MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 3, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Pierini, Undersheriff, Douglas County Richard Wyett, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Nancy Tiffany, Unit Manager, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Lupe Gunderson, Chairwoman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Parole and Pardons Board Thomas Wright, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Parole and Pardons Board Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter Carlos C. Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Judy Hillberry, Member, Families of Murder Victims Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary, Parole and Pardons Board Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Phil Galeoto, Lobbyist, City of Reno, Reno Police Department Elizabeth Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby SENATE BILL 312: Makes various changes to provisions relating to parole. The chairman opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 312 which is a bill sponsored by Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen who introduced it. He explained to the committee the impetus for this proposal, noting there was an incident the previous year where a violent sexual offender was paroled to live in Douglas County without any notification to the local authorities or residents. When the parolee went to register as a sex offender with the local authorities the news spread and the citizens rose up against his release into their midst, the senator reported. The uprising was so widespread and vehement, the parolee asked to be returned to prison, he noted. Senator Jacobsen reported this incident brought to light the need for a measure such as the one proposed in S.B. 312. He told of the development of an ad hoc committee which was formed to develop legislation to address the concerns of the public and law enforcement in this area, including prior notification of the impending release of the sex offender. The resulting bill requires a report to be prepared by the executive secretary of the Parole and Pardons Board and released to each law enforcement agency in Nevada, as well as a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the parolee is expected to reside. The senator revealed the efforts he made to get a firsthand idea of what is involved in the prison and parole or probation process. He spoke of the helpfulness of the various individuals from those agencies. Then, he moved to review the specifics of the bill's notification requirements. He then introduced the undersheriff from Douglas County. SENATE BILL 192: Makes various changes related to provisions pertaining to sexual deviants. Senator James thanked the visiting senator for his presentation. He asked the witness if he was familiar with S.B. 192 which provides a community notification process. He also questioned whether the visiting senator would object to any amendments which would be necessary in order to make the two bills mesh. The chairman agreed the report regarding the parolee is an important requirement in the bill. He then explained the notification process outlined in S.B. 192, which is a panel of citizens working with government officials to determine the level of risk presented by the individual being released, then notifying the community on a level based on the determined risk. Senator Jacobsen willingly assented to the necessary amendments. He also pointed out the bill's provisions for altering the makeup of the parole board with its specification as to the qualifications of those serving on the board, as well as increasing the board by one member. He stressed it is important to have a broad representation of the community, law enforcement, as well as education on the board. Senator Jacobsen also noted for the record his concern for those individuals who have fulfilled their obligation to society, through their term of incarceration, along with his understanding that these individuals should not be punished further. He emphasized, however, that individuals who are prone to repeat their past transgression should be subject to increased scrutiny of their activities. The chairman asked about the fiscal impact caused through the addition of one new parole commissioner. He questioned whether the funding for this position is incorporated into the administration's operating budget. Senator Jacobsen replied it is not. Senator James stated he had heard the position mentioned by the executive officials, noting their support for it. Senator Porter voiced support for the present bill, and reminded the audience and the witnesses of testimony and evidence presented to the committee which shows sexual offenders are not often amenable to treatment for their deviant behavior. This ended the testimony of Senator Jacobsen, who turned the floor over to Ron Pierini, Undersheriff, Douglas County. Before Mr. Pierini spoke, the chairman reminded the members of the audience that if they wish to speak before the committee they must sign-in on the visitor's roster. Mr. Pierini echoed the words and sentiments of Senator Jacobsen. He voiced appreciation for the senator's efforts on the bill, as this issue is very meaningful in the area where he lives and works. Mr. Pierini opined the bill would be beneficial to all residents in the state who face the possibility of their neighborhood being occupied by released sexual offenders. He asked the committee to consider passage. He did acknowledge the bill could "create a monster," because there is always the possibility that residents will not want parolees in their neighborhood "regardless." Senator James stated the committee not only supports the idea of community notification, it has already passed a similar measure. He stated it would be the intent of the committee to make the two bills consistent. Senator Adler voiced some concern that the bill is structured to encourage supervised release of these individuals, rather than unsupervised release. He spoke to the matter of keeping convicted offenders in prison until they serve their entire sentence, which then releases them into the community without any means to ensure they are abiding by the law. This, he opined, is not a desirable situation which will result in even greater complaints from communities. The senator expressed his view that the Legislature is caught in an odd situation because it wishes to encourage a parole "tail" rather than a direct release, because it allows for additional monitoring of parolees, but it also wishes to assure citizens that their communities will not be disrupted without notice. The undersheriff agreed with Senator Adler's statement. He said the Douglas County Sheriff's Department works well with the probation department. He observed the probation officers are overworked and understaffed, with large caseloads. This contributes to a situation where the parolees are not supervised as closely as they should be, he opined. He noted there is a lot of cooperation and communication between the sheriff's department and the probation division. Senator Adler asked if the undersheriff feels there is a need for more probation or parole officers to monitor the parolees. Mr. Pierini agreed, noting the parole officers would also agree. The senator agreed the probation officers' caseloads are too heavy, and that there is a need for more intensive supervision of the released offenders. Mr. Pierini emphasized the need for the law enforcement agencies to be aware of the release of convicted felons into their jurisdiction. This communication allows them to be aware of what is going on in their community, he stated, as well allowing them to monitor the activities of these individuals, to some extent. The chairman called for other witnesses on the bill. Richard Wyett, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and Nancy Tiffany, Unit Manager, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, came to the witness table. Mr. Wyett spoke in support of the bill. He stated he attended two of the meetings held by the ad hoc committee in the Fish Springs area of Douglas County. He asserted it is the philosophy of the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P), "that once a person is released from prison, the punitive part of their sentence has ended and the rehabilitative end starts." Mr. Wyett stated it is the goal of P&P to release the individuals into a community that can work with the division, to provide a safe environment for all involved. It is necessary and welcome to rely on the additional eyes and ears of local law enforcement and the community. This policy applies to all parolees, he stated, especially sex offenders, who are somewhat different in nature from other types of offenders. In most cases, sex offenders give signals prior to re-offending, Mr. Wyett noted. Mr. Wyett reported the division is planning to increase their staff in Douglas County to three officers, as well as opening a substation. This is in an attempt to better serve the community as their caseloads continue to grow in that area. Senator Adler referred to page 2, section 3, subsection 4 of the bill, and asked if currently the policy of the parole board is to allow subcommittees of two members to ratify decisions. This section will change that requirement to four members, he stated. Mr. Wyett could not answer the senator's question, referring it to members of the parole board. Ms. Tiffany spoke in favor of S.B. 312, noting the support of the parole board for this bill, as well as S.B. 192. The board, she reported, believes in community notification as a very important tool in the fight against crime. She asserted the community can better protect itself when armed with the knowledge of who has moved into the neighborhood, and what crime the offender may have committed. Ms. Tiffany stated the Division of Parole and Probation is willing to assist the parole board in carrying out the requirements of the bill. The division also supports sections 9 and 10 of the bill, which empowers local law enforcement to detain suspected parole violators for a period of time sufficient to ascertain their status. She reported the division currently does a law enforcement notification with a 10- day advance, by certified letter, on order of the Governor. There were no questions from the committee. Next, Lupe Gunderson, Chairwoman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Parole and Pardons Board, and Thomas Wright, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Parole and Pardons Board, addressed the committee. Ms. Gunderson spoke in support of the bill, with a couple of proposals for change. First, the witness directed the committee's attention to section 1(1). She requested the words "executive director" be changed to "the division" because they already have the information and it would be easier for them to prepare such a report. Mr. Wright responded to the comments made by Senator Adler, stating the Parole and Pardons Board is not in opposition to public notification, however, he reminded the panel the New Jersey federal court has struck down such policies as unconstitutional. Chairman James declared the committee is well aware of this ruling, but has already crafted and passed a bill which will avoid a similar occurrence in Nevada. The assertion by the court that such a notification is punitive, he continued, has also been addressed through the appointment of a citizen's panel which will determine the breadth of community notification based on individual factors in each instance. He asked the witnesses not to spend "a lot of time on the notification part because it is going to have to be modified...to square with the other bill [S.B. 192]." Mr. Wright continued, noting a paroled sex offender has passed a psychiatric panel, they have also engaged in positive programing. The sex offender who flattens out his sentence and is released, he noted, has not done any of these things, has not attempted rehabilitate himself and is, nonetheless, released without any supervision. In this case, he opined, "we have the target on the wrong back." Senator James stated this is in particular regard to the notion that the state should supervise released convicts, as opposed to never releasing them. Mr. Wright observed even those who expire their sentence must register with the local law enforcement, but there is no community notification or supervision. He emphasized these are the individuals that cause the most concern because, in many cases they have not admitted they have a problem, let alone made any attempts to address it. The chairman explained that S.B. 192 requires public notification, regardless of the nature of the release, it also calls for lifetime supervision for a certain category of dangerous, violent sexual offenders, which the bill defines. Finally, the bill lengthens the terms of sentences for violent sex offenders, and there is a good likelihood that the terms actually served will be longer. Mr. Wright concluded his remarks by voicing support for the additional parole commissioner. He observed it frequently occurs that the three commissioners from the northern part of the state are all unavailable to ratify cases that are heard in the south or issue retake warrants, or even meet with victims in particularly pressing instances. This additional person should be "of great service to the state and to the agency, in particular." He stated he, personally, does not have any problem with S.B. 312's qualifications listing for commission members. He did state that even with the current makeup of the commission there is considerable experience in law enforcement, education, and mental health and rehabilitation. Senator Adler asked, regarding section 3, subsection 4, whether the requirement for four commissioners to sign off on a decision is going to cause an increased delay or burden. Mr. Wright explained it is the policy of the commission to ratify every parole decision with a simple majority of four members, even in nonviolent cases. The senator asked if this is only codifying the current policy. Mr. Wright concurred, noting the addition of another commissioner should also help to alleviate delays. Senator Adler wondered if the qualifications for commissioners listed in the bill would preclude the use of a prosecutor as one of the commissioners. Mr. Wright speculated a prosecutor might fall into the category of law enforcement, if a broad enough definition was applied. The senator wondered if there needs to be a specification of the number of commissioners needed to represent each of the qualification categories, or if the Governor should be allowed discretion in his appointments, within the guidelines of the qualifications outlined. He opined it would be fine to allow this discretion. Ms. Gunderson voiced her agreement with the senator. There was agreement also voiced by Mr. Wright and Senator James that the provision needs to be modified to allow the Governor this discretion. Ms. Gunderson finally referred to pages 2-3, section 3, subsection 4, line 40 which discusses the need for the chairman to have the deciding vote in particular cases. She stated she is uncomfortable with imposing this extra power or responsibility on the chairman of the commission. It has always been the policy to allow each commissioner equal weight in voting. She stated it is her preference to retain the current policy, which requires four votes to ratify a decision. Senator Adler objected to the provision because it includes conspiracy, a low-level crime, in this extraordinary voting structure. Mr. Wright agreed with Ms. Gunderson. He objected to "focusing that kind of pressure on the chairperson or vice chairperson...." He restated, if the commission goes to seven members, he does not object to the need for a majority of five, however, it seems unnecessary to require one of those votes be the chairman's. Chairman James stated he would get an explanation of this provision from Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, who assisted in the drafting of the bill. Mr. Wright reiterated the need to create the position of vice chairman who can act in the chairman's stead, especially if the commission is expanded to seven members. This concluded these witnesses' comments. Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter spoke in support of S.B. 312. Ms. Jacoboni noted the bill has good provisions, especially section 3 which expands the board to seven members and the qualifications list which includes a victim's advocate. She spoke regarding the issue of requiring the chairman to concur in decisions listed in section 3, subsection 4 of the bill. This, she opined, is a very good provision, because the members of MADD feel the chairman of the board should be accountable, that someone should have to answer for these votes. Senator James asked if all the commissioners are not currently accountable when they vote. Ms. Jacoboni agreed their votes are all recorded and they are, indeed, accountable, except there needs to be someone to [blame] for an unpopular decision. Senator Adler asked the witness why the rest of the panel should even vote, if they are not accountable, and the chairman is the only one whose vote counts. Ms. Jacoboni asserted the voting process is such that undue influence can be put on persons to vote a particular way. The senator admitted this is possible, but insisted the entire board should be held accountable. Ms. Jacoboni maintained there is a need for "the buck" to stop with some individual. Senator Adler offered that if the chair's vote is the only one that counts, other members can let the chair take the unpopular stand and then cast then own vote the way that "makes [them] look the best," thus taking the heat off themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Ms. Jacoboni thanked the committee and stepped down. Mr. Neilander was asked to answer some questions for the committee. Senator James asked Mr. Neilander to work with him in order to fashion a comfortable, workable overlap between S.B. 192 and S.B. 312. Secondly, the senator asked the origins of the chairman vote requirement in section 3, subsection 4. Mr. Neilander stated he attended the ad hoc committee meetings with Senator Jacobsen in order to "act as a conduit between the committee and the bill drafters." Residents from the area in Douglas County which had the unpleasant experience of the sex offender being released into their community were present at those meetings, he explained. These residents felt great frustration that there was no real allowance for public input in parole decisions, no one individual to whom they could direct their concerns. This, he continued, was one way to create some accountability, in cases of more serious offenses, through the creation of a super- majority. Mr. Neilander speculated the bill, as drafted, might be broader than the citizens would really request. Mr. Neilander wished to add, referring to section 1 of the bill, that it was drafted prior to the drafting of S.B. 192 with its careful consideration of the New Jersey court's decision and its citizens panel to determine notification. He offered that S.B. 312's provision to notify a newspaper might be problematic. Senator James clarified the court's decision as stating "if you just have a reflexive publication.... for every offender, regardless of their risk of recidivism, then it can be punitive. And, if it's punitive, it's an ex post facto law.... and unconstitutional." Mr. Neilander agreed with the chairman's interpretation. Senator James requested Mr. Neilander to work with him and Ms. Combs to "come up with the necessary changes." Mr. Neilander directed the committee's attention to section 9 of the bill, requested by law enforcement. He explained it is based, somewhat, on a California law allowing searches of suspected parole violators. The consensus of the group was it is not necessary to "go that far," but rather, to address the need to detain a suspect for a period of time sufficient to confirm if the individual is on parole, he stated. SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. Senator Adler observed that some of the offenses which require notification through S.B. 312 are those that have been classified as category D crimes under S.B. 416. He suggested the bill should be revised to exclude the conspiracy crime notification, as it is not a violent crime and does not necessarily deserve the police and public attention that notification will bring. He asked the bill be made more specific. The chairman noted S.B. 192 has a less broad list, and S.B. 312 should be made more consistent. Mr. Neilander told of the bill is broad because there was no real consensus about which crimes should be included. The hearing on S.B. 312 was closed. SENATE BILL 313: Authorizes inclusion of assignment of wages for restitution as condition of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The hearing on S.B. 313 was opened and Senator Washington made its introduction to the committee. He explained the purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism by which the Division of Parole and Probation can collect restitution that has been ordered by the court from an offender who demonstrates a lack of compliance under the terms of a signed restitution agreement. The offenders to be covered by this bill are those who have steady, gainful employment and who are found to be capable of maintaining a regular monthly payment. He continued, the bill will allow probation officers to target offenders who have the ability to pay restitution, but fail to pay unless pressured or sanctioned. Finally, he noted the intent of the bill does not include the indentured offender, or those who have documentation that shows an inability to pay restitution. Senator Washington observed the bill complies with the goals of the committee in passing legislation that creates truth-in-sentencing. Mr. Wyett returned to the witness table, along with Carlos C. Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. Mr. Wyett stated an execution of wage assignment would begin with the court or parole board ordering the assignment as a special condition of parole, in all cases that require the payment of restitution. Then the division would initiate and enforce payment of restitution under three levels of enforcement. The offenders would progress through the levels, he explained, only when they fail to comply at the previous level. Mr. Wyett outlined the levels of the program: 1) the offender remits regular monthly payments on a schedule determined by the division; 2) the offender executes a voluntary assignment of wages through their employer to remit a percentage of their paycheck, directly to the division, for payment of restitution; or 3) the division executes a writ of garnishment against the offender's paycheck for the payment of restitution. Mr. Wyett offered that parole is a sort of "carrot and stick" situation, with incentives to maintain behavior while on a conditional release from prison. This bill, he opined, enlarges the carrot to include responsibility. This is necessary, because the division is expecting to receive an increase in their caseload to accommodate the results of S.B. 416's mandatory probation of nonviolent property offenders. Mr. Wyett noted, probationers who are able to pay restitution, but refuse, do so for a variety of reasons. These reasons include a personal resentment or anger at the recipient of the restitution. Mr. Wyett stated the bill will allow the division to collect this restitution, despite the personal feelings of the offender. He added, he would even be in favor of confiscating the valuable "goodies" the offender has purchased, because probationary supervision must have a meaning, "paying your debt to society." Hitting the offender's pocketbook, making him responsible financially is one of the most effective means of sending a message, he offered. Senator Adler wondered if the bill should also apply to cases that, while not requiring restitution, do have a fine imposed. Mr. Wyett stated it is the division's experience that fines are a county issue that is usually addressed by the court. He noted the division is not responsible for collection of fines, only restitution. Mr. Concha explained the division will advise the offender how, and to whom the fine must be paid, however, there is no follow-up by the division. He added that Washoe County has a collections unit which monitors the fine payments of all offenders. As a matter of information, Mr. Concha reported, the division collects over $1 million in restitution annually. He observed he is unable to say how much goes uncollected, but speculated it is a much greater portion. With the bill, he opined, the division will greatly increase their collection of restitution. The bill targets the offender with the ability to pay, not the indigent, he reminded the committee, and it will provide the hammer necessary to enforce the payments. There was no further testimony on the bill, and the hearing was closed by the chairman who noted the bill would be addressed at the work session to follow. SENATE BILL 373: Requires notice of parole hearing be provided to victim within specified time. Senator James reported this bill is the result of his own request to address concerns raised by Judy Hillberry, Member, Families of Murder Victims. Ms. Hillberry had testified at hearings on S.B. 416 where she related that victims of violent crimes are not given notification of a parole hearing with sufficient time to make arrangements to attend. This bill is in response to her concerns, the senator stated. Ms. Hillberry spoke to the committee stating her feeling that victims should receive the same amount of prior notice of a parole hearing as the offender receives. In September of 1994, she reported, she received notice of a parole hearing for the killer of her son only 6 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Ms. Hillberry stated it is her understanding that inmates are given a minimum of 60 days notice of a scheduled hearing. This advance notice allows them time to gather witnesses and letters in support of their petition for parole, she explained. It is her feeling, she explained, that victims should be provided with that same opportunity in order to marshal support for the idea the offender should continue in prison. Ms. Hillberry stated victims are required to request notification in writing to the parole board. Further, she said, she has been cautioned to renew that written request annually, to make sure the information is not misplaced. She continued, explaining the initial request, providing there is not change of address, should be sufficient. She noted additionally, that victims that reside out of the state are not allowed sufficient time, under the current guidelines for notification, to make the necessary travel arrangements without undue expense. Ms. Hillberry pointed out there is a lot of emotional preparation that goes into the anticipated parole hearing. It is very difficult for victims to reexamine the reasons and the issues attached to the crime that is the cause for the hearing. She told that personally, it is very difficult to sit in the same room with the man that killed her son. It is painful to hear this man talk of his crime, making statements to please the members of the board, in order to persuade them to release him. The witness expressed her opinion that the only reason the man who killed her son is still in prison is because she and her husband have attended every parole hearing and requested he be held further. She declared victims should have the right to be at these hearings without renewing their notification requests excessively. Ms. Hillberry concluded, "Nobody is a victim because they choose to be. That is something that was given to us by another person, and we have to have every opportunity to keep him in jail." Senator Adler told of an incident in his district which causes him to ask for an amendment to the bill, adding the provision that if a victim's address is known, or knowable, they must be sent notification of parole hearings. He opined it is not good enough to require victims to continually write and request notification. If the victim's address is in the file, notification should be sent, even without request, he suggested. Next to testify regarding S.B. 373 was Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary, Parole and Pardons Board. Ms. McCurdy reported there was no objection made by the Parole and Pardons Board to the bill. She asked to clarify the policy regarding victim notification. She told the committee the process that is normally followed by the division in conjunction with the district attorneys' offices. This includes the provision of a victim impact statement. Unfortunately, this process was not in place 10 years ago. Ms. McCurdy explained there is no annual requirement for notification requests, unless there is a change of address or a change in the victim's wishes. She noted there is a process in place which uses the computer system at the prison. This allows the generation of a notification letter to the victim at the same time the letter is sent to the inmate, she said. Senator James asked if there is any objection to the bill from her office. Ms. McCurdy replied there is none. He asked if there is a problem sending notification to the victim if the address is known, even if the victim has not requested notification, as Senator Adler suggests. Ms. McCurdy responded that the prison computer system will allow such notification without any problem, as long as the victim's address is in the system. The chairman characterized this situation as a "hole in our statutes," despite efforts to support victims' rights. He opined this statute will fill the hole. Senator Adler commented the notification of victims about upcoming parole hearings should be a matter of course in the parole board's business. It should be part of the procedure, as a whole, he stated, with the board taking the extra step. Ms. McCurdy noted for the senator's information that the presentence report that is prepared and given to the parole board does not include the specific information about the victim, in order to protect them, as this document is also available to the inmate. Victim information must be given to the parole board, or an investigator might be needed in order to track down this information, she suggested. She reiterated the procedure that is now in place provides a much more reliable notification to the victims. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke briefly in support of the bill. Ms. Jacoboni also spoke on behalf of MADD in support of victim notification. She also suggested an amendment which would also require notification to the victim of the parole board's decision following the hearing. She observed this information is not readily available and the victims must call and request the information, despite statements from the board that victims will be notified. Mr. Wright responded to Ms. Jacoboni's remarks, noting the board attaches great importance to the input from victims. He noted there are some difficulties in the communications systems, but there have been efforts to address these difficulties. He opined the suggestion of an investigator to pursue victim, or other pertinent information might be appropriate. Senator Titus asked how many letters a month would be required to effect this victim notification. Ms. McCurdy guessed there might be a dozen. She then replied the prison computer system is expected to be able to generate a letter notifying the victim of the outcome of the hearing, as well. Senator Titus asked if amending the bill along that line would cause any problem. Ms. McCurdy stated there would be no problem. The chair called for further testimony. There was none and the hearing was closed. Senator James noted he would bring the bill up at the day's work session. ASSEMBLY BILL 256: Increases penalty for abuse, neglect or endangerment of child where substantial bodily or mental harm results. The hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 256 was opened and Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo introduced the bill. The assemblyman pointed out the senate has passed S.B. 213, which expands death penalty circumstances to include murder committed on a person less than 14 years of age. The bill (A.B. 256) deals with the other side of the crime, the abuse and neglect that frequently leads to the death of the child, he observed. This bill will complete the picture, it approaches crimes against our children from the front end, he offered. Mr. Manendo explained the details of the bill, noting it expands the penalty for such offenses. He referred to statistics he provided to the committee members (Exhibit C) including the fiscal impact the bill will have. He reviewed these figures briefly. He also noted all 42 members of the Assembly signed on the bill as co-sponsors. Mr. Manendo spoke of newspaper stories that tell of the horrendous deeds done to children which point up the need for this type of legislation. This bill is supported by the group called WE CAN, Inc., the Nevada Chapter of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, as indicated in a letter sent to the assemblyman (Exhibit D). He noted there are some others who wish to address the committee in support of the bill. Phil Galeoto, Lobbyist, City of Reno, Reno Police Department, took the floor to speak in support of the bill. He noted the primary reason for the police department's support is the victims are unable to protect themselves. He noted extending the sentence potentially extends the "tail" of supervision for the adults typically involved in these cases. He explained these types of cases usually involve two adults [the parents of the child], one who metes out the abuse and the other that allows it to happen. The person who allows the abuse is the one most likely to regain contact with the victim the earliest, he noted, and an extended term of supervision is necessary and useful in reducing the likelihood of a recurrence. Elizabeth Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby, also spoke in strong support of the bill. She said her own, personal opinion would ask for an increase in the penalty greater than a doubling. This is a good start, she stated. Senator Adler offered his applause for the group's efforts. He told he had sponsored a bill which would require a judge to make an affirmative finding that there is a greater than likely chance that the child would not be reinjured if they were returned to the home. Unfortunately, the human resources committee chose not to support the bill, he stated. "This means judges can return children to their homes even if they know there is a likelihood they will be killed or seriously injured," the senator reported. At least this bill is doing something constructive to help the child, he declared. Senator James questioned why Senator Adler's bill was directed to the human resources committee. Senator Adler replied it was through the auspices of child protective services. He wished to make the committee aware of this. The chairman stated the committee supports the intent and purpose of the bill and the resulting increase is incorporated into S.B. 416. The chairman queried what might be necessary to incorporate its effect into the truth-in-sentencing bill, and whether Senator Adler's concerns might be addressed through an amendment to A.B. 256. He asked the assemblyman if he would give these questions some thought. The hearing on A.B. 256 was closed and the work session was opened. The chairman reviewed the suggested amendments to S.B. 373, to notify the victim of parole hearings if known, even without a specific request, and notify the victim of the decision of the parole board following the hearing. He called for a motion to amend and do pass the bill as outlined. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 373. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** On S.B. 313, the chairman noted there were no amendments proposed. He called for a motion to do pass the bill. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 313. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator James noted S.B. 312 would be worked on further and held for another hearing. SENATE BILL 299: Requires department of motor vehicles and Public safety to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. Senator James asked Senator McGinness to inform the entire committee of the results of the subcommittee's work on S.B. 299. The senator reported the subcommittee met and drafted a list of proposed amendments (Exhibit E) which they recommend to the committee as a whole. He went over the list of 15 amendments as they appear on the exhibit. One other recommendation, not on the list, is that the sheriffs shall be allowed to issue the concealed weapons carry permits (CCW) to visitors under certain circumstances, for temporary periods of time. He offered an example of bodyguards employed by celebrities or visiting dignitaries, as individuals who might apply for such temporary permits. Senator McGinness thanked the members of the subcommittee and Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, for their diligent efforts. He explained he had asked the members to assist in formulating the best CCW bill possible, but once the bill was put together, if they still had concerns about the issue, they would be free to vote their conscience. Chairman James asked the senator for a report of the stands taken by the various interest groups, such as the law enforcement agencies. Senator McGinness opined they are fairly comfortable with the compromise. He noted candidly that law enforcement still expresses concern about the listing of weapons on the CCW permit. The subcommittee decided a listing of categories or types of weapons covered by the permit, while law enforcement would prefer a specific listing of the exact weapons allowed. The citizens who are pursuing the bill do not wish any kind of listing of weapons, he reported. Senator James asked Senator McGinness if he feels it would be appropriate to have the additional amendment drafted and brought back before the committee so the language would be clear. The senator agreed. Senator Adler asked if the proficiency training and testing would include instruction about the civil liability concomitant with carrying a concealed weapon. Senator McGinness assured him such information would be included in the gun proficiency training. The chairman asked the new amendment be prepared for the committee, at which time the bill will come back before them and will be addressed at a work session. Senator Titus asked to have law enforcement representatives come at that time to express their concerns about the weapons listing and any other concerns. There was no further business before the committee. The hearing adjourned at 10:05 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary May 3, 1995 Page