MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

	Sixty-eighth Session
	April 27, 1995


The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Thursday, 
April 27, 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
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
Ms. Dianne Steel
Ms. Jeannine Stroth

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst
Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary



OTHERS PRESENT:

Mr. Randall Todd, Nevada Health Division
Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Collectors Association/Realtors
Mr. Rod Barbash, Nevada Collectors Association
Dr. George Kaiser, Nevada Department of Prisons

SENATE BILL NO. 286	-	Revises provisions relating to homestead 	
					exemption.

Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5, sponsor, testified homesteading in Nevada 
has a history which dates back to the state's constitution in 1864.  It started out 
in the amount of $5,000 and remained for 84 years.  It was doubled in 1949.  The 
last time the exemption was increased was in 1989 from $90,000 to $95,000. 
 Even though this bill appears lengthy, it only makes three changes in the law.  
Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, all address the change from the $95,000 to the 
$125,000.  The second change is in the effective date for the exemption to take 
place.  In section 1, subsection 4, the date of October, 1995, was put in by bill 
drafting since she did not request an effective date.  Third and final change is in 
section 2, subsection 4, this change was due to people taking advantage of Nevada 
residents being unaware of the law.  Senator O'Connell referred to (Exhibit C) and 
briefly explained how a business took advantage of the public in filing a declaration 
of homestead charging $25 in lieu of the actual $5 filing cost.

Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Collectors Association/Realtors, testified in support of 
S.B. 286 and provided background on what Senator O'Connell indicated on what 
the medium priced housing costs are in the state of Nevada, attached as 
(Exhibit D).

Chairman Anderson asked what the difference was between mobile home and 
manufactured housing.  Mr. Coward explained it had to do with a certain point in 
time when there were different manufacturing requirements.  One had to do with 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  


Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Coward supported the reference to Sections 2.4 and 2.6, 
for disclosure notice that must be given to someone who has received an ability to 
use one of these services.  Mr. Coward replied disclosure is worthwhile and could 
support it.  Mr. Humke asked if he would have any objections if the section were 
deleted.  Mr. Coward had no objection.  Basically, Nevada Association of Realtors 
have no position on it.  It is not a critical issue.  The main issue that they do 
support is the moving of the dollar amount from the previous to the new amount. 
 The purpose is the protection of the home itself.  As a practical matter, Mr. Humke 
asked if realtors perform this service on behalf of homeowners.  Mr. Coward 
advised they do not.  

SENATE BILL NO. 285	-	Revises requirements for service of writ of 	
					garnishment on bank with branch office or military 
					facilities.

Mr. Pat Coward accompanied by Mr. Rod Barbash, Chairman, Nevada Collectors 
Association, testified in support of S.B. 285.  Mr. Barbash advised this bill was 
requested in cooperation with the Nevada Banking Association.  The purpose was 
to clean up NRS 31.291.  Years ago each individual bank that had two or three 
offices in one city kept their own records.  Now because of electronic 
computerization the banks have joined together.  When a garnishment is now 
served under the old law, it must be served on the bank where the account is.  
They in turn have to send it to their head office, who sends it to wherever the 
computerization is.  By amending the act, it can be served in one spot to effect the 
garnishment.  

Mr. Coward advised Mr. John Sande of Nevada Banking Association asked him to 
enter on the record that the bankers do support this bill.  

SENATE BILL NO. 264	-	Revises requirements for testing of certain 	
					offenders for exposure to human immunodeficiency 
					virus.

Dr. Randall L. Todd, P.H., State Epidemiologist, and Chief of Bureau of Disease 
Control and Intervention Services, testified in support of S.B. 264, attached as 
(Exhibit E). 

Ms. Steel asked if it was the intent to test everyone.  Dr. Todd responded if high 
risk behavior occurs in the prison system, then what would be the conversion rate 
among negative inmates.  To know what the risk of being in prison is, exit testing 
needs to be done.  The current bill suggests that epidemiological question has been 
answered and we can move on to a more selective type of testing procedure.  


Dr. George Kaiser, Medical Director of the Nevada Department of Prisons, testified 
in support of S.B. 264 and distributed a letter of April 24, 1995, attached as 
(Exhibit F).  

Mr. Anderson inquired what the incubation period was for HIV.  Dr. Kaiser advised 
it was six months incubation.  This method will not detect every inmate who leaves 
the prison who is positive.  From needle use, prisons had an outbreak of 
hepatitis B.  

Mr. Manendo asked what happens when an inmate enters with HIV.  Dr. Kaiser 
answered even if an inmate declares he is HIV positive, we have a medical file to 
put them into a tracking system.  Depending on status, they are treated and 
monitored.  

Mr. Anderson assumed these HIV inmates increase prison costs because of medical 
problems.  Dr. Kaiser affirmed.  First year, $100,000 was spent on AZT.  

Mr. Carpenter wondered if the state has any liability for release of prisoners with 
HIV notification.  Dr. Kaiser answered the state would not be responsible, as a 
positive test is required by law to be reported to the state health division who then 
conducts an epidemiological investigation.  

Dr. Todd advised when an individual whether a prisoner or not is reported to public 
health as being HIV positive or as having AIDS, the investigation consists of 
interviewing the individual to determine source of infection, risk behaviors, 
notification of exposed individuals.  If they are unable or do not wish to notify 
exposed individuals, they will take on the responsibility for notification.  If they are 
out of prison, they will coordinate community based services needed for referral. 
  
Mr. Carpenter asked if the family of the inmate is notified that this person is 
positive.  Dr. Todd advised they identify people who have been in contact with the 
 inmate.  Those individuals are notified to take the appropriate precautions.  Overall 
objective is to notify people at risk of having been infected so that they can seek 
testing.  

Mr. Carpenter wondered if the medications are effective.  Dr. Kaiser responded 
research continues; however, the Concord study dampened enthusiasm.  Generally, 
it is felt the medications can improve the quality of life.  It has not been clearly 
shown life can be lengthened.  


Mr. Goldwater questioned if inmates with HIV have any less access or more of a 
barrier to early release programs.  Dr. Kaiser did not know the answer to the 
question as to whether being HIV positive in any way makes it less likely to get an 
early release.  Mr. Goldwater was concerned if being HIV positive precludes 
inmates from being eligible for early release programs.  Dr. Kaiser advised about 
three years ago inmates were not allowed to go to the camps, thereby making 
them ineligible for early release.  This policy was modified and inmates can now be 
placed in certain camps which accelerates their exit process from the prison.  As 
far as being HIV positive, Dr. Kaiser stated the degree of their illness is more of a 
factor of their ability to work and participate in those programs.  Someone who has 
AIDS or is very ill is obviously not going to be employable, and therefore, may not 
be eligible.  They do not send the inmates to the restitution centers. They are sent 
to the camps.  

Dr. Todd clarified that Nevada's confidentiality laws would preclude sharing 
information about the HIV status of an inmate who is about to released with 
potential employers.  From a discrimination standpoint, it would not be a barrier. 
 Dr. Todd agreed with Dr. Kaiser in that their employability would depend on their 
degree of illness and how able they are to work physically.  

Ms. Steel followed up on Mr. Carpenter's point about liability.  If no one is selected 
for testing and they do have AIDS, it may come back on the state later.  She asked 
if it would be helpful to insert, "upon request of an inmate" because the inmate 
may know about activity the director does not know about.  Dr. Kaiser advised they 
already test.  If an inmate requests an HIV test, they generally comply.  


Chairman Anderson requested clarification if Dr. Kaiser had concern on how 
determination to test was to be made.  Dr. Kaiser replied the determination to test 
should be based on a medical decision as opposed to an administrative decision due 
to financial limitations.  It was not specifically stated in the bill, and it was 
mentioned in the hope the intent of the legislature would be clear.  Chairman 
Anderson asked if this representation was made in the other house also.  Dr. Kaiser 
replied affirmatively.  Chairman Anderson concluded there was no amendment by 
the Senate to include the medical criteria on medical recommendation.  Dr. Kaiser 
 stated it was a good suggestion and did not think it would change the intent.  If 
the committee wanted to add this provision, he would not oppose it.  Dr. Kaiser 
expected a reasonable director of the prison to seek medical information.  In a 
financial crisis possibly the testing could be stopped altogether.  The other 
possibility would be to delineate in the law the specific high risk activities to be 
screened for.  Chairman Anderson contemplated a statement, "on recommendation 
of the medical director, the director shall determine. . ."  Dr. Kaiser concurred it 
would be helpful in keeping the medical orientation.  

Chairman Anderson informed the 1995 legislative information summary was 
distributed summarizing the caseload in the Eighth Judicial District Court during 
1994, attached as (Exhibit G). 

Chairman Anderson advised there is a bill draft request to punish prior felony DUI 
offenders as felons by sending back to prison on a felony instead of allowing them 
to start over in the misdemeanor court.  This would be an amendment to NRS 
484.3792.  

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL 
DRAFT.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.


There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9: 05 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Patty Hicks,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:




Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman




Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman

Assembly Committee on Judiciary
April 27, 1995
Page