MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 19, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:30 a.m., on Monday, June 19, 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: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, M.D. Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Michelle M. Gamble, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriffs Department and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company Richard Atkinson, Manager, Financial Services, Sierra Pacific Power Company Gordon H. DePaoli, Attorney, Sierra Pacific Power Company Noel E. Waters, District Attorney, Carson City William B. Milligan, Chief Marshall, Carson City Justice/Municipal Court The chairman opened the hearing on the first bill and called the proponents to the table. Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, M.D., and Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler came forward to explain the purpose for their proposal. ASSEMBLY BILL 512: Authorizes certain local governments to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred for supporting and maintaining prisoners in county or city jail or detention facility. Assembly Bill (A.B.) 512 is cosponsored by the two assemblymen, Mr. Spitler explained, and is designed to allow counties and cities to seek reimbursement for the costs of maintenance and support of non-indigent inmates housed in local jails. This reimbursement may not exceed the actual cost of the daily maintenance and support, he reported, and the local government must investigate the financial standing of the prisoner before seeking reimbursement. The bill outlines the procedures to be followed to collect the reimbursement, Mr. Spitler stated, including the ability of the governing body to bring a civil action against the inmate. The debt can be ordered satisfied through the performance of community service in certain circumstances, he continued. The bill also provides for the withdrawal of money from a prisoner's trust fund to pay the costs. Mr. Spitler explained he had sponsored a bill similar to this in the 1991 and 1993 legislative sessions. The measures were quite specific and directive, rather than permissive, he said. They were not successful and a more permissive bill was sought, the assemblyman stated. Additionally, in A.B. 512 there are priorities of debts listed in order to avoid conflicts with payment of various other debts such as child support or restitution, the witness noted. This bill will enable local governments the opportunity to seek reimbursement in cases where there is a belief that compensation is and should be available. Mr. Spitler opined this is a good step to take and other states have adopted similar laws. While it is not an enormous money-maker, he observed, it makes a positive move to assist local governments to recoup some of the cost of housing criminals. He noted the measure has the support of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, as well as the Nevada Association of Counties and the League of Cities. Assemblyman Harrington voiced his support for the bill. He noted he had also attempted to get passage of a similar measure, but it did not prove successful, nor was it as well drafted as A.B. 512. The bill is permissive and should prove helpful to local governments. Citizens are asking government to provide a means to have the criminal pay the costs of the criminal acts, he asserted. SENATE BILL 392: Revises provisions governing employment of offenders, accounting of money of offenders and forfeiture of good- time credits. Senator McGinness asked if the priorities set for obligations in A.B. 512 will track with those outlined in Senate Bill (S.B.) 392. Senator James agreed this is something that should be checked out, to ensure the priorities do track the same. Mr. Spitler responded to this question by stating it would be preferable to have both bills track the same, and if there is a difference between the bill, it would be fine to amend A.B. 512 to match S.B. 392. He noted the attorney general has reviewed A.B. 512 and "signed-off" on it. Senator James asked to allow the research analyst a day to compare the two bills to ensure the priorities are similar. He offered to bring the bill up for a work session the following day. The witnesses stepped down. Michelle M. Gamble, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), came to the witness table noting the association simply wishes to go on record in support of the bill. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriffs Department and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, also voiced support for the measure. The chairman called for questions. There were none. There was no further testimony on A.B. 512 and Senator James closed the hearing. He thanked the assemblymen for their attendance at the hearing. He then opened the hearing on the next bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 642: Changes manner of perfecting and giving notice of security interests in property of public utilities. Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, Richard Atkinson, Manager, Financial Services, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and Gordon H. DePaoli, Attorney, Sierra Pacific Power Company, came to explain A.B. 642 to the committee. Mr. Warren offered a brief overview of the bill, noting it would allow a central filing of financial changes made by a utility with the secretary of state, instead of requiring the change to be filed with the county recorder in each county where the utility does business. Mr. Warren explained the proponents of the bill, in preparation for its drafting and adoption, contacted the secretary of state, NACO, the various county recorders, the Public Service Commission, and the other utilities in the state. He noted the bill would only affect the public utilities and railroads. During the Assembly hearings on the bill, Mr. Warren reported, it was requested the power company's bond counsel provide a written opinion of this legislation. He offered the committee a copy of this opinion (Exhibit C). At the bottom of the second page of this opinion, Mr. Warren referred the committee to Mr. Rogers' statement, which offers his enthusiastic support for A.B. 642. The witness explained an amendment to the bill which deals with recognition of utilities in chapter 704 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the utilities statute, as well as addressing the filing of deeds. There was a question raised by the secretary of state and the county recorders about these filings. Mr. Warren noted the bill passed with unanimous support from the Assembly judiciary committee. He turned the floor over to Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson explained he has extensive experience in financing, the bulk of which has been uniform and first mortgage bonds. Mr. Atkinson noted the letter from William Rogers (Exhibit C) describes the process more articulately than he can. He noted Sierra Pacific Power Company initially supported the legislation out of convenience to the utility, because of the immense amount of paperwork that must be taken care of in a short period of time whenever financing for the utility is changed. Under current law, the utility must file a supplemental indenture with 15 of 17 counties in Nevada, as well as six counties in California within 5 business days. These filings must all take place on the same day, so it requires the efforts of many people, he stated, and this puts employee's safety at risk because of the time pressure. Additionally, the counties are inconvenienced by this need to file the indentures on a particular day, Mr. Atkinson stated. It is rare that the financing is set up enough in advance to allow the filings to be scheduled, he reported. Since the original meetings and drafting of the bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented new regulations that require the filings to take place within 3 days. There is a lengthy process needed for the utility to meet all the requirements for financial changes. Much of the process takes place on the east coast, he explained, and new rules have increased the chances of having a failed financing. It only requires a failure to file in one of the counties to make the entire financing fail, Mr. Atkinson stated. Mr. Atkinson explained the process of bond sales and financing in the utility business. He noted the occurrence of a financial failure will cause a stigma against the utility company and imperil future financing attempts. Senator James asked the witnesses whether the first mortgage secured debt referred to in the bill is secured by real property in the state. Mr. DePaoli replied it is real and personal property. The security in the various jurisdictions is the reason for the need to record a security instrument in those jurisdictions, the chairman summarized. Mr. DePaoli agreed. He continued to explain that bill will allow the utility company to initially file the security instrument in the Office of the Secretary of State and file a notice with the recorder in each county in which real property is held by the utility. The notice will essentially say the public utility has executed a security instrument affecting real property in that county; that the security instrument is on file in the Office of the Secretary of State; and, that in the future, additional security interests affecting real property located in the county owned by the public utility may be filed with the secretary of state, he stated. Mr. DePaoli explained that from this point on, if the public utility chooses to do so, they may file the security instrument only in the secretary of state's office (once the notice is filed with the recorder in the various counties where real property owned by the utility is located). This notice will alert anyone interested in a particular piece of property that information about the property is available through the secretary of state, the chairman remarked. Mr. DePaoli agreed with the senator's summary. Thus, the bill does not really change the local notice, but requires interested parties to take one more step to ascertain the status of the property, Senator James stated. Senator McGinness asked Mr. DePaoli if the original notice filed with the county recorder will remain as long as there is any security interest outstanding in the property . The witness reassured the senator this is the case. Senator James observed that with the explanation offered thus far, it would not be necessary for the bill to be reviewed section by section. Mr. DePaoli agreed there was no other substantive changes made by the bill. The remainder of its provisions outline the mechanics of the process or is needed to conform existing law to the change. Mr. Morrow pointed out the last two pages of Exhibit C is a copy of an article which tells of the changes made by the SEC, reducing the filing time from 5 to 3 days. There was no further testimony on the bill and the chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 642. The chairman opened the hearing on the next bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 677: Authorizes counties to create departments of alternative sentencing. The proponents of this bill, Noel E. Waters, District Attorney, Carson City, and William B. Milligan, Chief Marshall, Carson City Justice/Municipal Court, came forward to explain its provisions. Mr. Waters spoke first, pointing out the bill essentially authorizes counties to establish alternative sentencing departments which would supervise misdemeanor probationers. Present law authorizes justices' courts and municipal courts to contract for services to supervise people who are under a suspended sentence or on house arrest or the like, Mr. Waters explained. There is no clear legislative authorization to simply allow counties to undertake this supervision on their own, should they choose to do so. He emphasized the bill contains nothing that will require a county to establish these departments, the provisions are completely discretionary. There are a great number of individuals under deferred sentences with the justices' and municipal courts, the witness explained. These individuals could be under the court's jurisdiction for such things as domestic violence or driving under the influence. These suspended sentences are in place to make certain the individuals attend and participate in the various programs designed to ameliorate their problems, Mr. Waters stated. Additionally, there are restitution and petty larceny diversion programs that require management and supervision. He offered a lengthy list of the various programs in place to address the problems of persons who find themselves under the court's supervision. In Carson City, Mr. Waters reported, the only existing contractor for such supervisory services is a single individual who handles the city's community service program. Essentially, the position is half paid for by the school district and half by the city. This individual supervises persons who are assigned community service in lieu of fines, he explained. It is the desire to have the legislative authorization to do what the counties are essentially already doing, he commented. This is important should there be some judicial challenge of the right of the justices' courts, municipal courts and cities to set and enforce terms and conditions upon a probationer. He offered to answer questions. Senator McGinness asked, if the supervisor is mainly an administrative position, why is there a need for them to have police powers. Mr. Waters opined these powers are necessary because they fill a function very similar to that of a parole or probation officer. The officers will be responsible to monitor probationers' behavior and may find probable cause to arrest a probationer; they may be responsible for the collection and monitoring of blood or urine tests of the probationers; and, they may be responsible for conducting unannounced search and seizure of weapons, drugs, or contraband that are prohibited under the terms of a house arrest or other probation. Because of these duties, Mr. Waters observed, the alternative sentencing supervisor would require the qualified immunity provided by the peace officer status. Senator McGinness asked for confirmation that the program would be to monitor persons who are misdemeanor violators. The senator wondered if the individual currently contracted to monitor the community service program was only a part- time position. Mr. Waters corrected that impression, noting it is a full-time position funded half by the school district and half by the city. Currently, the individual is not required to do home inspections or other activities that might develop under this new law with the concomitant police powers, the witness noted. Mr. Waters reported Carson City has been considering this program for a long time. It would be fiscally wise, because it costs the city $60 a day to house an individual in jail, but to put them in a house arrest or probationary program would cost much less. Additionally, there are many people under a deferred sentence from the municipal or justices' courts who are not complying with the conditions of the deferment. This is so simply because there is no one who can supervise them. Senator Lee asked if both the justices' courts and the municipal courts would each have their own alternative sentencing programs and supervisors. Mr. Waters explained the county would set up the program, with no duplication of services. The senator then asked the witness if it would be better to have the supervisory services under the police department. Mr. Waters replied the police officer has a different role than the probation officer. A probation officer has a certain amount of social worker in them, he opined. A police officer's response to the violation of an individual's probation would be to arrest the individual and sort it out later, whereas, a person who is charged with supervising the probationers would not have the same mental and ethical obligation to arrest the individual, but could consider other responses and alternatives to the situation, he opined. Senator Lee explained his concern comes from the various pieces of legislation that have sought to curtail the use of different titles and different levels of immunity for the different forms of police officer. This bill appears to create yet another category he asserted. He offered examples of the various types of officers and their types and levels of training to illustrate his concern. He stated it was not his intention to stop this bill because of these concerns. Senator Adler voiced support for the bill, noting it is time there exists some means of supervising persons under the justices' and municipal courts. He wondered if the alternative sentencing supervision would include gross misdemeanants. These would be individuals sentenced out of the district court, but not convicted of felonies, he explained. Mr. Waters noted in actual fact, it would not be surprising to find some of those individuals falling under the supervision of the alternative sentencing program. However, as a matter of law, under chapter 176 of the NRS, if there is a felony or gross misdemeanor sentence, the convict falls under the purview of the Division of Parole and Probation. The senator asked if the program could supervise juveniles. Mr. Waters answered in the negative, noting there is a separate juvenile probation department. They could, however, arrest or detain juveniles who are found to be in violation of the law or their probation. Mr Milligan spoke only to note his support of the bill on behalf of the Carson City justices' and municipal courts. Mr. Cooper also spoke in support of the bill. He noted the concept makes great sense and the sheriffs and chiefs association would support its creation. He noted it would be ill advised to put the program under the law enforcement agency because the activity of the unit would be to deal with the mandates of the courts and the judges. This is something law enforcement does not usually enter into, he noted. Senator Adler asked if the program would be able to provide supervision of an individual who resided in one jurisdiction but was convicted in another. He opined it is very important that there be some kind of agreement to supervise probationers from other jurisdictions in the state. Mr. Waters explained the bill does not address this question, but it might be something that could be worked out. Mr. Cooper responded to Senator McGinness's concern about police officer powers being given to the supervisor, noting it is a positive thing, because they may be the only probation officer in the area. There was no further testimony and the chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 677. He moved to a work session. Senator James turned to A.B. 642 asking if the committee had any questions or comments. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 642. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The next bill to be brought forward was A.B. 677. The chairman called for questions or comments. There were none. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 677. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Next, Senator James told the committee they have been asked to recede from an amendment made to A.B. 510. ASSEMBLY BILL 510: Increases requirements of disclosure and notification by associations of units' owners of common-interest communities. This amendment was reportedly acceptable to all parties, the chairman noted. He was unable to explain why there was not an agreement. The amendment prohibited an association to levy an assessment to pay capital improvements unless the association obtains the consent of a majority of the voters. Senator James suggested the committee postpone any action on the bill until the senator who proposed the amendment could be contacted. ASSEMBLY BILL 92: Requires revocation of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who drive under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. The committee discussed the status of A.B. 92, noting it has been on the secretary's desk awaiting an amendment. There was some discussion of the proposed amendment which would prohibit juveniles from acquiring a restricted license to allow them to drive to school or work. Senator McGinness explained he feels this is unfair. Another concern was the drunk driving conviction of the juvenile would not be reported to the driver's insurance company. The committee took no action during the hearing. Finally, the chairman explained there was a bill draft request which would direct an interim study of the treatment of mentally ill offenders in prison. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-2147: SCR: Study treatment of mentally ill offenders in prison. The chairman called for a motion for committee introduction of the bill draft request. SENATOR LEE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-2147. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Adler asked if this study would include individuals who receive treatment for alcohol and drug abuse in prison. Senator James explained these were not covered by this interim study. This would specifically study persons convicted of sexually deviant behavior, he reported. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There was no further business before the committee and the hearing adjourned at 10:25 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary June 19, 1995 Page