MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 19, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Monday, June 19, 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 Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Feldman, President, Nevada General Insurance Co. Anne Cathcart, Deputy Attorney General Mark Ghan, Deputy Attorney General Bob Larsen, Clark County Public Defender John Kadlic, Justice of the Peace, City of Reno Mary Bell, Nevada Court Reporters Association Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties J. Charles Thompson, Carson City District Attorneys Office Kevin Kelly, Nevada Supreme Court Task Force to Inquire Into Racial and Economic Bias Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriffs Office Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol Don Springmeyer, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Morgan Baumgartner, Nevada Certified Reporters Association Paula Treat, Nevada Judges Association James P. Hawke, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety John Morrow, Washoe County Public Defender's Office Karen Winckler, Attorney at Law Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney Pat Cashill, Nevada Trial Lawyers Lt. Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department ASSEMBLY BILL 688 - Revises provisions governing period in which arrested person must be taken before magistrate and charged. Karen Winckler, criminal defense attorney in Las Vegas, testified as primary sponsor of A.B. 688. Ms. Winckler provided a large packet of materials entitled "Without Unnecessary Delay" attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Ms. Winckler stated when a person is arrested the police officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed an illegal act. Nevada law provides that after a person is arrested he or she should be brought before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. The handout shows how "without unnecessary delay" is interpreted throughout Nevada. In some jurisdictions this means one day, while in others it means two days. Clark County Justice Court interprets this as eight days. This is what has triggered her concern in bringing forth A.B. 688 wherein due process is not being afforded those persons in Las Vegas. Ms. Winckler discussed the ways in which to get out of jail through bail, etc. Ms. Winckler stated once formal charges have been filed the person proceeds to a justice of the peace. Ms. Winckler outlined the "pre-arraignment delay period" (PAD) which in Clark County would be eight days, also referred to as the Pad Release. A Pad Release means the district attorney has not filed formal charges and there is pre-arraignment delay. Each jurisdiction decides what is an unconstitutional period of time wherein they must release a person. Ms. Winckler stated they believe the 8-day time frame in Las Vegas is much too long and other jurisdictions have adopted much shorter periods of times. Ms. Winckler stated the remainder of her handout material (Exhibit C) was "raw data" provided by the Clark County Detention Center upon the request of Assemblyman Batten. Mr. Batten requested all the PAD releases for the Clark County Detention Center from January 1, 1994 to April 11, 1995. The data includes the charge, the booking date, the booking time, the release date and time. Ms. Winckler also provided an analysis of the data including the number of charges filed during this period. Ms. Winckler continued to discuss the data in (Exhibit C) attached hereto. Ms. Winckler stated there were 315 PAD releases each month, approximately 90-100 per week, meaning 90-100 people will be arrested during one week, detained for eight days and then released because no formal charges have been filed. Ms. Winckler provided a Petition to Support A.B. 688, attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Upon Ms. Steel's inquiry, Ms. Winckler stated Washoe County interprets "unnecessary delay" as three days and Clark County interprets it as eight days. However, the municipal courts utilize their city charters. Ms. Winckler asserted the intent behind A.B. 688 was to define more clearly "without unnecessary delay" to provide uniformity throughout the state. Currently, there is an inconsistent interpretation throughout the state of this terminology. A.B. 688 would bring the entire state consistent by defining the language to mean 48 hours. In addition, they would propose to include "or the next judicial delay" to address the concern of the judges having to work weekends or the committees' concern in dealing with smaller jurisdictions. Further, Ms. Winckler declared at page 3, Section 5, there was language present which she did not intend addressing the filing of a complaint within 48 hours. Rather, her intent was if a person was arrested without a warrant and no complaint is filed against the person within 48 hours after the arrest, he must be released. Ms. Winckler stated upon submission of the bill she noted there would be a fiscal note for the local counties. Ms. Winckler analyzed her data to conclude there were 4,217 arrestees each year who were held for eight days. A.B. 688 would shorten that holding time from eight days to two days, resulting in 25,602 days saving by the county with each day at $54 per day totaling $1,382,508 each year. So, there is a fiscal savings rather than a fiscal impact. Kevin Kelly, representing the Nevada Supreme Court Task Force to Inquire into Racial & Economic Bias, pointed out he was not representing the Supreme Court only the task force. Mr. Kelly stated the task force is comprised of 33 members and named a few. Mr. Kelly informed there was an Assembly Joint Resolution No. 76 adopted in 1993 which submitted a report to this session, entitled "Criminal Justice in Nevada" and Assemblyman Perkins was a member of that committee. Mr. Kelly stated his task force is attempting to resolve the "realty versus perception" issue involving economic and racial bias. Of the 26 recommendations adopted by the legislative subcommittee, the one that comes closest to the topic of his concern, is the bail reforms designed to streamline and equalize the system but does not address the topic of A.B. 688, Section 5. The 1993 study estimated that on any given day one in four African American men between the ages of 20-29 years was under the supervision of the criminal justice system. Mr. Kelly stated his experience in criminal law has been that it is "always the poor and people of color who are subjected to the 8-day mandatory, no bail situation." Mr. Kelly concluded A.B. 688 would help insure this discriminatory practice does not continue. Mr. Sandoval asked if having the detainment restricted to 48 hours would create a standard that cannot be met. Ms. Winckler stated at the time of arrest there is probable cause to believe that some illegal conduct has occurred from the officer's perspective. The prosecutor then reviews the report to determine if formal charges should be filed. Under the present situation; however, persons are arrested on probable cause and then a person is held without seeing a judge or attorney for 3-8 days. Mr. Sandoval asked what their opinion was for the detainment. Mr. Kelly stated most probably due to harassment and discrimination. Mr. Perkins noted Ms. Winckler was giving the committee the wrong impression in that a person is arrested, held for eight days, and then because no formal charges have been filed, they are released. When, in fact that is not the case and asked if Ms. Winckler had any data to support that fact. Ms. Winckler concurred with Mr. Perkins stating when the person is released from custody they are given a court date and ordered to report to the justice of the peace. When and if charges are filed, they are summoned to return to court. Chairman Anderson reviewed the amendments suggested by Ms. Winckler and acknowledged persons wishing to testify in support of the bill. Bob Larsen, Assistant Public Defender, Clark County, stated they represent approximately 60-70% of all major crime occurring in Clark County. Mr. Larsen stated their office is court-appointed to represent these indigent defendants. However, when a person is detained as Ms. Winckler has indicated, the public defender is precluded from getting involved because they have not been appointed and no charges have been formally filed. Mr. Larson stated they receive constant complaints from minority groups questioning why the public defender is involved while their family member is in custody. Mr. Larson commented when people are arrested and taken into custody they 1) have questions that need answers; 2) want access to legal counsel; and 3) want speedy access to the court system. In his opinion, eight days is a disproportionate length of time to keep a person in custody without providing the above. Mr. Larson concluded he agrees with Ms. Winckler's comments and concurs with the amendments thereto. John Morrow, Washoe County Public Defender's Office, stated in light the recent decision of Powell v. State of Nevada, 108 Nev. 700, 838 P.2d 921 (1992), this bill would bring the probable cause determination statute in line with constitutional standards. The above decisions do not provide a grace period on the 48-hour probable cause determination requirement. In Washoe County, a Justice of the Peace reviews probable cause sheets at all times to meet the requirement of 48 hours. In addition, they have the capability through video-teleconferencing to bring people held in custody before the magistrate on weekends so he does not see this being a problem for them. Mr. Morrow endorses the shortening of the judicial process would allow some reduction in the amount of persons spending days in jail. In Washoe County, the detention facility is designed for 550 people and it is running around 900 presently. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association, spoke against A.B. 688, stating in light of the amendments suggested by Ms. Winckler, there has been some elimination of the concerns from the district attorney's office. However, he represented there have been procedures developed whereby cases are reviewed, bails are set, persons are afforded attorneys, persons are released, and charges are filed, and this is all done from a sound constitutional basis. If it were not sound, there would be cases reversed and suing for damages. But there are no such cases. In fact, many times the person in custody breathes a sigh of relief when the prosecutor decides eight days in jail is enough and decides not to charge the individual. He concluded case law and statutory law is being met. J. Charles Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County, stated there appears to be a misperception of what really goes on. His reading of A.B. 688 requires 1) an individual when arrested must be taken before a magistrate personally within 48 hours and then released; and 2) an individual arrested for an offense would have a Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Court within 48 hours or he must be released. However, Ms. Winckler has now requested that provision be deleted from the bill. The reality is, when a person is arrested they go to jail and two documents are prepared, a "Temporary Custody Record", a copy of an example of this document is attached hereto as (Exhibit E). The individual receives a copy of that document so he knows why he has been arrested. That document is then reviewed by a magistrate within 48 hours, even on weekends, along with another document entitled "Declaration of Arrest" which shows why the defendant was arrested, explaining what the officer saw and/or heard. The magistrate decides whether probable cause exists and orders bail or release accordingly. The process is called a probable cause review and is mandated by the Constitution. Mr. Thompson concluded A.B. 688 would require the individual appear personally in front of a magistrate and if formal charges are not filed within 48 hours the district attorney must show just cause why. Mr. Thompson stated in Clark County the complaints are rarely filed before eight days. Further Metro takes about five days to get the police reports, fingerprints and drug analysis documents together to present to the district attorney. An example of a Complaint is attached in the handout material (Exhibit E) hereto. There is no constitutional requirement that the formal Complaint be filed within 48 hours and therefore A.B. 688 is unnecessary as they are meeting the 48 hour constitutional requirement for probable cause review. Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney's Office, testified no matter what version of the bill evolves there will be a negative fiscal impact on his office. Requiring a formal complaint be filed within 48 hours would be a $250,000 cost on his office because it would require weekend work from attorneys, secretaries, clerks, etc., which does not even reflect the effect on the courts. In addition, the amendment suggested by Ms. Winckler would require the district attorney to explain why formal charges have not been filed within 48 hours which would mean more court hearings. Mr. Gammick stated it is difficult to procure filing within 72 hours as they currently do and to reduce that to 48 hours would be impossible. Mr. Anderson asked if Ms. Winckler's amendment "or the next judicial day" would be of assistance. Mr. Gammick stated the United States Supreme Court case that came out three years ago requiring probable cause reviews within 48 hours has not precipitated any Supreme Court challenges for the past three years so what they are doing must be right and all constitutional and statutory requirements are being met. He reminded in the Supreme Court case issued by Sandra Day O'Connor 48 hours means 48 hours and justices of the peace will make a determination within that time by use of facsimile, etc. Chairman Anderson inquired if this problem existed just in Las Vegas. Mr. Thompson, Clark County District Attorney's office, stated there is no problem because there is no constitutional requirement to have formal charges brought in 48 hours. Upon Mr. Goldwater's inquiry, Mr. Thompson declared there is no prejudicial reason for detaining individuals. Discussion ensued between this panel pertaining to the bill and practices of the Washoe County District Attorney and the Clark County District Attorney in probable cause reviews. Paula Treat stated the Nevada Judges Association and the peace officers opposed A.B. 688. She then introduced Honorable John Kadlic. Honorable John Kadlic, Justice of the Peace, Reno Township, stated they oppose 48 hours because it would require courts to be open on Saturday which would cost roughly $25,000 to have a court reporter, bailiff, clerk, security check point, etc., present. Judge Kadlic stated a courier delivers probable cause sheets to them on Saturdays so the probable cause review can occur with 48 hours. Judge Kadlic stated there is a difference in Municipal Court and Justice Court complaints. In Municipal matters, the police officer prepares the complaint right there but in Justice Court cases it takes longer for the district attorney to gather evidence and prepare the complaint. Chairman Anderson asked Judge Kadlic to comment on the "or the next judicial day" language that could be submitted throughout the bill. Judge Kadlic stated that may take care of some of the problem but he would prefer 96 hours. Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol, testified in opposition to A.B. 688 based on report preparation time and explained the time it takes to gather evidence. He added most misdemeanor cases can be accomplished in the 72 hour time frame but if that time is brought down to 48 hours a fiscal impact would result. Officers would be working overtime to complete their records within their shift and there would be an increase in clerical personnel. He concluded Judge Kadlic's suggestion of 96 hours does have promise. Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, stated 48 hours would place a tremendous burden on their office as it is tough to meet the requirement in 72 hours but they take many efforts to meet that requirement. Mr. Nadeau explained the steps pertaining to arrest, detainment, and probable cause reviews. Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, provided a document entitled "Case Paper Flow" and "Response to AB--688", attached hereto as (Exhibit F). Mr. Olsen stated at eight days they are at their capacity as to what they can process and get over to the district attorney's office. Speaking fiscally, they anticipate spending $900,000 in personnel to meet the 48-hour requirement proposed in A.B. 688 just within the jail. Within the detective bureau this figure would increase to $1,500,000 within the first year. Their department is strapped and they do not have the personnel or technology to meet their present needs let alone the requirements set forth in A.B. 688. Chairman Anderson asked why they would need additional detectives and what their duties would be. Mr. Olsen stated the detective bureau is understaffed and in order to comply with A.B. 688 they would have to split up the caseload in order to get the packages together within 48 hours. There are witnesses who have to be located, etc., and this all takes time and footwork. Chairman Anderson concluded he was curious about the fiscal amounts outlined above and would like to see data in that regard as specifically applied to A.B. 688. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, stated they oppose A.B. 688. Further, for the record, he resents the inference that law enforcement is arresting and detaining individuals of color or that are poor. Chairman Anderson noted the witness making that inference was simply expressing an opinion. Lt. Galeoto commented Sheriff Dick Kirkland asked him to relay they are not in agreement with the proposed amendments and do not support the 48-hour rule. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Winckler to comment. Ms. Winckler declared there is no intent in the bill to require each inmate to be brought before the justice of the peace within 48 hours but if there is no formal complaint brought within that time, the inmate should be released. ASSEMBLY BILL 700 - Allows issue of deceased brother or sister of decedent to succeed to estate of decedent under certain circumstances. Chairman Humke announced the proponent of A.B. 700, Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, brought forth this legislation which would make a major change to the law of intestate succession. He reminded the committee of testimony earlier in the session on a bill which would have required the state to adopt the Uniform Probate Code and that bill was indefinitely postponed. The State Bar of Nevada has provided the committee with their promise to study the issue of revamping the state's probate code during the interim then providing a report in that regard. Therefore, the committee agreed not to process any legislation that would have a major effect on the probate code. That is why the parties to A.B. 700 were not notified of the hearing today and he suggested a letter to Ms. Tiffany and her constituent explaining the situation. Chairman Anderson recalled the conversation with Ms. Tiffany and agreed to author a letter of explanation. ASSEMBLY BILL 705 - Provides that person's failure to wear safety belt may be considered as negligence or causation in civil action. Bob Feldman, President, Nevada General Insurance Company, insuring approximately 8,500 vehicles, stated he has also been the President of Auto Insurance America for the past 23 years. Mr. Feldman stated all the studies he has reviewed indicate wearing seat belts saves lives and reduces injuries. Mr. Feldman declared when a person neglects to wear a seat belt, they cause or add to their injuries. Mr. Feldman explained several situations where persons add to their injuries by not wearing seatbelts. For instance, they had a case where a driver had a minor bumper collision. The driver, who was wearing a seatbelt, received no injuries. However, the passenger, who was not wearing a seatbelt did receive injuries. The passenger made a claim against the driver's insurance company, collecting $15,000.00. Then he made a claim against Mr. Feldman's insurance company under his sister's policy which was an under insured motorist claim. In this instance, the passenger would not have been injured if he was wearing his seatbelt. Mr. Feldman stated the current law in Nevada does not allow the mitigation of damages for failure to wear a seatbelt. So, in actuality, persons are being rewarded for not wearing their seatbelt when in fact many of their injuries were as a result of not wearing their seatbelt. Mr. Feldman commented the Nevada Trial Lawyers have been very strong in the Legislature. Mr. Feldman declared the removal of language at Section 4(b) prohibits anybody from raising the seat belt issue for comparative negligence. This would allow them some negotiating power to more reasonably settle claims which would slightly reduce insurance rates throughout the state. Chairman Anderson inquired into the situation when it is not in the best interest for certain individuals to wear a seatbelt, such as expectant mothers. Mr. Feldman stated there is a section in the bill which provides an exclusion for certain persons. Mr. Perkins asked if someone was not wearing their seatbelt would they be considered at fault for the injuries sustained and therefore be precluded from recovering the total amount of medical care? Mr. Feldman stated that was correct except that they would have to prove the seatbelt caused the injury. Further, A.B. 705 would allow for them to argue comparative negligence of at least 10-15%. Mr. Perkins asked if a person is limited in their recovery of medical expenses if they actually cause an accident for instance by running a red light. Mr. Feldman stated no not at all. This issue only comes into play with third party claims. Mr. Carpenter stated at times the seat belt works the other way and causes more injury because it is being worn. Although he believes in seat belts, it is not a clear- cut case that they cause more injury by being worn or not worn. Mr. Feldman stressed everybody has a right to bring a lawsuit. The problem they have is the insurance company or the person to whom the claim is being made, does not have the right to mitigate these damages. James Hawke, Chief of Special Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated they support anything that would increase the use of seat belts in Nevada. Seat belt use is a secondary law which means you will not be stopped for not using your seatbelt unless you are stopped for a primary law violation. He stated nearly 71% of Nevadans wear seat belts. Further, more than half the people who die in accidents is as a result of not wearing their seat belt. William Cashill, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), stated NTLA favors the use of seat belts; however, they do not believe A.B. 705 encourages the use of seat belts. Mr. Cashill stated the law was originally enacted in 1969 and was amended in 1985 and in 1987. When a driver is at fault that driver's negligence will be compared to the negligence of the other driver, irrespective of the fact of who has on their seat belt. Mr. Cashill concluded the current law is neutral on the issue of seat belts and that is the way it should remain. ASSEMBLY BILL 714 - Reduces period during which cause of action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death may be commenced against State of Nevada or any of its officers or employees. Ann Cathcart, Deputy Attorney General (AG), provided a letter pertaining to A.B. 714, attached hereto as (Exhibit G). Ms. Cathcart stated earlier in the session the committee heard testimony on Assembly Bill 2 which requested a one year statute of limitations on all negligence and wrongful death actions filed by anybody against anybody, private or public. Through that testimony, it appeared the committee was inclined to do something to alleviate the burden of the state in regards to civil rights lawsuits filed by inmates. A.B. 714 is a reflection of that goal. The AG appreciates the committees' attempt to address the burden on the state and support A.B. 714. Ms. Cathcart announced civil rights actions filed by inmates fluctuates every day. Presently, they have approximately 450 such cases. For example, 20 identical lawsuits were filed last week claiming the AG conspired to enforce a lock down situation at the Ely State Prison one year ago. Ms. Cathcart explained approximately 97% of these cases are frivolous. Ms. Cathcart concluded A.B. 714 promotes positive public policy as these lawsuits consume a tremendous amount of resources from the state. Ms. Cathcart declared the two year statute of limitations creates a burden on the AG as well because of the length of time these cases take to go through litigation. Mark Ghan, Deputy Attorney General (AG), stated there would be little effect on non-inmate lawsuits filed against the state under the passage of A.B. 714. Chairman Anderson interrupted Mr. Ghan to inform him in order to give a proper hearing to A.B. 714 he would ask them to come back to conclude their testimony on another day as there were people present who have traveled some distance to present Assembly Bill 722. Chairman Anderson apologized for any inconvenience presented to their office. Ms. Cathcart acknowledged the committee has accommodated their office many times so they are happy to reciprocate. ASSEMBLY BILL 722 - Makes various changes to provisions governing certified court reporters. Mary Bell, court reporter and owner of Capitol Reporters, having been in business in Carson City since 1969, stated she currently is the co-chair of the Nevada Court Reporters Association Legislative Committee which was formed in 1978 with approximately 160 members. In the audience today, she announced, were ten court reporters who have travelled to hear A.B. 722. Ms. Bell testified they have not received an increase in their fees in six years. Ms. Bell emphasized court reporters are required to be certified, licensed, and obtain continuing education credits to maintain their licensure. Ms. Bell stated court reporters are independent and therefore are required to pay their own supplies, equipment, fees & dues, travel, benefits, and taxes, and other costs involved in doing business. Court reporter fees are determined by statute and therefore they request an increase to meet the increasing cost of doing business. Morgan Baumgartner, representative, Nevada Court Reporters Association, concurred the court reporters have not had an increase in six years. Ms. Baumgartner submitted amendments proposed pursuant to negotiations with the counties. The amendments are attached hereto as (Exhibit H). Ms. Baumgartner continued Section 1 addresses the fee increase in the per diem rate from $120 to $140 per day, a $30 per hour "overtime" pay in addition to the per diem rate, and an increase to $3.25 per page for the original draft and one copy, and $.50 after that, and went on to explain the amendments thereto. Mr. Carpenter asked if the counties agree with the proposed increases. Ms. Baumgartner stated yes they have. Mr. Carpenter asked if the counties have so budgeted. Ms. Baumgartner deferred that answer to the counties. Ms. Baumgartner addressed technical areas of the bill including Sections 3-8 which make changes to the notary requirements for court reporters resulting in no fiscal impact on the counties or state. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, stated they have been working very hard for the past several hours to amend A.B. 722 to meet the concerns of the counties that responded to their request for information. Mr. Hadfield recognized the important work performed by court reporters and the court systems' reliance on that work so they were motivated to come to an agreement. Mr. Hadfield confessed there will be an impact on counties somewhere in excess of several hundred thousand dollars statewide. Mr. Hadfield concluded they support the amendments and they will continue to work with everyone to keep the court system as effective as possible. Mr. Carpenter asked which area of increase in fees would have the greatest impact on the counties. Mr. Hadfield stated there are many changes between county to county but overall it would be fair to say the per diem rate would have the most impact. Mr. Hadfield concluded there is much flexibility in this legislative measure as everyone is trying to best meet the needs of the court reporters and the court system while still addressing the cost to the counties. Mary Henderson, representing Washoe County, clarified the Washoe County courts have done much analysis on the use of transcripts, copies, etc., and have made a management decision to reduce those copies. Ms. Henderson stressed the important issue here was they have not received a rate increase since 1989 which is a long period of time. Ms. Henderson recognized the valuable service court reporters provide to the court system and appreciate their working with them on creating better language in the bill. Mr. Manendo asked what the percentage of the last increase six years ago was. Ms. Baumgartner stated in 1989 the increase was from $100 to $125 for the per diem rate and there was a $.50 increase on the per page transcription fee. Upon Mr. Manendo's inquiry, Mr. Hadfield stated they requested a fiscal impact notice from the counties, but they have only received three responses from Clark, Washoe, and Carson City. Reviewing those responses, they expect the rural counties would be approximately $100,000 impact. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ________________________________________ Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman ________________________________________ Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary June 19, 1995 Page