MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 12, 1995


The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Monday, 
June 12, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst
Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senior Deputy Attorney General Samuel Coon
Carson City District Attorney Noel S. Waters
Mr. Ted Wiens, Jr., Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Mark Smith, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association
The Honorable Robey Willis, Carson Justice/Municipal Court

OTHERS PRESENT: (Continued)

Mr. Eric Cooper, Washoe County Sheriff's Office/NV Sheriffs & Chiefs 
	  Assn./Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Lieutenant Bill Young, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Mr. George Flint, Lobbyist, Nevada Brothel Association
Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada Attorney General
Ms. Claudia Saavedra, Coordinator, Carson City Alternative Sentencing 
	  Program
Mr. Warren B. Hardy, Vice President, The Furman Group

Due to the lack of a quorum, Chairman Anderson announced the meeting is 
beginning as a subcommittee.  Committee members are testifying in the Ways and 
Means Committee and as other members arrive they will be counted as present. 
 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 677	-	Authorizes counties to create departments 
						of alternative sentencing.

The Honorable Robey Willis, Carson Justice/Municipal Court, introduced Ms. 
Claudia Saavedra, Coordinator, Carson City Alternative Sentencing Program, and 
Carson City District Attorney Noel S. Waters.  Judge Willis stated in 1987 
legislature enacted a law giving the lower courts the ability on misdemeanors to 
give people suspended sentences.  In this manner Judge Willis advised they could 
be sent to a domestic violence diversion group and for evaluation.  Judge Willis 
informed in the last several years an alternative sentencing program was instituted 
in Carson City which is basically a community service program.  Since January 31, 
1994, Judge Willis informed Mrs. Saavedra has overseen hundreds of people on 
community service.  Judge Willis informed the school district and city pays half of 
Mrs. Saavedra's salary and expenses.  Judge Willis noted a profit was realized at 
$6 per hour.  Judge Willis stated Mr. Waters envisioned supervision of community 
service workers on suspended sentences.  


Carson City District Attorney Noel S. Waters testified in support of A.B. 677 and 
informed the bill would allow for alternative sentencing by contracting with other 
agencies to allow alternatives to incarceration of individuals.  However, Mr. Waters 
informed not all counties do this by contract and a number have organized 
individuals to enforce the terms of a suspended sentence or an alternative sentence 
that the court imposes at the justice court or misdemeanor level.  Mr. Waters 
stated there are a number of programs that work in this area, i.e., anger and stress 
counseling, domestic violence diversion, petit larceny diversion groups, bad check 
restitution and education programs, substance abuse counseling and attendance 
programs, AA, house arrest monitoring, restitution tracking and community service 
programs.  Mr. Waters stated this bill authorizes a county at its discretion to create 
an alternative sentencing department.  Mr. Waters stated it is a much needed 
program in order to give the courts some alternative between incarceration which 
costs $60 per day.  Mr. Waters stated releasing defendants under conditions which 
in reality are not enforceable because the court does not have the staff and 
manpower to do it.  By way of example, Mr. Waters informed the Nevada Supreme 
Court, ruled in Advance Opinion No. 69 of May 25, 1995, attached as (Exhibit C), 
involving three felony drug cases in which one defendant was sentenced to prison 
for drug trafficking, and the other two were afforded probation with a condition of 
restitution for the cost of buy monies used  in the investigation.  Mr. Waters 
pointed out this area needs statutory guidance.  

Chairman Anderson requested clarification if the state has no standing in terms of 
restitution.  Mr. Waters responded the state does have the ability to collect 
restitution.  

Ms. Claudia Saavedra, Coordinator, Carson City Alternative Sentencing Program, 
 informed the program has been very successful for the past 2« years due to the 
monitoring of people sentenced to community service.  Over 100,000 hours were 
assigned in the past 2« years of which over 90,000 hours were completed and 
Ms. Saavedra stated Carson City gained revenues of approximately $50,000 and 
$52,000 for the school district, attached as (Exhibit D).  

Mrs. Monaghan asked who receives the statistical reports.  Judge Willis replied the 
community service workers report to Ms. Saavedra who in turn reports to district 
and justice courts for noncompliance.  However, under Mr. Water's plan to expand 
to other matters, Judge Willis stated there would be somebody out in the field 
defendants would report to.

Ms. Steel remarked she was confused on the fiscal note to expand the program 
which usually takes more dollars.  Mr. Waters replied the terms of the bill make it 
discretionary and no county is obliged to set up this program or to enact it right 
away.  In Carson City Mr. Waters estimated $200,000-$250,000 per year to staff 
and provide equipment for four community probation officers.

Chairman Anderson declared a quorum present and a full committee is now present 
and is no longer considered a subcommittee at 8:26 p.m.

Mr. Sandoval inquired what other counties have this program and congratulated Mr. 
Waters on the statistics and progress.  Mr. Waters replied every county is involved 
to a certain extent and in some areas court staff has been expanded to monitor the 
programs.  Mr. Waters informed Washoe County has a court services department 
 which focuses on pretrial detention, early release, monitoring with a staff of 17 
in an attempt to lower the jail population. 

Judge Willis appreciated Mr. Sandoval's comment and advised some of the other 
jurisdictions suffered failure and Carson City was hesitant to institute the program. 
 Judge Willis contributed the success of the program to Ms. Saavedra.  

Chairman Anderson inquired how the school district benefits from the program.  
Ms. Saavedra informed the community service workers are assigned to the school 
district.  Ms. Saavedra screens the workers through an interview process to 
determine the qualifications and background.  Most of the workers do custodial and 
office work for the schools.  Chairman Anderson asked if the school district 
reimburses the court.  Judge Willis noted when Ms. Saavedra interviews the 
workers they are screened to determine proper placement.  Judge Willis advised the 
school district and city each pay $18,000 per year toward the program.  Then $6 
per hour for community service is applied toward the $18,000 and presently has 
a surplus of over $50,000.  Ms. Saavedra advised in some cases there are 
overqualified people, for example, a construction worker re-roofed one of the 
schools for his 40 hours community service work, so the profit for the school 
district was immense.  


Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys 
Association, to explain the difference between parole and probation.  Mr. Graham 
stated the testimony presented by the previous witnesses echo a need for it and 
it is permissive and hoped the committee would act favorably.  Mr. Graham advised 
a probationary period comes into play when a person is sentenced to a term of 
incarceration whether it be in the state prison or local facility.  Mr. Graham stated 
the term incarceration is suspended to putting violator into custody under 
conditions whether it is community service or DUI school, victim impact panel, or 
 some other condition of the court.  If the violator successfully completes the 
period of probation, they have satisfied the terms and the court will not put them 
into custody.  If during a period of time they violate the terms of probation, Mr. 
Graham advised they may be brought back into court to explain why they should 
not be put into custody whether at a local or state level.  Mr. Graham has seen 
frequently and knows the concern that sometimes people perceive probation is 
violated if the violator is put into custody for other minor violations.  Mr. Graham 
said it is generally not the case unless the person has been a persistent offender. 
 Mr. Graham advised parole is when a person has spent a period of time in custody 
be it in a local center or more frequently in the state prison, who are paroled out 
by the prison authorities under certain conditions.  Mr. Graham advised in effect 
they are still prisoners in constructive custody of the detention center and are 
subject to being revoked and put back into custody as well.   If one gets probation, 
Mr. Graham noted the person probably has not been sent to an institution.  If one 
is on parole, Mr. Graham advised the person has been in custody and they released 
the person prior to the term, "flattened out your time."   If the time is flattened out, 
Mr. Graham stated the prisoner is released.  If on probation, Mr. Graham stated the 
prisoner has an officer he checks in with.  If on parole for a period of time after 
incarceration, Mr. Graham stated the prisoner has someone to check in with too. 
 Chairman Anderson stated the potential of adding or creating a new condition of 
probation that could be utilized by the judge at the time of sentencing.  Mr. Graham 
replied that was correct and in a way it is allowing to be created on a local level 
what is had on the state level.  In misdemeanor courts Mr. Graham said it was 
amazing all of the conditions put upon defendants and then there is no one there 
to help or monitor the compliance except the court who bring them back in and 
frequently try to help them accomplish their DUI school, restitution, impact panel. 
 Mr. Graham advised this would be a real benefit in regard to alternative 
sentencing.  
ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 677.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Steel to withdraw her motion until after 9 
o'clock when more members of the committee will be present.  Ms. Steel and Ms. 
Ohrenschall consented.  

COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION:

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE 
INTRODUCTION OF BDR 53-2045.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, 
BUCKLEY, BATTEN, MANENDO, MONAGHAN AND 
SCHNEIDER WERE NOT PRESENT.)

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE 
INTRODUCTION OF BDR 2-1892.

ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, 
BATTEN, MANENDO, MONAGHAN AND SCHNEIDER WERE 
NOT PRESENT.)

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 665	-	Provides that obscenity must be determined 	
					based on contemporary local community 		
				standards.

Mr. Warren B. Hardy, Vice President, The Furman Group, representing the city of 
Mesquite testified in support of A.B. 665.  Mr. Hardy advised their intent was to 
narrow the definition of community standards to where any jury trial would have 
the effect of determining community standards and made up of members of that 
community.  Mr. Hardy pointed out the differences of Mesquite from the rest of 
Clark County.  If there is a jury trial with regard to a violation of NRS 201.235 to 
NRS 201.254 which provides for the community's ability to determine community 
standards that the jury would be from the actual incorporated city of Mesquite.  Mr. 
Hardy noted the substantive change is in Section 2 of the bill.  

Chairman Anderson asked what the population of Mesquite was.  Mr. Hardy 
advised it was approximately 5,000.  

Mr. Carpenter requested clarification of the panel cannot be completed because of 
insufficient number of such qualified jurors and if it applied to Mesquite.  Mr. Hardy 
replied that clause was included to alleviate some concerns, perhaps it could apply 
to other smaller communities.  Mr. Hardy advised the bill deals with city or 
unincorporated towns.  Mr. Carpenter stated he did not understand what it means 
when it states the district judge shall allow all qualified jurors regardless of location 
to be eligible to complete the panel.   


Mr. Neilander advised the jury pool is drawn within the judicial district which also 
happens to represent a county in some cases more than one count.  The initial pool 
is taken from the entire county.  The default provision would only come into play 
if there were not sufficient jurors, meaning the existing practice is followed, i.e., 
pick from the pool which entails the entire county.  There are some judicial districts 
that contain more than one county.  Mr. Carpenter concluded they are trying to 
make sure that those jurors are from that specific city or unincorporated town.  If 
there was not enough of a pool to draw from, Mr. Neilander explained then it would 
default to the existing practice which is the entire county.  

Chairman Anderson inquired of a population of 5,000 of Mesquite, he asked what 
percentage are over 18 years of age.  Mr. Hardy did not have the exact numbers 
but he could provide them later.  Mr. Hardy estimated 30%-40%, and growing. 
 Chairman Anderson asked if the jury pool is currently made from several different 
source lists, not only the voter registration but also DMV and power hookup lists. 
 Mr. Hardy concurred.  

Mr. Humke inquired if any demonstrative evidence will be offered.  Mr. Hardy 
stated it was not his intent.  

Mr. Goldwater questioned what the current problem was and if the community 
standards are higher than what they should be.  Mr. Hardy responded there has 
recently been sexually oriented businesses located in Mesquite that is a peculiar 
Nevada business which serves southern Utah.  Mr. Hardy advised the citizens of 
Mesquite do not want this in their community and if it goes to a trial, they want to 
make certain that their community standards are represented.  

Mr. Goldwater asked the implications it would have in Clark County where there 
are a lot of townships where you have a city within a county.  If the two statutes 
were prosecuted, Mr. Goldwater asked if the residents of the particular township 
 throw off the kilter of the entire community standard.  Mr. Hardy stated it 
depended on the definition of community.  Mr. Hardy advised they are asking for 
the definition of community for this purpose is the actual community.  Again, Mr. 
Hardy stated the community standards of Clark County as whole may not be 
reflected by the community standard of Clark County as a whole.  

Mr. Sandoval asked if it is such a different community standard of Mesquite from 
Clark County will a potential defendant have the opportunity to get a fair trial.  Mr. 
Hardy replied if the defendant is in Mesquite or his activities directly impact 
Mesquite, did not do damage to the intent of NRS 201.235 to NRS 201.254.  

Mr. Sandoval inquired if Mr. Hardy consulted with the various jury commissioners 
of district courts regarding the effect of this bill.  Mr. Hardy advised they have not. 
 
In referring to a peculiar Nevada business Chairman Anderson asked if it was 
unlawful by county ordinance.  Mr. Hardy advised it was not the case.  Chairman 
Anderson asked if it was done community by community.  Mr. Graham noted adult 
book stores are referred to.

Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in support of 
A.B. 665.  Ms. Hansen stated the idea of community standards comes to us in 
regulating obscenity from the U. S. Supreme Court in the Miller decision.  The 
Miller decision provided communities could have input as to specifically what they 
considered obscenity in their own area.   This particular bill seeks to identify and 
give a definition that it is the local community who should have a voice.  Ms. 
Hansen recalled years ago Reno overwhelmingly voted twice in opposition to adult 
bookstores and because of federal court intervention, the wishes of Reno people 
were ignored.  Ms. Hansen stressed communities should be allowed input into 
these important issues.  Ms. Hansen emphasized pornography has a tremendous 
impact on sexual abuse.  Many of us are concerned about sexual abuse and 
exploitation of women and children.  According to FBI data, Ms. Hansen stated 1.2 
million children annually are exploited in commercial sex, i.e., child prostitution and 
pornography.  Ms. Hansen reported police vice squads report 77% of child 
molesters of boys and 87% of child molesters of girls admitted imitating the sexual 
behavior they had seen modeled in pornography which is not necessarily child 
pornography.  In one group of rapists Ms. Hansen informed 57% indicated they had 
tried out the sexual behavior they had seen depicted in pornography.  Ms. Hansen 
stated it is important that communities be given the tools they need to be able to 
deter this type of exploitation, i.e., the opportunity to apply local standards with 
regard to these types of businesses.  Ms. Hansen urged committee support of A.B. 
665.  

Chairman Anderson asked if a larger community, such as Reno, having the vote of 
the people and city ordinance authorizing the action cannot do it because of the 
Supreme Court ruling.  Chairman Anderson asked how this standard would be 
different for a smaller community.   Ms. Hansen responded there is a different 
tenure on the court in terms of being more interested in local government and in 
state's rights. 


Chairman Anderson noted if the concept is predicated on the change in the 
Supreme Court of the United States, why the makeup of the jury pool itself be the 
crucial factor and not the local ordinance to set its own standards relying upon the 
same jury pool or is it an attempt to weigh the jury pool in such a way that only 
one particular point of view is heard.  Ms. Hansen replied it was an attempt to truly 
reflect the standards of an individual community as the standards of metropolitan 
Las Vegas are different from Mesquite, etc.  Ms. Hansen stated it was an 
opportunity for communities to protect themselves from the invasion of these types 
of businesses which have taken over the larger communities.  Ms. Hansen states 
it was an opportunity for the people who live there and move there specifically 
because they wanted the kind of community they were moving into to maintain 
that community.  Ms. Hansen stated it was an issue of local control, and the 
community has a right to truly reflect community standards which was the purpose 
of the Supreme Court decision to allow a community to do so.  

Ms. Ohrenschall requested clarification on p. 1, l. 15.  Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the 
purpose is to have a case judged by the standards of the community of Mesquite, 
could it be done as effectively in the course of presenting evidence by bringing 
various individuals who live in the town of Mesquite to testify and tell the jury what 
the town of Mesquite is like, about, and what it does or does not accept, then an 
instruction from the judge directing a decision must be made according to the 
picture shown by residents.  Ms. Hansen advised it would strengthen the 
opportunity for this kind of instruction to specifically reflect local individualized 
community.  Ms. Ohrenschall stated it would zero in on it, yet would not have the 
additional expense to the county in advance to the jury pool.  Ms. Hansen 
commented for the people to be reflected on the jury would have more strength in 
court.  

Ms. Steel noted if the bill were passed as is it would send the proponents away 
with a false sense of security.  Ms. Steel illustrated three jurors from Mesquite who 
were challenged by the defense and taken off the jury and noted nothing would 
have been accomplished.  Ms. Hansen stated if it is required the jurors are drawn 
from the local community, it does give them an opportunity.  Mr. Hardy stated the 
intent was to provide local community control.  If there is a court case in a 
community that involves this type of issue it gives the city council some precedent 
 according to community standards when it develops local ordinances dealing with 
this issue.  Mr. Hardy remarked they can raise a sufficient number of jurors.  




Mr. Perkins wondered if the jury system was set up not necessarily to provide for 
a jury that was sympathetic to one side or the other but more so for a jury who is 
able to be unbiased and listen to the evidence at hand and rule.  For example, Mr. 
Perkins illustrated if Mesquite has the burden of proof of showing that their 
community standard was thus, that a jury would actually determine that it was 
what their community standard was for the testimony instead of having a 
predisposed notion of what the community standard is in its mind.  Mr. Hardy 
stated it was a very good point and the whole matter would be simpler if the courts 
would allow the city councils to develop community standards by which people 
could be judged.  Unfortunately, Mr. Hardy stated they have been forced into this 
issue of having to prove community standards before ordinances can be developed. 
 Mr. Hardy reiterated community standard issues are complex.  

Mr. Carpenter commented adult bookstores were established in Mesquite and Elko 
during the same period of time and advised these bookstores cannot be banned. 
 Mr. Carpenter informed the city of Elko spent thousands of dollars on this issue 
and was able to draft an ordinance to regulate, and citizens took up a collection and 
got the bookstores out of town.  Mr. Carpenter understood the intent but doubted 
if it would pass the muster of the jury system.  

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 677	-	Authorizes counties to create departments 
						of alternative sentencing.

Chairman Anderson requested a delay of a motion on A.B. 677 until the committee 
was present in its entirety and the committee is now here in its entirety and called 
for the motion:

ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 677.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Under discussion Mr. Carpenter inquired why peace officer's powers were needed. 
 Mr. Humke advised the alternative sentencing are in effect mini-parole and 
probation departments.  On the state level there are parole and probation 
departments that have limited peace officer's powers.  Mr. Humke stated in order 
to effect arrests and take persons into custody and for supervision it would be 
required to have limited peace officer's powers.  

THE MOTION CARRIED.  

(ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN WAS NOT PRESENT.)

Ms. Steel was given the floor assignment.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38	-	Urges Congress to require 	
							application for passport for 		
						child to be signed by both 			
					parents under certain 					
			circumstances.  

Assemblyman Steel, District No. 16, sponsor, testified the intent was to keep 
children from being kidnaped into another country.  Ms. Steel commented last 
Wednesday evening this topic was addressed with the other bill before committee. 
 The proponents of that bill, the woman who had her child taken to Croatia was the 
genesis behind this A.J.R. 38 also to get federal government to close our borders 
so our children cannot be taken illegally against a court order by a noncustodial 
parent.  Ms. Steel noted no fiscal impact on federal government for asking for two 
signatures from parents before a child under the age of 16 be taken from the 
United States through a passport procedure.  

Mr. Humke requested Ms. Steel to apprise the committee of a factor in child 
custody cases under Nevada law.  Mr. Humke asked if it was correct if the 
custodial parent needs to notify the other if they wish to move to another state; 
and if the other party declines to give permission, does it mandate a court hearing 
in order to grant the right to move.  Ms. Steel concurred.  

ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 38.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN WAS 
ABSENT.)

Ms. Steel was given the floor assignment.

Chairman Anderson declared a break at 9:24 a.m. and the meeting reconvened at 
9:47 a.m.



ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 676	-	Provides for abatement of certain lewd 
						activities as nuisances.

Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada Attorney General, testified in support of 
A.B. 676 and provided background that this particular legislation is the result of 
 Sheriff Keller's task force and overly aggressive hand billing in Las Vegas.  Ms. Del 
Papa expressed this measure could withstand a constitutional challenge.  

Senior Deputy Attorney General Samuel Coon testified in support of A.B. 676 and 
recounted the statutes presently in place does prohibit advertising of prostitution 
and it has been tested by the Nevada Supreme Court in 1981.  Mr. Coon suggested 
a change in the statute to include advertising of prostitution that is unconnected 
with a licensed brothel.  As it presently stands one cannot advertise in Clark 
County or any other county where prostitution is illegal, Mr. Coon informed.  An 
invitation to prostitution and another county's licensed brothel cannot be 
advertised.  Mr. Coon remarked there is a lot of other prostitution in Clark County 
and elsewhere not connected with a licensed brothel, such as street walker type 
prostitution, and the statute is broadened to include it.  Finally, Mr. Coon informed 
printing of advertisements for prostitution should be prohibited and mandatory 
minimum sentences were suggested.  These mandatory minimum sentences track 
which ones the state statute already has and also the local ordinances and Mr. 
Coon illustrated in case of a violation then they would have a 30-day minimum 
sentence they would have to serve.  If there were a third conviction in three years, 
Mr. Coon stated there would be a six month mandatory minimum sentence and 
$250 fine imposed.  Mr. Coon advised proposed amendments, attached as 
(Exhibit E) are intended to affect the latitude and discretion that counties now have 
in Nevada to decide for themselves whether or not they would choose to have 
licensed brothels which is not addressed here.  Mr. Coon stated the additional 
prostitution problem which is unconnected with registered brothels.  Mr. Coon in 
general terms gave an overview of what the amendments are intended to add to 
the statute.  


At the request of Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association, Mr. 
Coon advised they are treating A.B. 676 and the proposed amendments would 
entirely replace the language in the published A.B. 677.   Mr. Coon informed all 
that language would be deleted.  Chairman Anderson inquired if the proposed 
amendments had a wider dispersal to other than members of the committee and 
if the press and potential opponents had been provided a copy.  Mr. Coon informed 
the Attorney General had the amendment delivered to every district attorney's 
office in 17 counties and every city attorney and received written responses and 
telephonic response or by a meeting with a member of the AG's office.  Mr. Coon 
stated every response was in favor of these amendments and these problems are 
not found just in Clark County but Douglas County District Attorney finds the same 
problems exist for him.  

Chairman Anderson directed his question to the Attorney General.  Chairman 
Anderson inquired if this amendment was dispersed to members of this committee 
prior to coming here.  Since the amendment replaces the bill in its entirety, 
Chairman Anderson asked if the press and opponents had the opportunity to 
review.  Ms. Del Papa advised she can only speak to the distribution that she was 
in charge of.  This particular amendment has received a wide distribution and did 
not know the extent of exactly how far the distribution went and Ms. Del Papa 
suggested he ask the press and the opponents.  

Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association, testified the proposed 
amendments are significantly less expansive than A.B. 676.  Mr. Graham informed 
efforts were made to secure copies so that parties would have them available. Mr. 
Graham informed they are in support of this ongoing effort.  Because of the 
interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the sidewalks, facilities and 
communities, Mr. Graham stated this type of activity is of great concern.  Mr. 
Graham informed it was not the intent to interfere with the legal houses of 
prostitution in the state and their activities are not affected.  Mr. Graham informed 
this bill was requested a year ago and he worked with the task force on it for a 
considerable period of time.  Due to constitutional concerns, Mr. Graham expressed 
confidence the amendments would alleviate those concerns and be a useful device 
in the cleanup of their streets.  

Chairman Anderson inquired if BDR 2111 was originally requested two years ago. 
 Mr. Graham advised the original bill draft was in the 300 series and because it was 
not introduced a new bill draft number was issued.  

Mr. Manendo requested clarification on Section 2 of the amendment regarding 
unlawfully prepared or printed advertisements to houses of prostitution.  Mr. Coon 
responded the printing was not previously addressed in the statutes and was 
intended for handbills.  




Mr. Manendo asked if there would be concerns in overstepping bounds with the 
freedom of speech.  Mr. Coon informed the statute without the amendments was 
already tested in 1981 and the amendments are constitutional.  

Chairman Anderson asked if this would prevent material in printing offices in 
metropolitan areas where prostitution is illegal, i.e., Clark or Washoe County.  Mr. 
Coon stated it would prohibit it.  Chairman Anderson concluded it would drive 
those printing jobs out of state.  Mr. Coon answered it could.  

Mrs. Monaghan commented this is stopping the printing but they could go out of 
state and bring it back into the state for dissemination.  Mr. Coon stated regardless 
of where it was printed, it cannot be handed out in Las Vegas where it is 
prohibited.  Mrs. Monaghan asked if that prohibition was in the statute.  Mr. Coon 
informed previously prostitution activities could not be advertised.  Mr. Coon 
advised the intent was to address printing.  

As far as the constitution is concerned Ms. Steel commented there are different 
kinds of speech.  Ms. Steel stated commercial speech can be controlled.  Mr. Coon 
advised this was correct and there is no protection for speech involving criminal 
activity, as prostitution is a prohibited act.  

In Section 2, illegal to print advertisements, Ms. Steel remarked if printing were to 
be done out of state, those businesses would not be in violation but Nevada 
businesses would be in violation.  Mr. Coon replied if the intention is to print for 
distribution in a county where it is illegal, then it is a violation regardless of where 
printed.  Mr. Coon stated if a printing is done out of state and intended to be 
distributed in Nevada, it was his opinion it would be lawful.  Mr. Graham 
commented he was uncertain if an out of state publishing company were violating 
state law, similar to telemarketing.  Mr. Graham noted they may be stopped, 
although we may be unable to bring them to Nevada for prosecution.  


Ms. Stroth noted this bill is designed for the handouts, but could there be any 
application to the same type of material in the yellow pages of the phone book.  
Mr. Coon replied a prosecutor would probably not prosecute the telephone directory 
solicitation material.  Mr. Coon expected prosecution of solicitation for an act of 
prostitution.  In Mr. Coon's opinion the telephone directory does not come to that 
level.  Mr. Coon further stated it is true an advertisement in the telephone directory 
could be tied in with an intent to use it as a means to catapult into an act of 
prostitution.  If a district attorney could prove that, then Mr. Coon believed the 
case could be prosecuted.  Mr. Coon stressed these amendments are not intended 
to treat what is found in the telephone directory because they are not obvious 
patent, manifest solicitations of prostitution.  Mr. Coon said the handbills, attached 
as (Exhibit F), provided more obvious solicitations of prostitution which portray 
pictures of the feminine form, description of sexual relations and maps.  Mr. Coon 
advised the amendments are intended to treat the solicitation in handbills.

Mr. Sandoval stated A.B. 676 as currently drafted would not meet constitutional 
muster and asked if that was the reason for the new amendment.  Mr. Graham 
advised there would be more serious challenges confronted than there might be 
without the suggested amendment.  

With this amendment Mr. Sandoval asked if it would not limit the passing out of 
the handbills.  Mr. Coon replied ultimately it will be a district attorney's decision if 
the case should be prosecuted.

Ms. Buckley inquired if the amendment was similar to the ordinance Clark County 
attempted to draft locally to deal with the problem in the community and was it 
challenged in federal court with Judge Crow presiding.  Mr. Coon responded Clark 
County and the city does have a similar ordinance and a state law would be 
applicable statewide.  In response to a challenge in federal court, Mr. Coon was not 
aware of one.  

Ms. Buckley asked if there was any thought of prohibiting acts of prostitution 
advertising in counties where they are illegal only. Mr. Coon advised there is a state 
statute presently that prohibits acts of prostitution in counties where it has not 
been made legal by a local ordinance.  Under these amendments, Ms. Buckley 
questioned if someone could advertise in Clark County the availability of brothels 
in other counties where they are legal.  Mr. Coon stated they could not.  Ms. 
Buckley asked the reason for deleting the section to prohibit advertising of legal 
activity as opposed to targeting it to advertising of illegal activities.  The statute 
previously enacted Mr. Coon noted was in place for several years and prohibits 
advertising of prostitution in Clark County where it is illegal that would be legal in 
Nye County.  The printing of hand bills they want stopped now.  

Mr. Graham commented over the years from Clark County's standpoint, efforts 
were made to seek prosecution of the people who placed advertising, and it is a 
maze to determine who placed the ad.  Mr. Graham stated sometimes the printer 
is involved in the conspiracy.  

Mr. Carpenter noted in NRS 201.430 it is unlawful for advertisement of brothels 
and asked if it would give the right to advertise brothels in theaters, public streets 
and highways.  Mr. Coon advised the statute does not permit prostitution to be 
advertised anywhere, and the intent of the amendment is to prohibit advertising not 
connected to brothels and printed material about prostitution.  Mr. Carpenter asked 
 if it would make it legal to have billboards in counties where prostitution is legal. 
 Mr. Coon believed it would not make it legal.  

Mr. Ted Wiens, Jr., Chairman of Board of Trustees, Las Vegas Chamber of 
Commerce, representing 4,218 member businesses, testified in support of 
A.B. 676 and proposed amendments.  Mr. Wiens advised of his organization's 
commitment to address the problem of smut peddlers on the strip.  Mr. Wiens 
stated they strive to enhance the economy and contribute to the creation of a 
higher quality of life.  By offending tourists smut peddlers jeopardize their number 
one industry and Mr. Wiens referred to the packet of materials in (Exhibit F) which 
included letters of offense from tourists and samples of handbills.  Mr. Wiens 
advised more children are subjected to this sleaze.  Mr. Wiens showed how 
aggressively the hand billers distribute obscene literature by video tape.  Mr. Wiens 
pointed out eight hand billers in one section of the strip distributing  hand bills with 
tourists dangerously stepping off the sidewalk into the street to avoid them. 

Mr. Batten inquired if it was against the law now to hand out the literature.  Mr. 
Wiens replied it is not against the law and it is illegal to advertise prostitution in 
Clark County but it has not been able to be enforced completely.  Mr. Wiens stated 
this bill will eliminate the printing of the material advertising prostitution outside of 
Clark County.  

Mr. Batten asked why summons have not been issued or charges filed.  Mr. Wiens 
responded the chamber of commerce has nothing to do with the enforcement of 
laws in Clark County.  As was previously heard from the district attorney's 
committee, Mr. Wiens advised the confiscation of this material has not been able 
to lead to the  publishers.  Mr. Wiens stated eliminating the printing in the area 
would slow this down and is a small step.  


Ms. Ohrenschall asked clarification if they were hoping to cut it off at the source, 
thereby making enforcement easier and also allowing for the type of enforcement 
which would not necessarily be disruptive to the tourist coming into Las Vegas. 
 Mr. Wiens remarked he could not have said it better himself.  On several occasions 
like Ms. Ohrenschall's daughter's birthday, they were subjected to such handouts 
while en route to a ballet or ice skating spectacular.  Ms. Ohrenschall was 
concerned about the manner in which children are exposed to the solicitation.  

Mr. Mark Smith, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of 
A.B. 676.  Mr. Smith commented the intent addresses the literature which is most 
embarrassing.  

Mr. Batten questioned if smut can still be advertised, but prostitution cannot.  Mr. 
Wiens drew attention to (Exhibit F) and stated most of the major advertising is for 
houses of prostitution in Nye County.  

Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, testified in support of the 
original bill; however, with the proposed amendments concerns were expressed. 
 
Lieutenant Bill Young, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, advised the amendment is 
targeting legal prostitution advertised in Clark County.  In his opinion Lt. Young 
advised the real concern is the illegal dancing and entertainment services that front 
themselves off strictly as entertainment but are really fronts for prostitution.  In 
Clark County Lt. Young stated a county ordinance is in place to prohibit the 
advertisement of brothels and on occasion it has been enforced.  Lt. Young advised 
the district attorney has prosecuted select cases of them.  Lt. Young noted most 
of the literature is printed in Arizona with part in Nevada.  Lt. Young stated it is 
difficult to control this type of advertisement.  Lt. Young informed A.B. 676 would 
give some teeth to actually go after the business owners operating in Las Vegas. 
 Lt. Young informed hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes are arrested from the so 
called dancing services every month.  Lt. Young advised the legal brothels are not 
a problem to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police.  

Chairman Anderson concluded Lt. Young is in favor of the original bill because it 
truly addressed the problems confronted by the vice squad detail.  Lt. Young added 
 he understood the concerns of the district attorney and the attorney general about 
constitutional muster.  However, Lt. Young suggested a compromise between this 
bill and A.B. 676 which would be more effective and still meet constitutional 
muster.  

Mr. Batten stated nude dancers, kinky roommates, etc., are legal, but one cannot 
say there is prostitution in Nye County with instructions and directions.  Lt. Young 
stated that was correct.  


Mr. Manendo stated if it is already a county ordinance, does it belong in the NRS. 
 Lt. Young advised he is in favor of the original version of A.B. 676 which may help 
statewide.  Lt. Young pointed out something stronger needs to be implemented. 
 Mr. Manendo asked if this could be done at the county level.  Lt. Young advised 
in the past different county ordinances targeting out call entertainment services 
immediately go to federal court.  Lt. Young expressed the desire to go after criminal 
conduct.  

Under the amendment in Section 1, Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if it included the 
illegal prostitution.  Lt. Young replied it possibly could, however, it is a word game 
because what they are advertising is dancing and not prostitution.  In Lt. Young's 
opinion this is where this bill falls short.  By NRS 207.030 Ms. Ohrenschall asked 
what is prohibited. Lt. Young replied it is soliciting for purposes of prostitution, any 
sexual act for a sum of money.  Ms. Ohrenschall asked if this provision was used 
for prosecution of escort services.  Lt. Young replied the people actually arrested 
 are charged many times.  Ms. Ohrenschall asked if this was not sufficient and 
needed to be stronger.  Lt. Young replied it would not eliminate the advertising 
because the owners simply disclaim any knowledge of these people being involved 
in prostitution activity and their businesses are legally licensed under general 
business licenses as dancing or entertainment services.  In court Lt. Young noted 
the difficulty of linking dancing and entertainment to prostitution.  

Mr. Humke inquired when Lt. Young was first notified of the amendment.  
Lt. Young stated about 30 minutes ago.  Mr. Humke asked if he unequivocally 
supported the original version of A.B. 676.  Lt. Young confirmed.  Lt. Olsen 
clarified the amendment was faxed to Sheriff Keller's office last week and did not 
get filtered to them.  Mr. Humke noted it did not get filtered to the co-chairmen 
either.  Chairman Anderson recognized the concern of lack of information prior to 
its presentation.  Mr. Humke commented first amendment rights are at issue, 
commercial speech.  Due to the serious nature of first amendment rights, Mr. 
Humke recommended the amendment should be re-posted under the 5-day posting 
notice as everyone has rights to be on notice, and it is a terrible mistake not to 
distribute an amendment in the public forum.

Mr. Carpenter asked if most of the material is printed in Arizona. Lt. Young 
confirmed.  Mr. Carpenter observed if it is not illegal in Arizona, it will not help us. 
 

Mr. George Flint, Lobbyist, Nevada Brothel Association, testified in support of 
A.B. 676, except for prohibition on advertising.  Several days ago he was made 
aware there would be a re-write of this bill but did not have an opportunity to 
review it until this morning.  Mr. Flint expressed concern in one small area to the 
amendment regarding advertising.  Under prima facie evidence in Nevada law 
information explaining location, address, phone number and how to get there is not 
considered advertising.  Mr. Flint informed referral to a constitutional challenge to 
Nevada law came from the Chicken Ranch by a deceased owner Plankenton.  Mr. 
Flint advised there has never been a challenge on Nevada law that prohibits 
brothels from advertising and they do not plan one.  However, Mr. Flint shared his 
concerns with the amendment which is this group of illegal prostitution purveyors 
in Clark County are big business.  In reference to Ms. Stroth's previous question 
regarding the telephone book's yellow pages, Mr. Flint informed those businesses 
spent $1.8 MD a year with Sprint and the yellow pages.  Mr. Flint predicted they 
will not roll over and play dead if this bill is enacted.  Mr. Flint stated if the smut 
peddlers can be reduced and do away with illegal prostitution in Clark County, it 
would be a big plus for his clients.  Under freedom of speech challenge to a Clark 
County ordinance, Mr. Flint informed Clark County did pass a new anti-illegal 
prostitution advertising ordinance which is still in federal court a prohibition of 
enforcement.  Mr. Flint advised these illegal businesses in Clark County are five or 
six times bigger than the legal businesses statewide.  If this legislation is passed, 
Mr. Flint predicted it will be challenged in federal court.  In order to keep his clients 
in business, Mr. Flint advised his client wishes to keep as low an image as possible. 
 Mr. Flint commented if advertising is prohibited it will be a hardship on their 
souvenir business, i.e., matches, t-shirts, and hats which were printed in Reno, NV. 
 Mr. Flint stated their printing jobs will have to be sent out of state instead of 
supporting local economy.  Mr. Flint predicted the smut peddlers will not totally go 
away, as they are running 800 women in Las Vegas in illegal prostitution, three 
times the statewide business.

Mr. Eric Cooper, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, testified in support of A.B. 676. 
 Mr. Cooper commented they do not want to see what is occurring on the Las 
Vegas strip in Reno.  

Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in support of the 
original version of A.B. 676.  On the issue of nude dancing Ms. Hansen advised 
other states have passed legislation to address this concern.  Ms. Hansen informed 
several years ago she appeared on the Donahue show as a spokesman from Nevada 
on the issue of prostitution.  Ms. Hansen encouraged the passage of the original 
version to stop illegal prostitution to protect the exploitation of women.  


There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting 
adjourned at 11:04 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Patty Hicks,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:




Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman




Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman

Assembly Committee on Judiciary
June 12, 1995
Page