MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 18, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, April 18, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 119 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: Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Joni Kaiser, Committee to Aid Abused Women Doug Dickerson, Las Vegas City Manager's Office Sue Meuschke, Northern Nevada Advocates Domestic Violence Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby Susan Jackson, Suicide Prevention Crisis Call Center Diane Loper, Victim Advocate, Reno City Attorney's Office Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office Eric Cooper, Washoe County Sheriff's Office Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Valerie Cooney, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Susan Dentonpratt, private citizen Christine Chandler, private citizen ASSEMBLY BILL 378 - Makes various changes to provisions relating to domestic violence. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District 9, primary sponsor of A.B. 378, outlined the intent behind her bill which addresses domestic violence. She stated history and statistics show domestic violence is on the rise. Ms. Giunchigliani's prepared testimony and accompanying exhibits are attached hereto as (Exhibit C). The exhibits included within Ms. Giunchigliani's handouts contain studies from various task forces involving domestic violence, statutes of several other states regarding their domestic violence laws, articles and statistical data regarding domestic violence. She stated domestic violence is the leading cause of serious injury to women--more than automobile accidents and assaults by strangers combined. Four million women each year are battered. The FBI estimates a domestic beating occurs once every nine seconds. Ms. Giunchigliani concluded by stating A.B. 378 does three simple things: 1) it will comprehensively define who is affected as well as the act itself; 2) it eliminates the 4-hour period; and 3) mandates 24-hour access to a restraining order. Upon Ms. Steel's inquiry, Ms. Giunchigliani said the Domestic Violence Task Force recommended the 4-hour provision be deleted in that it will assist law enforcement in making arrests in domestic violence cases. In Section 1 of the bill, the primary sponsor stated the added language of "dating relationship" is added to the definition of domestic violence and is referenced throughout the bill when applicable. The issue of the dating relationship language is that 5,000,000 women are beaten by their boyfriends or husbands annually. Also, 13 other states have included the term "dating relationships" in their statutes including California, Colorado, Oregon, Montana, and Washington. She stated her research reflects this is the language being used but she does not object to the committee developing better language if they so desire. On page 3 of the bill the 4-hour language has again been deleted. In addition, Judge Valorie Vega, Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge, has recommended the 12 hour provision be changed to 48 hours. Upon Ms. Buckley's inquiry, Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not know the thoughts behind the change to 48 hours. The remaining provisions of the bill regard the 24-hour access to the courts, the definition of domestic violence, and enumerated crimes on page seven of the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani provided proposed amendments to A.B. 378 which are set forth in (Exhibit D) hereto. The expansion of the definition of domestic violence is from the task force as the statutes did not consider the relationships of boyfriends and ex-husbands. Additional proposed amendments include allowing 911 tapes to be admissible as evidence, confiscation of weapons, and prohibit mutual protection orders. She stated supporting documents for the proposed amendments are contained in her handout (Exhibit C) with much of the information derived from the Network Task Force and the LCB 95-2 Background Paper. Ms. Giunchigliani concluded her outline of proposed amendments by asking the committees' assistance in clarifying Section 7, subsection 4(e). Ms. Steel asked why she opposed Mutual Protection Orders. Ms. Giunchigliani stated it has been found these orders are actually injurious to the individual. The National Model Code has also made this recommendation and specifically states: . . . They undermine the safeguards contemplated by civil protection order statutes. Mutual orders minimize a perpetrator's exposure to sanctions for violation of an order. Mutual orders rarely provide comprehensive relief to safeguard the victim . . . Chairman Humke asked where the mutual order provision was contained in A.B. 378. Ms. Giunchigliani replied it was not currently in the bill but rather was contained in the proposed amendments which would require the creation of a new section to the bill. Chairman Humke stated he has found Mutual Protection Orders, when they work, can be a good tool to keep both parties away from each other. Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged the original intent of a Mutual Protection Order was good however her documentation shows they are no longer effective. Chairman Humke asked about the "dating relationship" language in that it does not appear to nail down with a high degree of specificity what the relationship is. He added a dating relationship implies there was mutual desire to have a relationship and, for instance in stalking situations or casual acquaintances, there may not have been that mutual feeling but rather one person thought there was a "dating relationship" and the other did not perceive it that way at all. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the language was developed through the task force and additionally, more and more teens are involved in domestic violence. Currently, provisions in the statutes only apply to those persons residing together. Another term for consideration and used in other jurisdictions is "intimate relationship." Mr. Anderson expressed his concern for the child who is abused at home and also in an abusive relationship outside the home as a result of the "dating relationship" especially with teens. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see language strengthened to require prosecution by the district attorney especially in the instance where the victim has a change of heart and no longer wishes to testify. He added he hoped the perpetrators could be prosecuted without the direct testimony of the person battered by using photographs, statements, etc., so they can receive the proper punishment and counseling and hopefully discontinue the negative behavior. Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 378 does not address Mr. Carpenter's concerns; however it was a recommendation by the task force. Further, the domestic violence laws are lacking and one of the largest weaknesses is the ability of the courts to require counseling. Mr. Perkins stated his understanding of the genesis surrounding the domestic violence laws was that the victim was somewhat trapped in the situation, either emotionally or financially, because it was taking place in their living situation or domicile. However, in a dating relationship he does not see this "trap" in that they do not reside together. He added his main concern was with the officer on the street having to determine if there is a "dating relationship" as both parties see it or just one person sees it as a "dating relationship" without being able to interview 15-20 people prior to making the arrest. He concluded the 4-hour provision should be deleted but perhaps not leave it completely open. Ms. Giunchigliani stated information she received is that the 4-hour window gives the batterer the message that if you stay away for four hours after you have beaten her you can avoid arrest. This is not the message we want to send. Upon Chairman Humke's inquiry, Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the victims are not always female. In addition, she was unaware of any fiscal impact except as may relate to the 24-hour mandate. She added Clark County already has the 24-hour mandate in effect by using a Magistrate on a 24-hour notice and this is accomplished through a telephone call and facsimile. She stated the other counties should be able to adopt that same procedure fairly easily by purchasing a fax machine. In some cases, this would result in no face-to-face contact. Apparently, Clark County has been doing this for the past couple of years. Ms. Monaghan asked about Judge Vega's proposed amendments to include in the definition of domestic violence such crimes as arson, concealed weapon, etc. She stated she saw these as crimes against property rather than crimes against the person. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the inclusion of these crimes was designed to make the statutes consistent. Further discussion was held regarding the crimes enumerated in Section 7, page 7 of the bill. Ms. Ohrenschall added her experience in the private law practice has shown arson is a very frequent way for domestic violence to manifest. Mr. Goldwater asked if there was the possibility of abuse of the statute? Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was unaware of any particular instances and the task force has not noted any either. However, like any statute there may be some level of abuse. Mr. Anderson asked, with regard to Section 7 and the enumerated crimes, if the propensity of an unfounded charge of false imprisonment might occur if a parent punished his child by not allowing them to date a particular person and sent them to their room. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not see that happening but again, there will always be some abuse of the statute. She would like to see the contents of Section 7 remain, including the proposed amendments to that section of enumerated crimes. Mr. Anderson commented he had a constituent wherein the situation described above actually occurred. Chairman Humke addressed anyone wishing to testify on A.B. 378 in Las Vegas through teleconferencing at the Grant Sawyer Building. Christina Chandler, Las Vegas District Court, Family Division, explained the implementation of their facsimile emergency protective order procedures. She stated the 24-hour mandate, of course, would have a tremendous fiscal impact on their jurisdiction in light of the tremendous growth in domestic violence. She stated they implemented the emergency process a year ago. The procedure was crafted by three groups, the courts, jail facilities, and domestic violence advocate groups. She further detailed for the committee the procedure the victim and perpetrator go through from the time of arrest to the issuance of an order which lasts 30 days. Upon Mr. Carpenter's inquiry, Ms. Chandler stated temporary protection orders in jurisdictions of over 100,000 are issued by district courts. The justice courts are issuing protective orders in rural areas. Returning to Carson City, Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network against Domestic Violence spoke in favor of A.B. 378. She stated over the past decade, they have evaluated the laws covering domestic violence in this state. She stated A.B. 378, along with all the amendments, are an attempt to address the issues of concern from their past studies. They feel with the expansion of "dating relationships" a measure of protection will be afforded to those involved in violent dating relationships. They support the 4-hour time limit removal. Lastly, the 24- hour mandate to provide services through the courts they see as an essential element to the bill. She concluded by urging the committee to pass A.B. 378. Ms. Meuschke's prepared testimony is attached hereto as (Exhibit E). Joni Kaiser, Co-founder and Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women, Washoe County testified in support of A.B. 378. They feel the most important aspect of the bill is the removal of the 4-hour provision. Ms. Kaiser presented statistics of occurrences of domestic violence throughout the state and asked the committee to support the legislation before them. Ms. Kaiser's prepared testimony and exhibits are attached hereto as (Exhibit F). Mr. Sandoval noted Ms. Kaiser's information included a recommendation mandating counseling with suspended sentence based on successful completion of counseling; however, it is not contained in the bill. She stated counseling generally is the requirement particularly on a first offense and although it is not mandated in the bill it is what happens in reality. Ms. Kaiser stated she would certainly support language in the bill addressing specifics about counseling requirements, completion and success. Ms. Meuschke added monitoring counseling of perpetrators may be a costly venture although she supports the idea. Upon Ms. Buckley's inquiry, Ms. Meuschke stated they would support a proposal of changing the bail eligibility from 12 to 48 hours. Ms. Meuschke stated domestic violence is a unique situation in that once a perpetrator is released on bail they often return to commit more violence upon their victim. Ms. Buckley's acknowledged constitutional issues may come into play with detaining the perpetrator or not allowing bail and wondered if there were any documented cases to present to the committee. Ms. Kaiser stated when the bill was first introduced it was an anticipated problem but it has not happened. She added the 12-hour detainment is saving lives in Nevada by separating parties as sitting in jail is the best therapy and makes a difference. Ms. Buckley clarified she was not suggesting removing the 12 hours but merely asking for documentation that it may need to be changed. A discussion was held regarding previous legislation and up-coming bills surrounding domestic violence issues. Doug Dickerson, Las Vegas City Manager's Office, stated they support A.B. 378 and specifically would like to see the committee strongly consider the amendment allowing the use of 911 tapes in trials concerning domestic violence. He stated his office prosecutes more domestic violence cases than any other office in the state. Mr. Dickerson provided a letter for the record from Brad Jerbic, City Attorney, Las Vegas setting forth further comments regarding the inclusion of 911 tapes as admissible evidence in domestic violence cases. The letter is attached hereto as (Exhibit G). Mr. Carpenter added some areas may not have 911 specifically and/or chose to call the police department directly and those tapes should be equally admitted. Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby testified in support of A.B. 378. Ms. Livingston provided the committee with a brochure entitled "The Nevada Women's Agenda 1995", a Legislative guide attached hereto as (Exhibit H). Ms. Livingston read excerpts from sections contained therein on pages 13 and 14 regarding domestic violence. She stated the 4-hour window is being used as an escape hatch and supports removal of that provision. Diane Loper, Victim Advocate, Reno City Attorney's Office, and having represented victims of domestic violence for the past fifteen years, agreed with Mr. Carpenter in that the criminal system does not follow through with domestic violence cases. Most often for the first offense the sentence is six months, suspended, and a mandatory six month batterer treatment program. She stated the 4-hour hold is a problem for the officers and for the victims. She supports the passage of A.B. 378 and feels it will help address some of the problems they have seen in the domestic violence statutes. Ms. Loper provided brochures for committee distribution from the Reno City Attorney's office. The brochure is attached hereto as (Exhibit I). She testified the officer on the street has a difficult time responding to calls of abuse in determining if the parties reside together and because of that, may not even ask if the parties live together. She believes the 24-hour mandate in obtaining protection orders is very important for the victim. She concluded stating she believes the passage of A.B. 378 will go a long way in providing protection for domestic violence victims. Lori Brown, Victim Advocate, Reno City Attorney's Office and survivor of domestic violence, testified in support of A.B. 378. Ms. Brown stated the "dating relationship" language is important because she sees many more cases with younger victims, such as high school age. These victims are not able to obtain a protection order. She stated her abusive relationship started in high school. Teens and their parents are not educated to know what is available in the community to help teen victims. The dating relationship carries many of the same dynamics as living together does and therefore those victims should be afforded the same protection. She informed the committee she has had victims tell her they will go move in with their batterer just to be able to get the relief of a protective order. With regard to Mutual Restraining Orders, Ms. Brown stated she has seen them used effectively. Mr. Anderson asked if she saw a value in the use of Mutual Restraining Orders in keeping the individuals apart. Ms. Brown stated no she did not think so at all and in fact the perpetrator will use it to abuse his victim even more as it gives credit to what he has said. Mr. Anderson commented he understood what she was saying about the use of Mutual Restraining Orders not being effective, however, the point is the protective orders are not effective period. She stated they are effective in many cases and once they are served the person respects the law to some degree and stays away. Ms. Brown concluded stating the 4-hour window provision should be deleted as it is a large problem. The batterer knows how to use the system and will even say to their victim after the abuse, "see you in four hours." Ms. Loper clarified the problem with mutual restraining orders is they are being automatically issued. Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's office stated they support any legislation that will strengthen domestic violence issues. Mr. Nadeau added they will volunteer in any way to help work out the language. They would like to see the 4-hour provision expanded as it is too limiting. They agree with the protection being afforded to those in dating relationships. Lastly, they would be happy to work with any subcommittee set up for the bill. Eric Cooper, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, and representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, stated they support the bill as it makes a good law better. They are concerned with the 12-hour provision of being in custody without bail yet 48 hours moves it into the punitive. He added the language concerning carrying a concealed weapon is vague as it addresses acts committed against another to whom he is related by blood or marriage. This becomes a crime against the state rather than a crime against the person. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Cooper or Mr. Nadeau to comment on the lack of enforcement of protection orders as they do not seem to be taken seriously. Mr. Nadeau stated they do take them seriously and try to do as much as possible for their enforcement. Upon Mr. Anderson's further inquiry, Mr. Nadeau stated the longer detainment (24 hours) of the batterer may be eliminated with the passage of the 24 hour access to the courts. He stated his experience showed when they did not have a cooling-off period, seriousness of the situation would escalate. He feels 12 hours may be adequate with the 24-hour access to the courts but 24 hours would be necessary without the court access. He stated they often receive temporary restraining orders via facsimile which they serve on the perpetrator while they are being detained for 12 hours. Chairman Humke announced Assembly Bill 395 will be rescheduled for Monday, April 24, 1995 and therefore testimony would not be taken on that bill today. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto stated they support A.B. 378 and its entire concept. He offered their resources to the subcommittee in discussing the bill. Addressing Mr. Anderson's concerns, they are taking domestic violence cases very seriously. Mr. Anderson stated he noted the Washoe County Sheriff's support and Reno Police Department's support for this serious issue and he was sadly disappointed his community law enforcement from Sparks, Nevada was not present today. Chairman Humke announced a guest in the audience, Mr. Benjamin J. Y. Lo, Economic and Cultural Office in charge of the San Francisco office and welcomed him to the committee hearing today. Valerie Cooney, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated they support the concept of extending the protection beyond formal marital relationships and cohabitation. She expressed one concern they have is the fiscal impact which has been totally ignored. She sees it as enormous because it allows another layer of individuals to utilize the court system to obtain these orders and in Washoe County they are already busting at the seams. She would like the subcommittee to examine the fiscal impact of the bill. Another area of concern for the subcommittee is the effect this bill will have on the rural counties in having masters and other individuals available to be responsive on a 24-hour basis. Ms. Cooney stated she would be happy to participate in the subcommittee. Chairman Humke announced the subcommittee will be chaired by Assemblyman Stroth with the remaining members being Assemblymen Schneider, Manendo, and Monaghan. Noting this was an all Clark County committee, he asked the members of the subcommittee to remain cognizant of testimony from other counties today. There being no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary April 18, 1995 Page