather than in the form of legalese. Mr. Dini replied it makes the parents aware they are responsible for their kids' behavior in handling the gun. He added a key provision to the bill was parental responsibility. Ms. Springgate concluded that the Governor, throughout his campaign, has maintained he wants to take guns out of the hands of juveniles riding around in cars on a Friday night. Also, the bill brings back some parental responsibility which for some reason we have gotten away from. She added the current law states a child under 14 cannot have a gun in his possession without an adult person being present. A.B. 393 specifically changes that language to require that the person with the child be a parent, guardian, or adult person authorized by the parent to have care and control of that child. That is an important distinction because of the 18-year old gang banger situation. Speaker Dini stated the analysis prepared by Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst, appropriately sets forth the bill. (Exhibit D). In conclusion, Speaker Dini stated A.B. 393 attempts to strike a balance regarding the right to bear arms and yet provide control for law enforcement especially in populated areas. However, youth crime and youth gangs are not just a Las Vegas/Reno problem--it happens in Dayton and Yerington too. He asked the committee to consider the bill favorably. Jenelle Smith, intern for Speaker Dini, high school student, testified she supported A.B. 393 because every day in school students truly fear the kids who have guns and knifes. She stated at least once or twice per week a kid is suspended for carrying a knife or gun. She added this occurs at her school which is small-- approximately 400 students. Ms. Smith asked about the provision on page 14(d) which sets forth that a kid under 12 cannot hunt and she wondered how this would affect the 11-year old who is out hunting with his dad. Chairman Anderson noted Terry Crawforth, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife was in the audience and asked him to come forward to answer the question. Mr. Crawforth stated that provision is a long-standing statute and only applies to people hunting big game. People 12 years old and under can hunt upland game. Mr. Carpenter asked if a 12 year old can apply and get a deer tag. Mr. Crawforth stated yes but the reason for not allowing under 12 year old children to hunt large game is because that usually involves a more high-powered weapon and the propensity for mishap would be increased. If you are under 12 years old you cannot get a hunting license or a big game tag. Ms. Smith commented on the written permission provision in the bill stating she believes it should be clarified in the bill that the permission is either laminated or on file somewhere because kids will just do it anyway without the permission if their parents are not home. Harry Pappas, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, stated they support A.B. 393 and believe the bill was excellently drafted to address the concerns of the citizens in handling juveniles with guns and in aid to law enforcement. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated her general support of A.B. 393. She asked if the definition on page six, lines 34-35, included BB guns? Chairman Anderson stated yes it does. She then asked about page 13, lines 42-48 as it appears to be an absolute prohibition against a child hunting wild birds or small mammals unless accompanied at all times by a parent or guardian. This would appear to be in conflict with the intent in other parts of the bill which allow for hunting. She asked the committee to give careful consideration to her comments. Sue Edmonson, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division, fully supports the bill; however, she would like an amendment to page 7, Section 12(1) at the end of the sentence after the word "act", add "which would be a felony if committed by an adult." This would allow them to certify kids caught with loaded weapons in an appropriate case. Also, in dealing with detention situations, because the current law provides if a kid is caught with a loaded weapon it is merely a misdemeanor. The defense will argue that the legislature's intent is to not detain someone for a crime that is no worse than petty larceny. Therefore, she would like to see the inclusion of felony language which would help to resolve problems in prosecuting and detaining child offenders. Mr. Humke stated the language in Section 12(1) deals with possession of a firearm outside the knowledge and control of a parent or guardian. He asked if this subsection comports with the basic list of crimes set forth in Assembly Bill 317 for youthful offenders. Ms. Edmonson stated she did not believe it was included in A.B. 317 as far as she could recall but A.B. 317 does not make possession of a firearm a crime. She clarified the use of firearm in a specific crime like burglary, would then fall in the category of a felony. Mr. Humke stated in A.B. 317 they changed the age from 16 to 14 and the mere possession of a firearm as an additional offense was created. Upon Mr. Humke's inquiry, Ms. Edmonson stated she felt automatic certification at age 14 should still be discretionary. She thought that automatic certification was probably inappropriate for a 14 year old. However, the possession of a firearm as a felony would not require certification under either statute. Chairman Anderson entered into the record a letter from Jack A. Coons, Chairman, Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board, attached hereto as (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLY BILL 385 - Makes various changes relating to crimes and criminal gangs. Assemblyman Jack D. Close, District 15, as primary sponsor of A.B. 385, outlined the bill for the committee stating the main intent for the introduction of this legislation was to address the epidemic growing in our state--juvenile gangs. Mr. Close testified directly from his prepared testimony, attached hereto as (Exhibit F). He stated he would not be offended if the committee dissected his bill and included it in any other portion of legislation before them regarding juvenile crime. Mr. Close went through his bill line by line explaining portions that were being deleted or included. With regard to page one of the bill, he believes the crimes committed on or around a school should receive the same attention as those on a school bus. Also, since he has been sitting on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Close stated he must now speak in opposition of his own bill as pertains to page two. This is because the probationary rates are so low and to do what is set forth in the bill at page two would create a burgeoning type of criminal system. However, the committee could possibly come up with alternate ways to deal with youthful offenders, such as home confinement and community service so we are not filling the prisons with youth. Mr. Humke asked if there was a fiscal note on the bill yet. Mr. Close stated no he has requested the fiscal impact many times and has yet to see the same. Mr. Humke stated he thought the state prison fiscal impacts would most likely be covered but a tremendous fiscal impact could result for the schools. Mr. Close stated that was correct and he has provided a copy of the bill to the Clark County School District and they support the concept in the bill. Mr. Close continued with Section 2, line 28 which addresses parental accountability. He stated if a minor is determined a delinquent that is an exception to the provision. He has received many calls regarding this section which the consensus by parents is "if you are going to give me the liability, then give me the opportunity to raise my children." He asserted the committee may want to take a close look at giving the parents the opportunity to raise their children. Ms. Buckley asked if he was attempting to lift the cap amount for acts committed by the minor after they were adjudicated delinquent or for which they were adjudicated delinquent. Mr. Close stated the intent was those adjudicated delinquent would be excepted from the child. He is attempting to get at the one- third of those kids whose parents need more accountability. Mr. Humke stated he thought Section 2 had some unintentional consequences stating adjudication as a delinquent is a legal standard. Whereas, incarceration or detention is quite another. Many children are detained either pre or post adjudication but most often are remanded to the custody of their parents even after being adjudicated delinquent. Mr. Humke stated A.B. 393 may actually detain far more juveniles now for longer periods. Mr. Close stated it was not his intention to have increased incarceration or detention of youth but rather to get to the parents and the child to realize they have a responsibility. Further discussion was held regarding detention of juveniles. Mr. Goldwater and Ms. Ohrenschall expressed their concern for law enforcement classifying unsuspecting individuals in the category of being a gang member when in fact they are not. Mr. Goldwater's concern was not so much with the definition of a gang member but in the application. Mr. Close stated he did not believe his bill provided such identification provisions. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, requested clarification on Section 3, page two, specifically lines 26-32 which states the joint and several liability of the parents shall not exceed $10,000 for an act of willful misconduct ... then it goes on to say it is not limited with respect to the act of willful misconduct. It would appear the $10,000 is lifted but testimony presented today has confused her. Presiding Chairman Buckley explained there was some confusion as to that section and a couple different interpretations have been presented so the committee will be considering that section of the bill during a work session. Ms. Lusk stated her concern for the total lifting of the cap as it seems little would be served by bankrupting the family. Presiding Chairman Buckley closed the hearing of A.B. 385 and re-opened the hearing on A.B. 393 to accommodate a traveling witness. Deborah Schumacher, Washoe County Juvenile Court Master, stated she supports A.B. 393. She stated in Washoe County, detention hearings with respect to delinquents and disposition of delinquency cases come before juvenile court masters. Regarding Section 12 of A.B. 393 which prohibits juveniles from possessing firearms, she favors that provision. She believes this bill would bring the law in line with what most people actually think the law actually is. The public is quite surprised that it is not illegal for a minor to possess a firearm. Further, she does not believe the passage of A.B. 393 would result in a significant increase in juvenile arrests because it is illegal for an adult or juvenile to conceal a firearm but the reality is that most people carrying a firearm conceal them. She discussed the defense bar presenting cases before her as a juvenile master. With regard to Section 4 of the bill, she stated Washoe County is already implementing those kinds of orders with regard to additional family members. Although the court has the power to order such services for additional family members the services needed to carry out the order may not always be available, such as low-cost counseling. She concluded by stating she likes the drivers license suspension provision in Section 2 of the bill. She feels this sanction is immediate and the kid can understand it. Mr. Schneider commented on what could be done when a child is reformed and rehabilitated and then they go back to the same dysfunctional situation and it starts all over again. He suggested after the successful completion of boot camp the juvenile could be sent away from home, to the Marines perhaps. Ms. Schumacher stated a juvenile cannot go in the service until they are 18 years of age. Further, she thought perhaps the juvenile drug court, if enacted in Washoe County, would possibly help in that area as the family gets involved. Mr. Humke added the military services have changed their needs in the area of educational levels. The first change was kids with a GED certification cannot get into the service. Secondly, a juvenile who has been adjudicated as a delinquent cannot get into the service either. Mr. Humke concluded by stating boot camp is designed as a beginning of military service, not to send them back to the street where they will find drugs, alcohol, and other bad influences. Ms. Schumacher, in responding to Ms. Monaghan's comments about counseling for the entire family, brothers and sisters included, stated there are services within the community to assist in accomplishing the task. For example, the Childrens' Cabinet provides counseling on a sliding scale basis, parenting classes, and other referral services the family may need. She agreed the power for the court to order these services was there but the resources may be limited and perhaps this would be setting families up for failure. Chairman Anderson announced a break at 9:00 a.m. and the committee reconvened at 9:22 a.m. Chairman Anderson entered into the record a letter dated April 10, 1995 from California State Automobile Association (AAA), (Exhibit G) attached hereto, regarding A.B. 393 and Assembly Bill 374. The letter sets forth the concerns of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regarding license suspension and reporting violations. Catherine Gregory, representing State Farm Insurance Companies, testified they agree with the letter provided to the committee from AAA which would exclude the provision that the DMV would not be able to report the violation to the insurance companies. In addition, Chairman Anderson provided for the committee and the record a letter dated April 4, 1995 addressed to him from Edward F. Bruce regarding A.B. 393. Mr. Bruce's letter expresses his concern specifically with Section 8 of the bill in that he would like it deleted in its entirety. The letter from Mr. Bruce is attached hereto as (Exhibit H). ASSEMBLY BILL 165 - Provides criminal penalty under certain circumstances for providing minor access to firearm. Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District 6, testified as the primary sponsor of A.B. 165. He stated A.B. 165 deals with protection of children and is not a gun control piece of legislation. It does not limit the amount or kind of guns people should or could have for protection. Mr. Williams provided the committee with an article regarding a child eight years of age bringing a loaded weapon to school. The article is attached hereto as (Exhibit I) and was discussed generally by Mr. Williams. Hundreds of guns are brought to school each day and this is the major issue of school safety they face. Mr. Williams commented on the "Eddie Eagle" program school children are introduced to about gun safety. Although these type of programs are helpful, they do not go far enough and perhaps are not a realistic approach. Mr. Williams went on to state people generally keep guns in their homes to protect their home and families against intruders. Last year, nationally, 300 intruders were shot whereas, 500 kids were killed nationwide with these same guns. The bill's intent is not to tell people they cannot have guns in their homes for protection but rather they should be responsible enough to not leave them where children can get them. People lock up cleaning supplies that are poisonous. This same responsible behavior needs to apply to guns as well. Ms. Steel asked, with regard to the provision regarding the arrest of the parents, was it his intent they only be charged with a gross misdemeanor in any event? Mr. Williams stated the courts may have some leeway to alter the charge depending on the circumstances. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the loaded firearm definition was strictly limited to a parent who negligently leaves an actual loaded firearm or would the parent who negligently leaves the firearm and ammunition right next to each other or within close proximity still fall under that category. Mr. Williams stated he would leave that issue up to the expertise and wisdom of the committee and it should be debated. Mr. Carpenter stated he supported A.B. 165. ASSEMBLY BILL 374 - Creates crime of placing graffiti on or otherwise defacing property and provides various penalties. Assemblyman Diane Steel, District 16, primary sponsor of A.B. 374 stated her bill has 42 sponsors. She stated the bill intends to give the proper tools to the courts and law enforcement in addressing graffiti acts. She stated during her campaign the second most topic of concern was graffiti. Graffiti is a signal to people that there is crime in their neighborhoods and they have to start becoming more alert and also they become more fearful. Ms. Monaghan asked about the fiscal note to the bill. Ms. Steel explained she had not seen a fiscal note but she assumes the money going into the hoppers would be closely evened out with the establishment of fines and graffiti abatement programs. Also, Ms. Monaghan asked about the 15 days required to remove graffiti. Ms. Steel explained in addition to the graffiti abatement programs, there is also an award program. Ms. Steel said she was not hard on the 15 days if the committee feels that is too short of a time. Mr. Schneider asked how A.B. 374 fits with Ms. Ohrenschall's graffiti bill. Ms. Steel stated Ms. Ohrenschall's bill gives the courts permission to put young people on graffiti detail while A.B. 374 describes the act and the punishment allowed so the bills enhance each other. Upon Mr. Schneider's inquiry, Ms. Steel stated graffiti is usually the first step to other crimes after the graffiti comes into the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson asked about the county commissioner having to cover all evidence that graffiti has been placed. He described this as being "tagged" resulting in a "patchwork" effect. Would that practice be precluded or would the language "all evidence" require the entire area to be repainted. Ms. Steel stated no that would be too costly and if the committee sees that language as too broad she would have no problem in narrowing the language. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if she would like to include the taking of photographs to preserve evidence in Section 10 of the bill. Ms. Steel stated she would have no problem adding that language to the bill. Mr. Carpenter asked if the $250 can be used for abatement or reward. Ms. Steel stated the $250 could be used for abatement if necessary or for reward. However, if the perpetrator is caught, they should pay more than $250 as far as the fine is concerned but they would also be responsible for the damage they have done. A discussion regarding the "reward and abatement" language was held as it applied to several sections of the bill. Randy Harris, Gang Specialist, Washoe County School District, testified in support of A.B. 374. Mr. Harris stated the graffiti problem has not been taken seriously by the community and schools yet $15,000 to $20,000 is spent each year on graffiti removal and abatement programs in Washoe County. He feels graffiti sends a message to the community that neighborhoods and schools are not safe. The passage of A.B. 374 will send a message back to the graffiti taggers that schools, neighborhoods, and businesses are not areas for them to tag indiscriminately. His personal experience is graffiti is sometimes a first step for young people getting involved in youth gangs. He feels the community service inclusion in A.B. 374 for parents and youthful offenders is a good portion of the bill because oftentimes the parents are unaware their kids are involved in this activity. Also, experience shows tagging crews are now carrying guns and within the Washoe County School District they declare war on other youth gangs. Currently there is a strong secret witness program in effect in the Washoe County School District that has been very effective. Ms. Steel asked Mr. Harris about the Polaroid and graffiti information he had subsequent to a conference he attended in March, 1995. Mr. Harris explained the conference involved the school district. A workshop has since been designed to show educators that we can do something about the graffiti problem. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, stated his support for A.B. 374 and the other graffiti bills brought before this legislature. Although he does not know how the mechanics of the bill will be accomplished since it would be a county issue rather than a city issue, he believes passage of A.B. 374 is needed. He discussed briefly how his department, since 1989, has been learning about gangs and graffiti and they now know how serious these issues are. He stated the number one issue of safety concern in the Reno community, pursuant to a local survey, is gangs. This fear is a result of what the media presents and the graffiti they see. Lt. Galeoto stated he believes A.B. 374 will raise the accountability level for all these youth gang crimes. Also, the last thing any of these gang members would want to do is go out and be insulted by participating in community service in their own neighborhoods. The assignment of community service, he believes will have a serious impact on the attitude of the youth gang members. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, acknowledged the seriousness of graffiti since she sees it everyday in her neighborhood. She supports the concept of requiring penalties that fit the crime. Abatement of the graffiti which brings the young person right out into the community fixing what they caused is a solution. However, she would like the committee to send the right message and make the penalty fit the crime in all the juvenile crime packages they are considering this legislative session. In particular, suspending driving privileges concerns her when used as a penalty in a crime where driving is not related to the crime at issue. She stated the treatment of parental financial ability in A.B. 374 seems to be a balanced treatment. The personal responsibility of the juveniles for their own actions is addressed and the parental liability for the acts of their children is restated while not crossing the line into a direct charge against the parent. Helen Foley, representing Pardee Construction, stated Pardee has been building homes in southern Nevada for more than 40 years. Recently, they have become very involved in the graffiti issue since their new home developments have suffered attacks of graffiti. Noting graffiti is often the first sign that the neighborhood is no longer safe, they have become proactive in graffiti abatement. They have worked together with Las Vegas Metro in offering awards and developing programs. Ms. Foley stated it is difficult to catch graffiti taggers as you have to have cameras on the walls and be up in the middle of the night. Even when they are caught, they are often not charged with anything. For the first time, A.B. 374 provides a definition of graffiti. Ms. Foley added it is essential that it be removed immediately. Noting the committees' discussion about the 15-day time frame to remove graffiti, she pointed out a gang will tag an area and then another gang comes along and tags the area next to it and then the whole thing spreads. She believes it is critical to have graffiti removed as soon as possible. She stated Pardee has contributed paint and finances for early removal of graffiti. She concluded by stating she hopes the District Attorney will view this as a serious crime and begin charging it as such. Upon Chairman Anderson's inquiry, Ms. Steel stated she would have no problem including the state of Nevada in the abatement program in addition to the county and city. Upon Mr. Humke's inquiry, Ms. Steel stated she would have no problem including the school boards in the reward and abatement program as she did not realize the school boards were a separate governmental body. Patricia Justice, Clark County representative, stated they fully support the passage of A.B. 374 as written. Chairman Anderson presented amendments to the Standing Rules for Committee on Judiciary. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND THE STANDING RULES FOR THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY--68TH SESSION. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * B.D.R. 16-1757 Revises provisions governing aid to certain victims of crime. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 16-1757. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Neilander, Research Analyst, stated he provided the committee with three amendments pertaining to: Assembly Bill 132, Assembly Bill 93, and Assembly Bill 40. Mr. Neilander explained the amendments to the committee requesting comments, if any, before the amendments went to the floor this legislative day. Ms. Buckley asked about the provision in A.B. 40 regarding including administrative proceedings but not expanding all the other provisions but changing the existing law to prohibit a situation where someone testifies truthfully upon receiving a subpoena. She asked if Section 3 addresses these concerns as she recalled previous testimony on the bill. Mr. Neilander explained there was some confusion regarding the amendment as to whether it would be a broader prohibition that was not restricted only to actions between the employee and employer. The amendment restricts it only to those actions involving the employee and the employer--not other parties that have been subpoenaed. Another concern was to provide more of a definition of administrative proceedings but Mr. Neilander has not been provided with any comments on the amendments. Ms. Buckley asked if a co-employee was subpoenaed could they now be terminated, based on the amendments to A.B. 40. Mr. Neilander stated the exemption applies to a proceeding between an employer and employee and it addresses the proceeding rather than the party but an argument could be made either way. Chairman Anderson stated Amendment No. 134 to A.B. 40 would not go to the floor in order to provide Ms. Buckley more time to address her concerns with Mr. Neilander. Noting Ms. Steel and Ms. Ohrenschall also had concerns regarding the amendment to A.B. 40, Chairman Anderson asked them to direct their concerns to Mr. Neilander separately. There being no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary April 11, 1995 Page