MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 7, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 6:50 p.m., on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, Chairman Anderson presiding in Room 331 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 Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Thomas Batten GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Wendell Williams STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Chuck Burr, Credit Manager, Western Nevada Supply John Arobio, private citizen Diane McMullin, private citizen Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Susan Asher, Nevada Humane Society Steve Ricker, Nevada Humane Society Norma Klenakis, Churchill Animal Protective Services Teresa Summers, Churchill Animal Protective Services June Grinstead, Churchill Animal Protective Services Janet Arobio, Nevada Humane Society Katie Stevens, Washoe County Animal Control Bob Teuton, Clark County District Attorney's Office Ben Graham, District Attorneys Association Nancy Allesee, Eagle Valley Humane Society Juanita Cox, private citizen Dr. Richard Simmons, private citizen Pete Bachstadt, private citizen Nancy Saitta, Deputy Attorney General Barbara & Fred Spierer, private citizens Dawn Lappin, private citizen Cathy Burcomb, private citizen Ria Katz, private citizen Gary Griffith, private citizen Clayton K. Rice, II., attorney at law Tom Bentz, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance Cindra Smith, private citizen Mark McGuire, Nevada Humane Society Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Randy Saulnier, Sergeant, Reno Police Department Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Sam McMullen, Nevada Humane Society Cathleen Green, Veterinarian Darl Thiessens, Sierra Nevada Collie Club Marie Buckeley, private citizen Chairman Anderson announced a quorum was present. ASSEMBLY BILL 646 - Makes various changes to procedure in juvenile cases. Ben Graham, District Attorney's Association, and Bob Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, came forward to testify as the primary sponsors of A.B. 646. Mr. Teuton stated to expedite matters he provided his testimony and additional information for committee review, attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Included in the handout are two flowcharts concerning the petition formalities and how the process would occur with proposed amendments to A.B. 646. Mr. Teuton stated the intent of A.B. 646 is to bring the process in juvenile matters more in conformity with actual practice and is therefore a technical amendment. Mr. Teuton advised there are five major elements of the bill as follows: First, eliminate the requirement that probation officers sign petitions alleging delinquency or a child in need of supervision. The second provision would require juveniles be released from detention if a petition is not filed within eight days. If the child is retained in the detention facility, the district attorney would be barred forever from filing charges against the juvenile. This provides the impetus to make swift decisions. The problem in Clark County has been that the district attorney has no authority over the juvenile facility. Mrs. Monaghan asked how many times a juvenile has been required to be released due to failure to file a petition. Mr. Teuton replied he did not have an exact figure. Mrs. Monaghan confirmed the reason the juvenile was released was because they did not have the information to file the petition, not because they did not file the petition in time. Mr. Teuton affirmed that was correct. Mr. Teuton stated the third section of the bill deals with the competent evidence rule. The amendment adds the requirement that evidence considered admissible in juvenile proceedings must be material and relevant to the issues and competent. This is as a direct result of the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling that polygraph examinations are not competent and therefore inadmissible in court. However, there have been cases wherein polygraphs have been admitted and considered. This section would make that determination more clear. Mr. Sandoval asked what constitutes competent evidence. Mr. Teuton responded if it tends to prove something or if the person appears to have knowledge as to the subject, that would be considered competent evidence. Mr. Teuton stated it would be easier to describe what evidence is not competent, such as polygraph examinations, or persons testifying as an expert but in fact are not an expert. Upon Chairman Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Teuton stated currently polygraph examinations are allowed in juvenile court. However, this bill would eliminate them thereby treating the evidence the same as an adult proceeding. Mr. Teuton continued to Section 4 stating this deals with the 60-day extension. Currently, the statute provides a disposition of sentencing in a juvenile matter must take place within 60 days from the date of filing a petition. The statute does not state what the remedy is if it occurs after 60 days or what good cause to continue the disposition beyond 60 days would be. The amendment to A.B. 646 in this area would set forth factors in this area which provides adequate guidance to the judge. Mr. Carpenter asked for further explanation regarding the 60-day provision for filing the petition. Mr. Teuton responded once the petition is filed, the judge is then required to sentence the juvenile within 60 days from that date. If they do not, presently, they are required to issue an order extending the time beyond 60 days. Lines 7 and 8 of A.B. 646 provides the order extending time could be made on day 45 or 50 or at day 80 if not noticed. Mr. Teuton clarified the detention issue only deals with the filing of a petition not the entire court process. In addition, this is most seen in foster care situations where abuse has taken place. In such cases, the judge is awaiting psychological tests, etc., and therefore the disposition may go beyond 60 days. If there is just cause, there will not be an automatic dismissal of the case simply because a disposition was not made in 60 days. Mr. Teuton stated the final section of the bill deals with the subpoena process. Currently, in a juvenile court proceeding, the clerk of the court issues the subpoenas. Clark County last year issued approximately 5,560 subpoenas in juvenile proceedings. In the adult system, the district attorney has the power to issue certain subpoenas and this section of A.B. 646 is attempting to obtain that same power in juvenile matters. This would eliminate the burdens of court clerks without impacting the legal effect of subpoenaing witnesses. He stated this would expedite the system and bring the juvenile law in more conformity with adult proceedings. Ben Graham, District Attorneys Association, reminded the committee at all stages of the proceedings, the juveniles are represented by attorneys and the defense and prosecution would be given the same subpoena power. Mr. Humke noted the provision allowing the right of defense to subpoena did not appear clear in the bill. Mr. Graham responded if it is not covered in Section 4 of the bill, then it should be amended as such. In discussing the detention and release of a juvenile, Mr. Teuton stated in Clark County if a juvenile is arrested at 4:00 a.m. on a weekday he is usually seen by a judge by 8:00 a.m. the next day. Then the judge sets a detention review hearing within 48 to 72 hours. In addition, the majority of kids are released to their parents even before they get before the judge. The only kids held in detention for the full ten days before filing a petition, are those wherein the charges are very serious: sexual assault, robbery, home burglaries. Ms. Buckley asked if the probable cause review was done separately from the petition alleging delinquency. Mr. Teuton stated yes. Mr. Carpenter expressed additional concerns regarding the 60-day disposition requirement concluding his thoughts that the language appeared open-ended which may result in a child being wrongfully detained for too long. Chairman Anderson, in addressing Mr. Carpenter's concerns, drew attention to page four of the bill, inquiring if this provision placed a "step considerations." Mr. Teuton stated there was no priority to the factors but simply mandates the consequences to the child be given consideration. Mr. Neilander clarified the provision sets forth the court "shall" consider and goes on to provide a list and it does not place any degree of importance over one factor or the other as it is discretionary. Chairman Anderson stated they would not take action on A.B. 646 in order to provide Mr. Carpenter with time to discuss his concerns with Mr. Graham. ASSEMBLY BILL 650 - Requires court to designate country of habitual residence of child in custody decree and authorizes court in custody case to require parent with significant commitments in foreign country to post bond. Nancy Saitta, Deputy Attorney General and Childrens Advocate for the state of Nevada testified as sponsor of the bill. Ms. Saitta explained A.B. 650 is a protection of children bill dealing specifically with international abductions. The bill is designed to provide for a statement within a custody or divorce decree indicating the child's state of habitual residence is the United States. Ms. Saitta stated they believe this language is necessary because of an act entitled, the "Hague Convention" which calls for the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children to their countries of habitual residence. She hopes this will impede and deter parents from abducting children to other countries. Ms. Saitta stated it is very difficult to successfully return a child to his habitual residence once he/she has been abducted. The Hague Convention works with signatories of various countries and there are 33 signed on to this convention. Ms. Saitta declared before the Hague Convention can be used to assist in the recovery of a child, it must first be determined that the United States is the habitual residence of the child. Therefore, the State Department, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children, have recommended the legislature consider making a "habitual residence" statement a part of the custody and divorce statutes. Ms. Saitta acknowledged some concern the committee had with the bond provision of the bill and clarified the bond issuance is discretionary and is designed for the few unique situations whereby the parent has reason to believe their child may be at risk of abduction and shows just cause to the court. Ms. Saitta indicated during 1994, there were 1,057 children taken from the United States abducted to a foreign country. In Nevada since 1971 there have been 17 international abductions with only one successful recovery. Ms. Saitta's prepared testimony is attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Chairman Anderson noted the entire committee was present except for Mr. Batten who was excused. Ms. Steel suggested placing such language in a divorce or custody decree would provide a false sense of security to the custodial parent. Ms. Steel asked how many countries were signatories to the Hague Convention. Ms. Saitta stated there were 33 signatories and the United States acts as one signatory. Further discussion was held regarding the concepts surrounding the Hague Convention. Ms. Steel declared she was opposed to the bonding provision in the bill because she found it very discriminatory. Mr. Humke stated Section 1(6)(a) sets forth what must be contained in the custody or divorce decree and asked if that went against the current statutes pertaining to jurisdiction of cases in Nevada. Ms. Saitta stated A.B. 650 would have no effect on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) which Nevada has adopted. A.B. 650 merely establishes the country of habitual residence and does not interplay with state jurisdictional issues. Mr. Humke pointed out the language in subsection (a) says ". . . the state of Nevada or the state where the child resides." Ms. Saitta suggested the section be corrected to indicate "for purposes of Hague Convention applications." Additionally, Mr. Humke asked if Section 7 adversely affects a United States citizen's right to travel outside the United States. Ms. Saitta replied A.B. 650 only applies to cases where Hague Convention is going to be enacted. Mr. Humke reminded Ms. Saitta she testified earlier that Section 7 was discretionary. Ms. Saitta reiterated the issue would occur when the child has been wrongfully taken then the State Department steps in to assist in the recovery process with the Hague Convention. Further discussion was held regarding the interpretation of Section 7 between Mr. Humke and Ms. Saitta. Mr. Humke concluded although he understood her intent and was sympathetic to situations involving abducted children; the bill as written is potentially racist and chauvinistic, in his opinion. Ms. Saitta stated she would be happy to work toward cleaning up language in the bill. Ms. Ohrenschall asked what "significant commitments" in a foreign country meant at lines 11-12 of the bill. Ms. Saitta stated section 7 appeared to have many areas requiring language changes and she was happy to entertain amendments thereto. Fred and Barbara Spieren testified in support of A.B. 650. Mr. Spieren stated the system failed them. If is wife, Barbara, would have been aware her ex-husband, who did not have custody of their child, was able to obtain a passport for her son she could put a block on the passport and the child would not have been abducted to the war-torn country of Croatia. Secondly, Mr. Spieren stated education was the key to the problem of abduction. If primary custodians in child custody cases have the knowledge of what the law is pertaining to abduction they would know how to prevent it from happening to them. Mr. Anderson asked if Croatia is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Mr. Spieren stated at the time his wife's child was abducted it was not but it is now. Mrs. Spieren testified the abduction of her son, of course, was very terrifying. She informed the committee she is probably one of the few persons who has retrieved a child from an international abduction and she is grateful she can say that. Ms. Spieren stated the entire ordeal spanned a period of ten weeks. Mr. Spieren stated, with regard to the bond provision in the bill, he did not believe there was any prejudice intended and a bond would have been helpful in their situation. Mr. Carpenter asked Mrs. Spieren if her former husband had ties to Croatia. Mrs. Spieren stated her former husband was from Croatia which was formerly Yugoslavia which has been under an extreme war situation in the past several years. He was born and raised in the part that is now called Croatia and his parents and sister and brother still reside there. Ms. Spieren stated her son was returned to her by a process that began with a community effort and spread to the county and state level. Thereafter, the federal agencies in Washington became involved, the State Department, the Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Croatian government. Mr. Spieren concluded children depend on adults for protection and although they were fortunate to get Barbara's son returned, many other families would benefit from A.B. 650. ASSEMBLY BILL 654 - Limits lien of materialman for improvement of structure. Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District 6, Las Vegas, as proponent of A.B. 654, stated A.B. 654 was a good consumer bill. Essentially the bill would cover those individuals who contract services for work at the home, an addition, a swimming pool, patio cover, etc. They enter into a contract with a contractor for an agreed upon price, the work is completed, and the services are paid in full. Thereafter, the contractor orders supplies that get delivered to the owner's address but the contractor does not pay for the material so a lien is placed on the owner's property. A.B. 654 would prevent the homeowner from being faced with a lien if all payments have been made, all work has been completed, and satisfactory funding pertaining to the contract is complete. Mrs. Monaghan asked, in the above scenario, what happens to the suppliers? Mr. Williams stated they cause the lien to be filed. The supplier would have to locate the contractor, file suit, or whatever, to get his funds. Mr. Goldwater stated the bill looked good but inquired if a lien could still be placed on the homeowner if payment is not made to the contractor pursuant to the terms of the contract. Mr. Williams answered yes. Mr. Sandoval asked if the intent of the bill was to include commercial projects as well as consumer projects. Mr. Williams stated the bill would apply to every situation where an unjustifiable lien would apply. Presiding Chairman Buckley clarified the underlying debt would still remain in place but this would not allow an additional lien where the person has already met their financial obligations. Chuck Burr, credit manager, Western Nevada Supply Company in Sparks, having been so employed for the past 15 years, testified in opposition to A.B. 654. Mr. Burr said his reading of the bill is that the material man would be stripped of all his rights to be paid. Mr. Burr said the existing law in this area is in tune with all Nevada's neighboring states. Mr. Burr stated if a subcontractor is working for a contractor, they must put out a pre-lien notice. If the material man fails to put out a pre-lien notice, then there are no lien rights against the owner's property. Mr. Burr stated the pre-lien notices are sent to the owner by registered mail, return receipt requested. Mr. Burr pointed out the "pre-lien notice" allows the owner ample time to satisfy any unpaid debt or address the impropriety of a lien. Mr. Burr outlined in further detail the lien notice procedure along with general handling of matters between contractors, subcontractors, and owners during a project. Mr. Burr noted California has a law setting forth a "stop work notice" which occurs if the contractor is not paid then he can place a stop work order on the project and no more money will be paid out until the problem is solved. However, Nevada does not have this law in their lien laws. Mr. Burr concluded A.B. 654 hurts the small businessman and the material man. Mr. Schneider declared in new construction there is new construction control through the banks which is built into the loan. However, the intent of A.B. 654 is for the general public who is unaware of the ramifications that can occur when undertaking a small home improvement. Often, the public may enter into an agreement with a contractor for a project and then the contractor abandons the project. Assemblyman Williams has brought this legislation to protect the public who, in good faith, enters into contracts, pays their obligations, and then becomes subject to liens against their home. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Burr if he had a suggestion to protect the public in these situations. Mr. Burr concurred major new construction whether it is commercial or residential will have "voucher control" and then there is no problem. Mr. Burr stated they do not put out "pre lien notices" on small projects and therefore they have forfeited their lien rights concluding perhaps education would be one way to have the public know. Mr. Goldwater asked if Mr. Burr extends open credit to all suppliers, and exactly what procedure is in place in that regard. Mr. Burr explained Western Nevada Supply does credit checks and will provide a limited line of credit depending on what the credit check reveals. Mr. Burr added the pre-lien laws have helped tremendously and in 15 years Western Nevada Supply has never placed a lien on a house and they have been sued once in 15 years. ASSEMBLY BILL 568 - Revises provisions governing prevention of cruelty to animals. Presiding Chairman Buckley noted there were many individuals signed in to testify on A.B. 568 and the committee would be considering another large bill after A.B. 568. Presiding Chairman Buckley asked the witnesses to keep that in mind and if a spokesperson from one organization wanted to come forward to represent many that would be fine. Tom Bentz, Executive Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance, testified as the proponent of A.B. 568. Mr. Bentz stated his grass roots organization was supported and endorsed by the five major kennel clubs in the state together with pet shops in both northern and southern Nevada and other contractors and individuals with animal interests. This organization has approximately 15,000 members. Mr. Bentz explained the reason for A.B. 568 was because the current statute on animal cruelty was written over 110 years ago when mining was prevalent in Virginia City. It became obvious at that time with the overloading and abuse of animals coming from the mines they would need some help. Back then, the law provided that any three persons could form a humane society and any members could petition a district judge to swear in any members or officers of the society as a peace officer with applicable policing powers. There has not been an abuse of that power until about 10-15 years ago when people started thinking animals had as much rights as humans. Mr. Bentz stated now there is an abuse of this power and change is necessary. Mr. Bentz stated many other states are considering like legislation as A.B. 568 such as Oregon and Pennsylvania. Mr. Bentz declared agencies such as the humane society should have investigative powers to help the animal control officers. However, since there is no accountability in a humane society setting, it becomes a dangerous procedure as they set themselves out as a private police force. Whereas, an animal control officer or police officer doing an investigation into a claim of animal cruelty has accountability to report to his supervisor. Mr. Bentz stated there is no record on how many humane society officers have been sworn in under the present statute which allows them to put on a badge and a gun and confiscate animals. Mr. Bentz stated this creates a large problem because even though the animal cruelty laws are fairly clear, five persons could come to a home and make five different decisions as to whether cruelty has occurred. If an individual is then charged under the cruelty statute, they are required to pay for all the care of the animal even while it was in another's possession while they await a court date. Mr. Bentz pointed out the current definition of "animal" in the statute is "any creature other than man" and their organization has suggested a change in that definition. Mr. Bentz explained they are not hard-set on the definition set forth in A.B. 568 but there does need to be a change. In addition, Mr. Bentz introduced a proposed amendment to the bill, attached hereto as (Exhibit E). Continuing to another portion of the bill, Mr. Bentz stated the bill would ask that animal dealers include people who put animals out for adoption. This was asked two years ago during the "puppy mill" bill. Mr. Bentz went on to describe some of the changes made during that legislation. Upon Presiding Chairman Buckley's request, Mr. Bentz stated he was addressing Section 9 of the bill discussing the word "dealers." Mr. Bentz stated this section provides that shelters run by humane societies should meet the same standards set forth in the "puppy mill" bill. These standards include the size of kennels, warm water at your facility, etc. Mr. Bentz noted there would be an argument in this area that the animals in shelters are animals that are no longer desired, etc., and the animals from dealers are purebreds. However, his organization feels the issue is not the value of the animal but the care given to any animal. Mr. Bentz concluded what the bill is attempting to do is 1) take away peace officer power; 2) change the definition of "animal"; 3) remove obsolete language; and 4) require dealers meet the same standards of care to animals as everyone else in the industry. Mr. Clayton Rice, II., stated he was legal counsel to the group, Responsible Dog Owners Group (RDOG). Mr. Rice provided the committee with an extensive handout containing information about their organization and various articles relating to the subject. The handout is attached hereto as (Exhibit F). Mr. Rice announced he testified extensively in previous legislative sessions regarding the "puppy mill" bill. Mr. Rice stated he was very familiar with the statutes involving animal cruelty adding there are many "flaws" in Chapter 574 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The "flaws" surround the following areas: 1) an accountability standard; 2) an immunity standard; 3) an illegal search standard; and 4) a due process standard. With regard to accountability, Mr. Rice stated the humane society is not governed by any single laws present in the Nevada Revised Statutes. The only law they may be subject to is Section 547.030(3) wherein they are required to report to the Legislature each session a full accounting of their acts. However, as far as he knows this has never been done. Further, there is no way of knowing how many humane societies have been established in Nevada which causes jurisdictional problems. Mr. Rice went on to state the problem of immunity is seen in NRS 574.055 "an officer who seizes an animal pursuant to this section is not liable for any action arising out of the taking or humane destruction of that animal." They believe implementation of checks and balances is needed to amend this section. The third area involves the illegal search and seizure of an animal which constitutes search and seizure of property as governed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, there is no probable cause standard in the current animal cruelty laws so searches and seizures are arbitrarily occurring. Presiding Chairman Buckley informed the audience and members of the committee the parole board bill, Assembly Bill 288, would be heard at a time certain of 9:00 p.m. Therefore, future witnesses should direct their testimony accordingly. Mr. Rice concluded his testimony by commenting on the lack of due process in NRS Chapter 574 et seq. Mr. Bentz concluded by thanking the members for their time and consideration stating his next speakers would be Eric Cooper and Cindra Smith. Chairman Anderson announced he would take witnesses in groups of two and three persons beginning with two more in favor of the bill and moving to three in opposition of the bill limiting each persons' testimony to two minutes. Eric Cooper, representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified in support of the bill and recommended the amendment addressing animal control officers in lieu of sheriffs (Exhibit E) which was propounded by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. Cooper stated they have long had an objection to peace officer control by a humane society officer because the individuals are untrained. Humane officers have been sworn in over the years and can carry firearms yet they have not availed themselves of training whatsoever. For these reasons, they urge passage of A.B. 568. Cindra Smith, a private citizen with a law enforcement degree, an animal science degree, and having worked with animal societies for the past 15 years, in addition to other experience, stated her support for A.B. 568. Ms. Smith stated the humane society is a non-profit organization obtaining donations from the public yet they are acting as a law enforcement agency. Ms. Smith questioned the Nevada Humane Society's receipt of funds from various sources may persuade them in their actions. For example, the cat club donated money to the society and they were not included in the "puppy mill" bill. The Nevada Humane Society has stated they will not go against calf roping because of an agreement they have with the Reno Rodeo and the casino industry. Ms. Smith continued her comments by questioning the practices of the Nevada Humane Society. Chairman Anderson called forward three persons in opposition to the bill, Susan Asher, Steven Ricker, and John Arobio, to testify noting they would each have three minutes. Mr. Arobio deferred his testimony to Mark McGuire. Susan Asher, Assistant Director, Division of Nevada Humane Society, stated she has been so employed for the past 15 years. Her job is to oversee the adoption of animals and release of animals to their legal owners. Ms. Asher stated she is specifically against the bill as pertains to the reclassification of their position as a "dealer" as they came into existence not by choice but out of necessity. The humane society takes unwanted or unneeded animals from owners to try and replace those animals in homes and they do not seek a profit in doing so; in fact, they lose money. Ms. Asher declared they provide excellent care for animals. If they were to be reclassified as a "dealer" they would be required to abide by the "puppy mill" laws which would raise the adoption fees and make public the name and address of the person surrendering the animal. She sees this as an unfunded fiscal impact and perhaps large privacy and harassment issues would be potential. Ms. Asher's prepared testimony is attached hereto as (Exhibit G). Ms. Asher provided the committee with handouts including a newsletter entitled "Kind Times" and various related material. These documents are included herein as (Exhibit H). Steve Ricker, fundraiser for the humane society, stated he also oversees the clinic operation and some other business aspects of the Nevada Humane Society. Mr. Ricker clarified animal control agencies would be exempt from these laws and if they were included this bill would not go anywhere due to the large fiscal impact that would occur. Mr. Ricker also clarified earlier testimony by stating the Nevada Humane Society has no agreement with local casinos or the rodeo association regarding investigations. Mr. Ricker's prepared testimony is attached hereto as (Exhibit I). Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society stated his testimony would be limited to addressing points brought forth by previous witnesses. Mr. Bentz indicated animal shelters do not abide by the conditions of the "puppy mill" bill wherein in fact that bill has two concerns 1) pertaining to kennel requirements and shelters; and 2) consumer protection avenues pertaining to "premium quality animals" and animals with genetic defects. Mr. McGuire provided an article describing these areas in further detail. The article is attached as (Exhibit J). Mr. McGuire stated with regard to Eric Cooper's comments, he would embrace the concept of training of humane officers by classes in law enforcement at community colleges or other areas offering such courses. Mr. McGuire stated with regard to Cindra Smith's comments about cats not being included in the "puppy mill" bill because of donations, the reason cats were not included is simply because they were not the problem. With respect to the rodeo situation, Mr. McGuire declared they do not pursue them not because of agreements with casinos but because it is better handled in a working-type environment rather than a "locking horns environment." Mr. Manendo asked why humane society officers need to carry weapons. Mr. McGuire clarified they do not carry weapons and never have. Mr. Manendo stated he has had to contact animal control in Las Vegas and those officers do not carry weapons. Mr. McGuire stated he has heard about officers carrying weapons in other states and their philosophy is "no one should be a pistol-packing pet protector." Mr. Carpenter asked if they complied with the "puppy mill" bill as far as the kennel requirements. Mr. McGuire answered yes they do comply with those provisions and always assumed all shelters did. The portion they do not agree with in A.B. 568 is the consumer protection provisions since they do not have any control over the source of the animal, where it came from, or anything. Upon Mr. Carpenter's further inquiry, Mr. McGuire stated the animals are checked by the veterinarian at the time they are surgically altered. In addition, the animals are checked by experienced kennel staff who are not veterinarians but do not fall under the requirement of that provision of the bill. Ms. Steel asked since the humane society has consumers which they adopt pets out to, why should they not be protected like everyone else. Mr. McGuire stated the consumer portion of the bill that deals with the pet store owner versus a shelter or agency comes down to the individual who buys a dog at a pet store which is a pure bred, registered, premium quality dog for hundreds of dollars. In shelters, these animals are no longer wanted and there is no way of tracing their health, and many times they end up having to destroy the animal. A dealer or pet store owner does not put to sleep an AKC registered animal. Chairman Anderson then recognized three more people to testify in support of the bill noting they would be limited to 2 minutes testimony each and although that may be difficult, there were many persons wishing to testify. Juanita Cox, private citizen testified in support of A.B. 568. Ms. Cox stated she is an internationally-recognized breeder of arabian horses, cats, and dogs, a licensed judge, and the wife of the current Reno Rodeo President. Ms. Cox acknowledged Mr. McGuire's agreement for post training of society officers that portion of the bill should be easily passed. Ms. Cox suggested humane society abuse has been rampant for a number of years. Since her time was limited; however, Ms. Cox stated she would not go into specifics but offered the committee to contact her in the halls if interested. Ms. Cox stated the bill is excellent and urged passage of A.B. 568. Dean McMullin testified in support of A.B. 568 stating he has been a victim of the Nevada Humane Society. Mr. McMullin stated the entire ordeal has cost him five years of his life, his wife's life, and over $50,000 in restitution for animals that were seized and were returned to them in worse condition than when they were seized. Judge Salcedo even commented his case was the longest case he had ever seen having been filed June 2, 1989 and the last entry on the docket is April 28, 1994. Mr. McMullin did not have a copy of the docket outlining the case proceedings; however, upon Chairman Anderson's request, Mr. McMullin stated he would provide a copy at a later date. Dr. Richard Simmons stated he was a veterinarian and has over 30 years experience. Dr. Simmons summarized his concerns involve the police power of the officers in A.B. 568 and finds it unnerving that any three people can set themselves up as a humane society and then be sworn in with police powers. Dr. Simmons stated he supports passage of A.B. 568 and provided his letter of support attached hereto (Exhibit K). Chairman Anderson called three persons forward in opposition to the bill. Teresa Summers, board member and volunteer worker for the Churchill Animal Protection Society (CAPS) in Fallon testified CAPS is a non-profit organization formed in 1986 opening its first shelter in 1988. The shelter was brought about by concerned citizens and other than three paid employees, the shelter is run by volunteers. Ms. Summers stated the county paid $2,000 last year for maintenance and repairs but the shelter receives no tax money. Their income comes from impounds, adoptions, return to owner fees, and a few "guardian angels" who make donations. A.B. 568 would eliminate their much-needed organization. Ms. Summers' prepared text is attached hereto as part of cumulative (Exhibit L). Ms. Summers concluded by urging the committee to vote no on A.B. 568. Norma Klenakis, director, Churchill Animal Protection Society (CAPS) pointed out they oppose any legislation that would eliminate the ability of humane societies to conduct animal cruelty investigations and enforce cruelty laws. Ms. Klenakis stated they refer all claims of animal cruelty to the Churchill County Sheriff's office and if needed the Nevada Humane Society will assist. She stated the passage of A.B. 568 would have an enormous financial impact on their organization, on Churchill County, on the Naval Air Station at Fallon, and on the community. They take in animals from many services. Specifically, CAPS has a working agreement with the Naval Air Station wherein they take in animals secured aboard the Naval Air Station since they have no housing of animals other than their military working dogs. Ms. Klenakis went on to discuss more of the funding they receive to complete their day to day operations concluding if they were to be classified as a "dealer" as is suggested in A.B. 568, there would be a major fiscal impact. Upon Mr. Manendo's inquiry, Ms. Klenakis could not provide an exact figure of what the fiscal impact would be. Ms. Klenakis stated she would provide that approximation to the committee at a later date; however, a letter included in their handout from the Churchill County Manager's Office (Exhibit L) addresses the subject. June Gumstead, member of CAPS, read into the record a letter from Dr. Douglas Moore, a veterinarian, included in the handout (Exhibit L). The letter addresses the financial burden that would be placed on CAPS, a non-profit organization and the increased number of animals euthanized under A.B. 568. Mr. Moore's final comments in the letter urge the committee to review the by-laws of Nevada's humane societies to clarify they are not making a profit but in fact are serving a great need to all throughout the state. Chairman Anderson asked if there were any other persons in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the bill. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of the bill with an amendment to delete the law enforcement powers from the humane society as that would result in arbitrary enforcement based on personal bias rather than law. Ms. Lusk concluded by asked the committee to support A.B. 568. Darl Theissens, local pet shop owner, founding member of the Sierra Nevada Collie Club, and past president of the Reno Kennel Club, stated they strongly support A.B. 568. Mr. Theisens stated the members of the Reno Kennel Club have serious concerns of the police power the humane society has whereby they are not answerable to any electoral body. He added if they chose to have police powers then they should have their board of directors placed on the ballot to be voted on by the general public and open their books for scrutiny by the general public. Mr. Theisens stated the Nevada Humane Society is granted much money yearlong through donations, contributions, and fundraising. Whereby, as a pet store owner he has never sold an animal for more than $550 and he is bound by a written contract which has been approved by the Legislature. Chairman Anderson moved to three opponents of the bill. Nancy Allesee stated she was opposed to A.B. 568 but did not wish to testify. Katie Stevens, supervisor, Washoe County Animal Control, stated she believes there would be a fiscal impact to the local governments if A.B. 568 were to pass; however, placing a dollar amount on it would be difficult. Ms. Stevens added In Washoe County, the Nevada Humane Society handles most of their cruelty cases in the unincorporated area of the county. Also, the "dealer" definition could result in adoption animals that are now cared for by the humane society being taken to the animal control center or being abandoned. Ms. Steel asked if Ms. Stevens was speaking on behalf of herself or Washoe County. Ms. Stevens answered she was speaking on behalf of Washoe County. Janet Arobio, Chief Investigator, Nevada Humane Society, testified in opposition to A.B. 568. Mr. Arobio stated in listening to the proponents of the bill she has decided they are "misguided" and do not have their facts in order. Ms. Arobio stated as a humane officer she has to answer to the District Attorney's Office. It is that office that determines if there is a valid case and then it goes to the judge. Ultimately the judge makes a determination in an animal cruelty case, not a humane officer. Their offices simply gather the evidence and present it. They do not carry weapons. They do attempt to obtain educational background in their field. Ms. Arobio had prepared testimony which was provided for the record but due to time limits, was not read into the record but is attached hereto as (Exhibit M). Chairman Anderson, noting there were no more persons to testify in favor of the bill, brought forward three more persons to testify against the bill. Cathy Burcomb, Executive Director, State of Nevada Wild Horse Commission, stated in the past they have had to rely on peace officer services of the Nevada Humane Society. They found them to be very professional in their application of the law. In addition, she supports Mark McGuire's testimony. Dawn Lappin, Executive Director, Wild Horse Organized Assistance, stated she opposes A.B. 568. Ria Katz, stated she is on the advisory board of the Reno Animal Control and she sees many animals needing longer time periods to be adopted out. She stated it takes a long time and much money to place an animal who is over two to three years old. She asked the committee to think about this because if A.B. 568 passes, it would result in many more animals being put to sleep. Gary Griffith, a private citizen, asked the committee, when pondering passage of A.B. 568, to ask themselves the following: 1) what is broken in the current manner to which animal cruelty matters are handled? 2) will passing this bill result in a more efficient system? 3) do we want to burden the sheriff and police chiefs with yet another unfunded task? 4) has a cost benefit analysis been made to determine the impact of passage of the bill? 5) is emasculating the humane society in the best interest of the majority of residents of Nevada? Marie Buckeley, resident of Reno, expressed her opposition to A.B. 568. Ms. Buckeley stated she believes A.B. 568 is just another bill in many submitted to the legislature by special interest groups to limit all humane treatment of animals. Ms. Buckley referenced page two, section 3, dealing with the rescue of an animal being treated cruelly. This language would not allow a humane officer to rescue an animal and this shifts the cost and burden of rescuing animals to city and county governmental agencies who are already understaffed and under funded. Pete Bachstadt, private citizen of Carson City, stated the age of a law is not necessarily a good reason to repeal it. Mr. Bachstadt stated there is no problem in the area of animal cruelty and it appears to be just "paranoia." Mr. Bachstadt stated there is much animosity between the proponents of the bill and opponents of the bill. Further, the group that brought the bill does not want to talk to anyone about it. He concluded if persons in the humane movement were not forcing the issue with animal cruelty laws then no one else would. Mr. Bachstadt also submitted a prepared statement attached hereto as (Exhibit N). Chairman Anderson asked if a representative of the humane society, possibly, Mark McGuire or Ms. Asher could work together with Thomas Bentz and the subcommittee designed for this bill. Dr. Cathleen Greene, veterinarian, having worked for approximately seven years at the humane society, testified in opposition to A.B. 568. Dr. Greene stated the humane society should not be classified as a shelter as there would definitely be a financial impact on animal control. Currently, people do not have to pay to drop off their animal at the humane society. With this bill, those same persons would be going to animal control instead which would double the cost of euthanasia resulting in an enormous increase in cost. Sam McMullen, lobbyist for the Nevada Humane Society, stated earlier remarks were made in testimony and he would like to clarify, legally. Mr. McMullen stated there is in fact accountability and due process under the law. Humane officers have guidelines and are not just out there with police power and no one to answer to. Mr. McMullen added the taking or humane destruction of an animal can occur only after a court of competent jurisdiction orders the same. The only thing that occurs under the current law is seizure for purpose of taking and caring for an animal. It is extremely controlled and does not fall under search and seizure for any other reasons than taking and caring for an animal. Mr. McMullen stated it would be worth it for the committee to check into what fiscal impact may apply since details in that regard appear limited. Chuck Jarvi, current chairperson, Reno Advisory Board, and volunteer with For Pet's Sake, a private rescue and adoption group, and a volunteer of Love-a-Pet, in Reno, and a volunteer at Reno Animal Control stated it was a tragic shame that as human beings we allow poor, innocent animals, just because they are not purebreds, to die at animal control because no laws can be brought forth to save them. Chairman Anderson announced the hearing on A.B. 568 was concluded. The bill was assigned a subcommittee with Ms. Ohrenschall chairman, and Ms. Steel. ASSEMBLY BILL 288 - Increases number of members of board of parole commissioners and changes number of members required to decide issues involving certain offenders. Chairman Anderson noted there were three proposed amendments to A.B. 288 and asked they be distributed to the committee. The proposed amendments are attached hereto as cumulative (Exhibit O) having come from various agencies, Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department and Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Chairman Anderson stated A.B. 288 was first heard on March 22, 1995 and there were several problems with the bill. As such, amendments have been suggested by various agencies. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, introduced Sergeant Randy Saltier, Reno Police Department, responsible for the repeat-offender program, as a source of information if the committee so desires. Lt. Galeoto stated because of the current incident involving the death of a police officer by a recent parolee, much attention has been brought regarding the staffing of the parole board and their current operations. The amendments contained in (Exhibit O) should in no way reflect upon the integrity or quality of the current parole board. However, since A.B. 288 is requesting an additional member to the parole board because of under staffing complaints and the unfortunate recent incident, it has forced them to look at this issue entirely. Chairman Anderson announced A.B. 288 asks for an increase in parole board members. The proposed amendments (Exhibit O) add to the bill to include criteria, educational background, standards of serving on the parole board, and the hearing process. There are at least two substantive additions to the bill. Therefore, the co- chairmen have discussed the possibility of amending the bill and then having it re- referred for a full public hearing with the bill reprinted in its amended form. Lt. Galeoto explained the handouts stating the underlining portions address an issue or topic brought forth in the original amendments. The first section deals with the increase of seven members and they take no position on that however it does seem realistic considering the case loads. Section 5 deals with the experience of the board adding to make sure funding for the educational requests in the bill come forth somehow. Lt. Galeoto stated a definition of "career criminal" has been added to the bill as this term is synonymous in the field and a determination should be made from the records if they are a habitual offender or career criminal. Lt. Galeoto stated it is their belief the Governor should have the right to remove them as board members (without cause) as well as appoint them. Lt. Galeoto acknowledged there are many comments and concerns involving this issue. Lt. Galeoto continued with the experience the board members should be required to maintain and the length of term members should hold, not to exceed eight years. Lt. Galeoto declared it is time for an "oversight mechanism" independent of any other commissions or boards. It should involve persons who have specific experience in dealing with the egregious offenders. In addition, they believe the Governor should have available to him as independent a board as possible with special investigative powers. This ability is present within the Reno Civil Service Commission and perhaps some of these experts could be drawn throughout the state to accomplish a board that could be independent to assist the Governor. Lt. Galeoto read from the rules and regulations charter of the Reno Civil Service Commission, describing their duties. Upon Chairman Anderson's request, Lt. Galeoto stated he would provide the charter to research staff for use in future dealings of this subject matter. Ms. Buckley complimented Lt. Galeoto, law enforcement, Chairmen Anderson and Humke, and the Governor's Office for what appears to be well thought out reforms in response to a very serious situation. The speed and comprehensiveness in which they were drafted are wonderful. Ms. Ohrenschall echoed Ms. Buckley's comments and the amendments show great sensitivity to the problems that have occurred. Sergeant Salneare, Reno Police Department, head of the repeat-offender program, stated he would be available to answer questions when A.B. 288 is heard again. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 288 TO INCLUDE THE TWO AMENDMENTS FROM LT. GALEOTO. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS, STEEL AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary June 7, 1995 Page