MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
March 26, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. David Brown
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Rod Sherer
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Speaker Richard Perkins, District No. 23, Clark County
Assemblyman Chad Christensen, District No. 13, Clark County
Assemblyman Tom Collins, District No. 1, Clark County
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9, Clark County
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District No. 27, Washoe County
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District No. 18, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert D. Fisher, President and CEO, Nevada Broadcasters Association; and National President, State Broadcasters Association.
Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez, Nevada State Chairman, Emergency Alert System
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation
Dennis Balaam, Sheriff, Washoe County
Michelle Youngs, Deputy, Public Information Officer, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Jim Nadeau, representing Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Ron Dreher, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN)
Brian Kunzi, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Children’s Advocate, Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada; and Director, Nevada’s Missing Children’s Clearinghouse.
Dennis J. McMullen, Citizen; and Owner, Denny’s Dependable Automotive
Eric Garner, Citizen
Gene Munnings, Citizen
Jan Gilbert, Northern Nevada Coordinator, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Liz Moore, Southern Nevada Coordinator, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Gary Peck, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Laura Mijanovich, Northern Nevada Coordinator, ACLU of Nevada
Ben Blinn, Citizen
Larry D. Struve, Religious Alliance in Nevada (RAIN)
Peggy Maze Johnson, Member, Executive Committee, PLAN; and Board Member, The Spartacus Project
Kristin Erickson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Divisions, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office; and Nevada District Attorneys Association
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Dennis Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board
Amy Wright, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Nevada Department of Public Safety
Dorla Salling, Chairman, Board of Parole Commissioners, Nevada Department of Public Safety
Barbara J. Schell, Director, Victim Witness Assistance Center, Clark County District Attorney’s Office
Victor-Hugo Schulze, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Chairman Anderson:
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary will please come to order.
I would remind everyone that our meetings are broadcast on the Internet. Good morning, Judge [Max W.] Bunch, [Argenta Township, Lander County, Sixth Judicial District] in Battle Mountain, [Nevada].
[Roll called.] There is a quorum present, 11 members in attendance at this moment, the 12th coming.
[The Chair reminded the Committee members and those present in the audience of the Standing Rules and appropriate meeting etiquette.]
Many of us have bills that are going on in other committees, so if you see any of us leave during [testimony], don’t consider it rude. It is the fact that we are trying to be in more than one place at the same time. So I have a very good Vice Chair who will make sure that things happen.
Mr. Speaker, let us turn to A.B. 322.
Assembly Bill 322: Creates Statewide Alert System for the Safe Return of Abducted Children. (BDR 38-253)
Speaker Richard Perkins, District No. 23, Clark County:
[Introduced himself.] I am here today to present Assembly Bill 322. In going over my testimony, Mr. Chairman, there is one piece that really struck home for me. For the benefit of the Committee, the statistic that jumped out at me was that 74 percent of the children murdered by non-family members are killed within the first 3 hours of their abduction. In many ways, Mr. Chairman, that could be the conclusion of my testimony on some of this, but with your indulgence, I’ll continue and describe a few other points.
The term “Amber Alert” a term familiar to all of us, as it should be. It is discouraging to note, however, that our knowledge of this term is based on the desperation and, more often than not, devastation experienced by families of abducted children.
Assembly Bill 322 is about two things. First and foremost, it is about dramatically increasing the possibility that abducted children in Nevada will be rescued and safely returned to their families. Second, A.B. 322 is about protecting the reputation of our state by ensuring that Nevada is never considered a safe haven by criminals who have abducted children. Without this legislation, it is possible that these criminals will come into our state seeking to avoid detection, fully aware that Nevada does not have in place a statewide Amber Alert system.
Before I present A.B. 322 to you in more detail, let me provide you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, with some background and other valuable information concerning the Amber Alert plan.
The Amber Alert plan was created in 1996 as a powerful legacy to 9-year-old Amber Hagerman, a bright little girl who was kidnapped and brutally murdered while riding her bicycle in Arlington, Texas. The tragedy shocked and outraged the entire community. Residents contacted radio stations in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area and suggested they broadcast special “alerts” over the airwaves so that they could help prevent such incidents in the future.
In response to the community’s concern for the safety of local children, the Dallas/Fort Worth association of station managers teamed up with local law enforcement agencies in north Texas and developed this innovative, early warning system to help find abducted children.
The plan’s popularity has been sweeping across the United States and into Canada. Since the original Amber Alert plan was established, 66 modified versions have been adopted at local, regional, and statewide levels. Twenty-four of those programs are operated on a statewide level.
In Nevada, several different versions of an Amber Alert plan have been operating at local levels: the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office’s “Krystal Alert Plan” in honor of Krystal Steadman, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department with the support of the Nevada Broadcasters Association, the Office of the Attorney General, and state law enforcement agencies, just to name a couple.
In participating in a statewide task force that the Governor put together several months ago, I was actually surprised to learn that there are as many as a dozen different plans that operated locally in different fashions with different sets of rules, with some level but not the high level of communication amongst each other.
The United States Department of Justice reports the following statistics concerning child abductions:
§ There are 114,600 attempted abductions of children by non-family members each year.
§ Only 4,600 non-family abductions are reported to law enforcement each year.
§ Two-thirds or more of abductions involve sexual assault.
§ And again, 74 percent of the children murdered by non-family members are killed within the first 3 hours of their abduction.
These statistics clearly illustrate that time is the enemy in the search for a missing child.
In the fall of 2001, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) endorsed the use of Amber Alert plans as used in Texas to assist in the most serious child abduction cases. The Center is promoting the use of such emergency alert plans nationwide. Since its humble beginnings in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area in 1996, the Amber Alert program has been credited with successfully recovering 32 children nationwide.
Statewide Amber Alert plans have been enacted in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio.
As of this month, legislation seeking to formulate and/or implement statewide Amber Alert plans is pending before legislatures in Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
[Speaker Perkins continued.] Assembly Bill 322 creates a “statewide Amber Alert system for the safe return of abducted children” in Nevada. The system will be composed of a voluntary and willing partnership among state and local law enforcement agencies and radio and television broadcasters.
The statewide alert system will be administered by the Advocate for Missing or Exploited Children, also known as the Children’s Advocate, within the Office of the Attorney General.
In the bill, I have proposed a committee to oversee a statewide alert system. Membership of that committee would include:
§ Five representatives of local law enforcement to be appointed by the Governor.
§ Five representatives of state law enforcement to be appointed by the Governor.
§ One representative of the state’s emergency alert system to be appointed by the Nevada Broadcasters Association.
§ One representative of the Nevada Broadcasters Association to be appointed by the Nevada Broadcasters Association.
For their service on the committee, the 12 members will receive no salary or compensation.
The charge of the committee is to:
§ Set forth the components of a statewide alert system.
§ Supervise and evaluate any training associated with the system.
§ Monitor, review, and evaluate the activations of the system.
§ Conduct periodic tests of the system.
The committee may also dedicate the system to one or more persons, and accept gifts, grants, and donations for use in carrying out the operation and intent of the system.
Mr. Chairman, there are two specific provisions in A.B. 322 that I would like to direct your attention to. I believe these two provisions will greatly enhance the effective operation of a statewide alert system by avoiding any unintended consequences that have been experienced by other states with statewide alert systems in place.
[Speaker Perkins continued.] First, in Section 9 of the bill, you will see at subsection 1, paragraph c, that parental consent is required before the system can be activated on behalf of an abducted child.
As much as we oftentimes deal with these bills and attempt to avert controversy, Mr. Chairman, it would be my recommendation today that Section 9, subsection 1, paragraph c, actually be struck in its entirety. I think in our effort to draw inclusion and bring the more support to the table, the bill was drafted to seek that consent prior to an activation. The reason that I would suggest to you that be struck is that there are a number of cases where the parent could be the suspect in that abduction. That child could be in fear of bodily harm or death by that particular suspect.
As well, can you imagine the response of the parent when you are trying to mobilize a search effort for a child and you either can’t find the parent or you do find the parent, you’re going through the description, a very quick investigation trying to locate that child, and having that type of conversation with the parent? I would submit to you, based upon the other criteria, that if the child has been abducted and it is confirmed that the child is in danger of serious physical harm or death, that parent is not going to quarrel with the use of an alert system to recover that child.
Second, subsection 1 of Section 10 of the bill provides broadcasters with immunity against civil liability for broadcasting descriptive information contained in a notification.
I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to the broadcasters in their participation in the crafting of this plan, and suggest that, they are providing a great service. For them, to have this kind of Good Samaritan protection is only the least we can do as a state.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. There has been one more suggestion that came forward from the broadcasters that I would wholeheartedly support. That would be Section 3 of the bill, where it defines a broadcaster and it says on page 2, lines 1 and 2, “Broadcaster means a radio or television broadcasting station primarily engaged in…” Insert the words “or cable operator.” So it would say:
Broadcaster means a radio or television broadcasting station or cable operator primarily engaged in, and deriving income from the business of facilitating speech via over-the-air communications, both as to pure speech and commercial speech.
[Speaker Perkins continued.] The purpose for that is there are some cable operators that have a primary responsibility here. There are those who are much better versed in that area that can answer those questions for you, if you have them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring this bill to you for your consideration. I am hopeful that we can get this accomplished in short order so that if, heaven forbid, we need to, we have this tool available to us.
A couple more comments, I guess, before I take questions. One is there are other folks that would be helpful for you to hear from about how an alert happens, who makes the notification, to whom, and how that information gets disseminated. As well, you probably remember the very highly publicized case in California only a few months ago where two young ladies were recovered just prior to any serious significant harm coming to them. They were located primarily because of informational signs along the highways. We have some limited capabilities to do that in Nevada as well. It’s not specifically articulated in the bill, perhaps does not even need to be, but I can foresee a partnership with the Nevada Department of Transportation and other agencies as this moves forward.
There has even been a suggestion that the most available, the most visible signage in our entire state is actually owned by many of our resort properties. As we move forward, we will reach out to them and perhaps even form a partnership with them in terms of any alert. Can you imagine two-hundred-and some-odd thousand people on the Las Vegas Strip viewing those types of marquees? You have that many more eyes and ears in the public trying to help locate a missing child before harm befalls them.
It has been my privilege to be before your Committee again, and I am available to answer any questions.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I have just a couple of questions. On page 2, line 20, it says, “Each law enforcement agency that chooses…” and then on page 5, line 24, it says, “Nothing in this section requires a law enforcement agency to” participate. I was wondering why we were allowing that kind of choice when this seems so important that we do have participation, as you said. And the second question would have to do…
Speaker Perkins:
The purpose for that was trying to not create some sort of a mandate. We tend to have some sense of not applying too many unfunded mandates to local governments. I do not know of a single law enforcement agency in the state that has expressed any opposition to participate in this. There is a further requirement in the bill that if they do participate there are various criteria that have to be met, including the creation of various policies and procedures, the forwarding of those policies and procedures to, I believe, the Children’s Advocate, and that sort of thing. It would create, although a small burden, it would be a burden to some agencies. But quite honestly, I don’t know of any that have expressed opposition to participation. I leave it to the wisdom of the Committee if that’s of any concern.
Assemblywoman Angle:
My second question [relates to] this broadcaster definition. I noticed that in the bill you’re referring to Web site broadcasting as well, and I was wondering whether the Internet should be included in this or if you feel that was taken care of and we don’t need to go to that place.
Speaker Perkins:
I would actually defer to the broadcaster experts that are sitting behind me, that are more able to answer your question, if you don’t mind.
Assemblyman Brown:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an excellent bill. One question I have is, let me preface it by…when I was 18 I thought I was pretty grown up; I think that is typical of many. I visited my college alma mater last year and said to my wife, “Why are there all these junior high and high school students around here?” Of course, they were freshmen on the college campus, probably 18 years old. Was there any discussion, legal or policy reason, or are there other states that have looked beyond the 18-year age to 21 [years of age], or abductions in total?
Speaker Perkins:
There are a number of discussions about all sorts of uses of the alert system. We actually are blessed in Nevada to have a very good emergency alert system that’s currently used for disaster-type information and the like; it is kind of our civil defense warning system, as well. I think the concern would come from the broadcasters in that if we don’t narrow it as we craft this, we could open the door to the emergency alert system to a whole host of things, just putting an all points bulletin, so to speak, out on any type of wanted person or abducted person, that sort of thing.
The concern there is that the viewers can then become fatigued by so many alerts. When an alert happens right now, it is fairly infrequent; it draws your attention to it, very significantly, and you pay much more attention to it. So I think if we had opened the door and allowed all those in, that’s the main concern. Again, I think they probably speak to it from a more logistical point of view and perhaps even how that would be a problem for some of them on the airwaves. I think that’s the biggest reason why we are crafting it so narrowly.
Chairman Anderson:
Other questions for Mr. Perkins? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to put the remaining witnesses on a five-minute time limit, if that’s OK with you.
Speaker Perkins:
Absolutely, I understand the time constraints of this and other committees as we march towards our completion of this legislative session. It perhaps would be beneficial for the Committee for the broadcasters that are here behind me to come up, if you don’t mind. They could answer a lot of the questions that others cannot, and questions that have already been posed by the Committee. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will take my leave to head over to that, as you term it often, the cul-de-sac of [the Assembly Committee on] Ways and Means. I am happy to come back at any time, if you need me.
Robert D. Fisher, President and CEO, Nevada Broadcasters Association; and National President, State Broadcasters Association:
[Introduced himself.] Today is the day that Nevada broadcasters have been looking forward to. This is the moment that we have anticipated and have been waiting for. For now is the time that Nevada’s Amber Alert plan has a new partner, has an important asset that joins our coalition. We welcome Nevada’s Legislature and Assembly Bill 322 with the suggested changes.
Nevada’s broadcasters first began working on a statewide Amber Alert plan during the summer of 2001. In swift and bold moves, Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez, our state EAS (Emergency Alert System) Chair, and the Nevada Broadcasters Association, joined forces to first strengthen the emergency alert system throughout Nevada in Las Vegas, Reno, Ely, Elko, Winnemucca, and Fallon. This project began three months prior to September 11, 2001. The broadcasters established a small group of partners as we rebuilt and strengthened the EAS, which had to first be done if we were to have the best Amber Alert plan in the country. The broadcasters joined together in the summer of 2001 with the National Weather Service, with [the Division of] Emergency Management, and with the Office of the Attorney General. Brian Kunzi and Stephanie Parker, on behalf of then-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, met in my office that summer to begin working on Amber [Alert].
In the fall, after September 11, we began working very closely first with Lieutenant Governor Lorraine Hunt, and then with Governor Kenny Guinn. This has been a long, slow, and careful process. We have the responsibility to protect the integrity of the emergency alert system, as Nevada’s broadcasters became the voice for Nevada’s homeland security. We personally want to thank the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor for their extraordinary patience, trust, and confidence that allowed us to also protect the integrity of Nevada’s Amber Alert plan. The statewide Amber Alert plan was crafted incorporating the best of northern Nevada’s very successful Krystal Child Abduction Alert Program—Krystal CAAP. We also incorporated the best of those states that had developed the most effective and workable, and I would emphasize the word workable, plans. The Department of Public Safety, the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), and law enforcement agencies throughout the state all joined together as we completed the plan, as we went literally word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and page by page. The final editing was done by Brian Kunzi, from the Office of the Attorney General, and Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez, our state EAS Chair.
Since completion of the plan, law enforcement through the Office of the Attorney General has begun the coordination of Amber Alert law enforcement training. It is the expanded coalition of public safety and law enforcement agencies who have established the date of June 30, 2003, as the completion of the first phase of preparedness training. There was a meeting held in the Office of the Attorney General yesterday [March 25, 2003]; there is a second meeting now scheduled on April 8, 2003. Ladies and gentlemen, as the head of the Nevada Broadcasters Association, I urge you to accept, to adopt, and to enact Assembly Bill 322 with the changes that have been proposed by the Speaker. As it states in the Talmud, “He who saves the life of one child, it is as if he has saved the entire world.”
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just want to follow up on Assemblywoman Angle’s question of the Speaker earlier. It seems like the Internet and the Web, specifically to state Web sites, the broadcast media Web sites, the print media Web sites, a lot of those would be a great place to post [Amber Alerts] as well. I was wondering if there was consideration going into that, if that’s feasible, or if that could come out of the Committee.
Robert Fisher:
That issue has been discussed at length. I am going to defer when Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez has a chance to respond.
Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez, Nevada State Chairman, Emergency Alert System:
[Introduced herself.] [My position] is a Federal Communications Commission-appointed position; the official title is Nevada Chair State Emergency Communications Committee. We are the committee that put together the emergency alert system in Nevada, again, under FCC mandate. I think it is important for everyone here to understand that this is a voluntary project. Every broadcaster, every radio station, every television station, and every cable operator who participates in EAS does so on a voluntary basis. That includes funding the equipment, which can cost a station up to $4,000, as well as training their staff, and maintaining that training so that every staff member is capable of activating the EAS, whether it is an Amber Alert or some other emergency. The flood of 1997, for example; if today had been that kind of situation, the system would have issued warnings because we were getting a lot of rain. But you have all heard the EAS activations; you have all seen the scrolls across your television set. It is important that you realize that this is a voluntary program for broadcasters and they all agree to participate in this including the burden of training that goes with it.
Amber Alert is simply another activation of the EAS, like a flood warning, hazardous materials spill, or any of the other activations you may have seen. Once a law enforcement agency has determined that they have a child abduction situation where there is potential danger to the child, when that decision is made, agencies contact the local primary station in a particular area, Reno, Las Vegas, or Elko; those are the three areas into which the state is divided for broadcasting. When the decision is made to activate the Amber Alert system, the appropriate law enforcement agency contacts the primary station for that area; that station actually performs the activation, issues the tones and the information. It’s picked up by the equipment, the other stations’ control rooms, and then is broadcast out to everyone.
From that point on, speaking as a newsperson in my professional position as a member of KOLO-TV news staff, I can tell you that in a newsroom, once one of those activations is made, everything comes to a halt. We now have a new top story for the day, we immediately begin gathering information on that situation, and as we seen with Amber Alerts in the Reno area, we immediately broadcast not just the activation, but continue to carry the information on that missing child until that child is found. And we have been very fortunate in that the activation of the emergency alert system for Amber [Alert] in our area have all resulted in successful recoveries of missing children, of abducted children.
I think there were some questions about Internet. You should know that the California Legislature is currently considering an amendment to their Amber [Alert] program that would give them a way of getting the Amber [Alert] information onto state Web sites. California Highway Patrol (CHP) already does this. If any of you had visited a CHP Web site in recent weeks, you would have seen the picture of Lindsay Ryan, the little girl who was found by Susanville, [California], pop up on your screen. Lawmakers who saw that thought that it was very helpful; so they are now considering legislation that would make this happen on all California State Web sites. The technology is certainly there; the information is certainly there. The Nevada Highway Patrol and other agencies are going to…when a picture and abduction information comes to us, it is easy to put on a broadcaster’s Web site, it would be easy, I think, for the state to get that on state Web sites. The mechanism and such can be worked out in much the same way.
Again, we are considering this from the angle of the spirit of EAS, which is a voluntary thing. We don’t want to be issuing mandates, either to our broadcasters who are cooperating voluntarily and very much so, or also with law enforcement agencies. As we went through this plan, one of the things we kept in mind were the smaller agencies like Yerington Police Department or Lovelock Police Department, where there is only a small staff. We want to be able to help them, make them feel comfortable, and make it as easy as possible for them to become part of the system. So it is a true “we” project.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Regarding the Internet, in Section 2 on page 4, it does talk about Web sites and the immunity from civil liability, so the Web sites are probably covered in that section. My question goes back to page 2, Section 3, where broadcaster is defined, and I was wondering if the Internet fell into that definition or if we needed to make that definition as strict as it is, just for radio, television, and cable.
Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez:
Radio, television, and cable are part of the emergency alert system. Internet at this point is not part of the EAS; Amber [Alert] is an EAS function. I think we would need to specify Internet, but if you are going to do that, then you kind of get into a whole realm of not just state Web sites, broadcasters have their own Web sites, and we would certainly put that information on there, but how do you mandate something that is so amorphous out there? You would have someone like Great Basin Internet Services coming to you saying, “How do I be part of this?” or “Am I required to be part of this and who is going to pay for it?” I think you want to be wary of that.
Assemblyman Angle:
What I am hearing is that they are not considered a broadcaster so we don’t need to include them in this definition.
Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez:
They are not considered a broadcaster for purposes of Amber [Alert].
Assemblyman Geddes:
It’s going on that topic and I think it can be included in this bill. Subsection 2 of Section 10 only addresses a Web site specific for the system. I think it would be OK to put language in this bill that just charges the committee with working with those city, county, and state Web sites that are already out there, posted, have the people there as well as any print and broadcast media Web sites, and just have the committee, not the Legislature per se, but the committee go out there and offer it up to everybody who wants to participate in the system and be a good member of the system and participate in that. I think we can put that in as a charge of the committee to explore that option, consider it when the committee is formed and they are working on the system.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
Any further questions for Ms. Abbott Gutierrez? Seeing none, I think it would be appropriate to go to the NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) representative, Mr. Edgington.
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation:
[Introduced himself.] I wasn’t meaning to speak on this bill; we are in support of the Amber Alert system. We would do the best we could, as Speaker Perkins mentioned. We would work with the local law enforcement agencies as best we could with our intelligent transportation system signs in Las Vegas. You can see them on Mt. Rose.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
How many of those signs are there around the state, statewide?
Ruedy Edgington:
Permanent installations, we probably have six to eight. There are not a lot; we are in the process of evolving that technology right now. We have several portable message boards that you will see in our construction work zones. Those could be utilized if they were available at the time. That would be my biggest concern, to let people know that those portable message boards, they get used quite a bit. If we did have them available, we could post them along rural parts of Interstate 80, where we don’t really have anything now. We certainly would be willing to do that with the message. As you are going 65 miles per hour on our freeway, you are not going to be able to put exactly every detail of an Amber Alert on there. We would work with NHP to come up with what that message might be, just Amber Alert, refer them to a radio station, something like that.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
Are there any questions for NDOT? Seeing none, I did notice that you marked not to speak, but I thought it would be appropriate that we asked your opinions.
Ruedy Edgington:
Actually, I appreciate that.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
What we would like to do now is group some folks together; there are a lot of people signed up to speak on this bill. So, maybe if we could go with law enforcement first and get you in a group of about four. Then maybe we will go to the cities and counties after that and get you in a group of four.
Dennis Balaam, Sheriff, Washoe County:
[Introduced himself.] I have with me Deputy Michelle Youngs, who is the PIO (Public Information Officer) at the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, but more importantly, [she] was tasked with putting together the Krystal Alert that spun off the Amber Alert back in 2000, working with Douglas County, when Krystal Steadman was abducted and her body recovered; we were involved in that with the crime lab. It was important to us; we started that program back in 2001, got it off the ground with eight Nevada counties and ten California counties, and it currently is in existence today. We have been very successful with this program and I am here to talk in support of that with the changes that have been proposed. I [concur with] the timeliness of having this put out immediately and having the local agencies having the authority to do that. I also want to commend Adrienne AbbottGutierrez, who was also very instrumental in putting this together and getting it off the ground back at the [Washoe County] Sheriff’s Office.
But again, this is a partnership between the public and the private sectors. I can tell you, we are in partnership with the Interstate 80 and Highway 395 corridor, the casinos. We are just now finalizing the policy to use their billboards, which are very big and very visible. We just have to work that out and that should be done in a short time, but we have been working on that for the last couple of months. Also, we have the ability to put that on our Web site. The Sheriff’s Office has been very instrumental in getting this going in the north. We are here to support that and to commend both Adrienne Abbott Gutierrez and Deputy Youngs for their work here.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
Deputy Youngs, are you planning on speaking as well?
Michelle Youngs, Deputy, Public Information Officer, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
I wasn’t planning on it; I am just available for questions. This is a really good program; the key to it is for the local agencies to put it into their protocol, to know that it is available, and it’s simply a phone call to activate it the way it stands now. It can be done very quickly.
Jim Nadeau, representing Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
Sheriff Balaam said everything that I think needs to be said.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
Any questions for the law enforcement folks? Seeing none, are there any more law enforcement folks that would like to come up as a group?
Jim Nadeau:
Ms. Bonnie Parnell, representing the Nevada PTA (Parent-Teacher Association), is tied up in another committee and asked that we voice her support along with her group.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
That will be noted for the record.
Ron Dreher, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN):
[Introduced himself.] For 11 years prior to my retirement, I worked on a series of child abduction murders for the Reno Police Department. I am a retired Reno Police detective and worked major crimes. The importance of this legislation, as you’ve already heard, is enormous. If we had a system like this in place in 1983, Tony Franko would probably still be here. In 1987, Jennifer Martin was kidnapped in Lemmon Valley; she would probably still be here, and I will explain that in a minute. In 1989, two children, Jennifer and Charles Chia, were kidnapped from a school bus stop in Reno; their remains were found nine months later. They went through the check station, we know that for sure, either Truckee or the Hallelujah Junction area. If we had a system like this in place, we may still have saved them.
In 1990, little Monica DaSilva was kidnapped out of her bedroom in Washoe County. In 1991, Jaycee Lee Duggard was kidnapped out of Lake Tahoe. The importance of that is, you heard Sheriff Balaam testify, as a result of that a system of protocols [was developed] that all of us worked on. In 1994, a little girl named Mailen Stafford was alleged to have been kidnapped by her parents; we put out this protocol. To show you how effective it is, within 48 hours of us working together in unison, with the media’s attention and everybody working together, we found her down in Los Angeles. She had been murdered by her parents, but we still did it by the use of the media.
As you’ve seen, this type of system when you broadcast it nationwide…Elizabeth Smart is one example, Krystal [Steadman] is another example. Any time you can put a system in place nationwide or statewide, you are going to have positive effects in getting these children back. We have never found Tony Franko, we have never found Jennifer Martin; they were ten years old when they were kidnapped. We never found Jaycee Lee Duggard.
The importance of this legislation is so crucial. Like I said, I heard the lady speak who put this bill forward, that there is not a fiscal note. It is up to you all to do it, it’s up to you all to pass this law; but it is up to the media to support this, up to the law enforcement to work with the community, to work together, and get this done. We don’t want our children kidnapped; we don’t want them taken out of their bedrooms. We do know that there are a lot of pedophiles out there, there are a lot of crooks, and they don’t mind taking advantage of us. This system makes us work together, it helps us work with the media, and we can get our children back. With that in mind, I ask you to support A.B. 322. Let’s get it on, it’s long overdue, and we need to stop our children and need to find them.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
Thank you, Mr. Dreher, for your compassionate testimony. Are there any questions for Mr. Dreher? I don’t see any. Some of the city and county folks have not marked that they want to testify. However, I will recognize for the record that Mr. Richard Wilkie from the City of Henderson and Ms. Karen Coyne from the City of Las Vegas are in support of the bill…and Mr. Robert Gastonguay from Cox Communications. Is there anyone in Las Vegas that would like to be on the record in support or would like to come up to the [witness] table?
Brian Kunzi, Senior Deputy Attorney General; Children’s Advocate; and Director, Nevada’s Missing Children’s Clearinghouse, Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada:
[Introduced himself.] On behalf of our Attorney General, Brian Sandoval, it is a pleasure for me to come forward and support this [bill]; it has been a rewarding experience. I do have to say, in particular, we really do owe a deep debt of gratitude to Bob Fisher who has been Herculean in the effort he has made in working with this project. The system that we have been working on for two years and has been something that we desperately need, and it’s been wonderful with the cooperation that we received from all of the local agencies and different county and state government officials to get this program going.
I wanted to comment on some of the questions that came up. The first thing I would like to point out to the Committee is on page 5, paragraph 5, of that section. When we talk about participation from the local agencies, it is important to note that what the bill provides is that the local agency has the discretion to call, to activate the alert. What we are trying to do is ensure that is where the discretion lies is with the law enforcement agencies. So when we talk about voluntary participation, that’s really what we are referring to. What we have done with the Governor’s committee that’s been working on this, we’ve really worked with all the state and local agencies, we have worked with military police agencies, and we have worked with tribal police to try to get everybody on board. As indicated earlier, we have received absolutely no opposition and everybody does plan on participating with this.
The question with regard to the Web sites, one of the things that we have in our plan that we have developed is that the Amber Alert itself really does deal strictly with the broadcasters. What we’ve done though is that we’ve incorporated within the regional local areas for them to reach out to the resources within those areas to hit Web pages. Clark County, in particular, is one that has stepped forward and indicated that they will put out over their Web page any time there is an Amber Alert.
Secondary type of material had been mentioned previously with the road signs. We’ve spoken with the Las Vegas Security Chiefs Association that will want to use the signs on the Strip. Clark County has also stepped forward and indicated [the availability of] using signage at McCarran International Airport. These are all things that we have developed; we are kind of leaving it with the local agencies to develop those resources within their own areas to try to utilize what’s available to get the word out as quickly and efficiently as possible to everybody that we can.
Again, this has been an enormous cooperative effort and I think that to leave you with how this works is really the last… The case that we had that was mentioned previously by the Speaker, the temporary road signs around the Reno area, which was actually an Amber Alert that was called in California and the child was actually picked up in Hawthorne, [Nevada], through somebody who saw those road signs. So it really is a great program. Again on behalf of Attorney General Brian Sandoval, we would urge the support and passage of this particular bill [A.B. 322].
Assemblywoman Angle:
My question goes to the fiscal note. It says that there’s a small fiscal note and it refers to your Office that you are going to be involved with the training, is that correct? Could you expand on that, what your involvement is exactly in that training?
Brian Kunzi:
The fiscal note in the training is that in talking with local law enforcement agencies because it is a statewide plan, the feeling was that we needed somebody from the state to head up the training and make sure that this is a uniform plan throughout the state. So that responsibility has fallen on my shoulders as the Children’s Advocate. Something that we are working with local law enforcement, as Mr. Fisher indicated, yesterday we had a meeting with about 15 law enforcement personnel and in 2 weeks we have another training session we are trying to put together a training guide. We have somebody from the NCMEC coming out and sitting down with us to help plan the training. We are planning to go out to the five regions within the EAS, the emergency alert system, which is Reno, Elko, Winnemucca, Ely, and Las Vegas, to try to hit all of the local agencies and try to get them to come in for the training.
The additional fiscal note that we talked about was that one of the key components of this particular bill is that there is this creation of a review committee that has to meet in order to review any time there has been an Amber Alert called. One of the reasons for that in the plan within 30 days after the event they have to present their reports and everything so that the committee can review what happened, basically do a debriefing on it to ensure that the criteria was met, and see if there are any changes that need to be made into the system. So the small fiscal note that we talked about was really some additional travel expense that may be required for myself or whomever from the Office of the Attorney General that may be representing this committee to attend some of these meetings and do the training that needs to be done.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
Mr. Gastonguay, I think I misrepresented you by saying Cox. I looked you up here on the Intranet while we were talking, and you represent the Nevada State Cable Telecommunications Association, but I am sure you are speaking for Cox as well.
Jim Nadeau:
I am sure that Lieutenant Stan Olsen from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department wanted to be here but he was tied up on another matter. So I certainly would want to, on his behalf, voice his support from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
It will be noted for the record. Any other questions on A.B. 322? Seeing none, I think the Chairman would inclined, there he is, I was close to being inclined to take a motion on this bill. Would you be so inclined, Mr. Chairman? Well, this chairman would be so inclined to take an Amend and Do Pass motion on this bill. The amendments would be to delete Section 9, subsection c, “the parent or legal guardian” to delete that section. And then, adding the broadcasters’ concerns “a cable operator” in Section 3 on page 2. That would be correct? Mr. Geddes, have your concerns been met or do you think we need to amend? OK, those would be the two amendments for the motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 322 WITH THE TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson:
I am sure that the Speaker will want to take care of his own bill [on the Assembly Floor]. In the event he is looking for backup, I will ask Mr. Conklin to act as backup for the Speaker.
Let’s turn our attention to Assembly Bill 337, take it out of order.
Assembly Bill 337: Makes various changes concerning rights of ex-felons. (BDR 14-63)
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9, Clark County:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, and Exhibit I.] The bill before you today is Assembly Bill 337. With the support of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary last session, we made great strides in the area of restoring rights to felons. We changed the law to allow an ex-felon to be able to apply to either the Pardons Board or Division of Parole and Probation for restoration of rights. Unfortunately, the bill, as finally crafted, did not make it easier and it is still cumbersome and hard to navigate. In fact, the term “crazy quilt” was advanced by the [United States] Department of Justice as a depiction of the arbitrary patchwork of various procedures and an absence of uniform provisions governing disenfranchisements and restoration in the states.
The following comments to make the case for re-enfranchisement are attributed to and taken from a research document entitled, “The Advancement Project, Re‑enfranchisement.”
Across the board, laws governing the disenfranchisement of former felons seem intended to restrict the kinds of people who can participate in the political process. Indeed, such disenfranchisement is a surviving vestige of the historic and systematic exclusion of people of color from voting. … The blatant literacy, “understanding” and “interpretation” tests, and the infamous poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and white primaries, which were relics of past injustices, are no longer overtly employed. Mass disenfranchisement, however, of a powerless sector of the populace, allows the shadow of these phantoms from the past to clandestinely continue the obstacles, which deny full participation in the political process. In 38 of the states and in Washington, D.C., persons with felony convictions either never lose the right to vote or automatically have that right restored at some point after they are released from incarceration.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] It used to be eight states; luckily, with our changes last session, seven states permanently disenfranchise all former felons.
After thirty years of relative obscurity, the issue of former felon disenfranchisement is now being scrutinized by preeminent scholars, policy analysts, statisticians, … and legislators, … Barriers to the restoration of voting rights upon release from incarceration, or while on probation or parole, are still tainted by a racially motivated history and are antithetical to the democratic values inherent in an open society.
In permanent disenfranchisement states, former felons are not commonly informed about the procedures necessary to regain their right to vote and many incorrectly believe that they never can vote again. And, persons in those states who are aware of the existence of the discretionary system process often face…cumbersome conditions, prerequisites, rules, and regulations.
Although disproportionately impacting black people, disenfranchise-ment crosses racial, ideological, and political lines. As analogized by Professors Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres, because of the transparency of race, issues impacting African Americans often serve as the “miner’s canary,” providing an early signal to problems that will ultimately impact other groups as well. And so it is with felon disenfranchisement, an issue which, although disproportion-ately impacting African Americans, signals a deleterious effect on democracy as a whole.
[An example of] one of the most alarming reconstruction constitutions, [for the historians in the Committee], was the one enacted by the state of Mississippi. This convention was used as the prototype for the conventions of other southern states. The Mississippi convention replaced its old disenfranchisement provision, which affected citizens [convicted] of any crime, with a provision that disenfranchised only those citizens convicted of certain enumerated crimes—crimes which the conventions believed were committed more often by blacks. The ultimate ideal, of course, was to exclude all blacks and no whites. In 1867, prior to the constitutional convention, 70 percent of the eligible black voters in Mississippi were registered to vote. Two years after enactment of the disenfranchisement laws of the 1890 convention, that number plummeted to less than 6 percent of the eligible black voters.
The racial motivations behind the enactment of the felony disenfranchisement laws in the southern states are well documented and readily acknowledged.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] But the impact now is something that we need to take a look at.
According to the 2000 census report, blacks comprise approximately 12.3 percent of the United States’ population. Of the 3.9 million disenfranchised people in this country, black males comprise 1.4 million, a rate that is seven times the national average. …In seven of the eight states that permanently disenfranchise all former felons, 25 percent of all black men have lost the right to vote. Given incarceration rates, it is estimated that in the future, this number will rise to 40 percent.
We also have the issue of Latinos.
Latinos constituted 24 percent of youth whose felony cases were filed in 18 adult criminal courts in 1998, although they comprised only about 12 percent of the general population.
Scholars have consistently reported that people of color are often targeted, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated at higher rates than similarly situated whites.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] This is part of the trend that A.B. 337 is attempting to overturn.
I set up a task force on this issue in Clark County, which was teleconferenced to the north during the interim last session. We didn’t have an interim committee but I just wanted to pursue and see how the law we put into place was being affected. I had legislators, police, and district attorneys; we took testimony for the day. We found a number of areas that were still not navigated correctly, not implemented, or we unintentionally affected the process. So this bill is attempting to deal with that. I recognize with any legislation that there will always need to be some manipulations that come about. I am willing to work with anybody that wants to suggest some amendments. There are individuals here today.
The bill is intended to automatically reinstate civil rights if they are paroled, honorably discharged, or have served their sentence and been released from prison. It is intended to redefine who must register with a local sheriff in this state. I’ll note that all other states require registration only for sexual offenders, no other reasons. Only Alabama requires it for both sexual offenders and habitual offenders. Nevada currently requires it for areas such as if you were in another state and it had been a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor in that state, you happen to move here and it’s a felony here, you have to register. It’s nonsensical; we have six different areas that we require registration. I think part of what I was attempting to get here in NRS 179C.010 is limit who should be registering as an ex-felon in the state of Nevada. In addition to that, this section should not be intended, I think it was misinterpreted by individuals who thought I was trying to change who could be convicted of a crime, that’s only the registration section, not changing who could be convicted of a crime.
The bill also clarifies for purposes of applying for a job that requires licensing. Most of our occupational licensing just says, “any felony.” The language in Section 16 through Section 71, and unfortunately that led to the length of the bill, simply said the felony should be related to the occupation for the board to make a determination on whether or not to issue that license. So it tried to narrow the framework. If you are applying for a mortgage broker’s license and you have been embezzling, that is related to that job, so they can consider not approving your application. But to have a felony for driving under the influence, that should not necessarily lend itself to a mortgage broker not being able to be issued a license.
The bill also is attempting to deal with distinguishing between work permits and licenses for matters related to gaming. It also codifies the Attorney General’s opinion that Clark County can’t continue to require individuals who are ex-felons to have to carry a card. Sixteen out of 17 counties don’t have that requirement, only Clark County does. There are letters in there (Exhibit F) from Brenda Erdoes [Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau] to the sheriffs; they have ignored it and have not dealt with it. Clark County still continues to require an [identification] card even though the Attorney General has ruled that they should not. So this language will also clear up that issue.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani continued.] I know that there is some concern; I have met with the Gaming Control Board, a representative from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P). They are working and will be presenting some language amendments, which I will be happy to work with them on. I just hope that the Committee will keep an open mind and streamline what we intended to do last session. In my opinion, we must end the disenfranchisement of individuals who have paid their debits, want to participate, and now are willing to follow the rules and laws.
I do have a gentleman that Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie would like to introduce that would testify, if that would be acceptable to you.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District No. 27, Washoe County:
[Introduced herself.] I wanted to come today just to give you a few brief remarks and introduce one of my favorite constituents, Dennis McMullen, who owns a small business in District No. 27, known around our house as Dependable Denny, because his business is Dependable Denny’s Automotive. I met Mr. McMullen about 20 years ago when a tow truck driver, we had a problem with the car and didn’t have a good mechanic, suggested that I take my car to Dependable Denny’s. He said, “You will never find a more honest mechanic.” I am one of those women, I don’t care about mechanics; I just want my car to run. So I started taking my car there.
Since then, I kid Denny, I should get a commission because I have referred probably over 100 people there and lots of people still go to Dependable Denny’s because he is a tremendously honest mechanic. He and his wife have had this small business in downtown Reno for many years. He is going to give you his story today about what happened to him and how he got his civil rights restored. I just think putting a face on this problem really will not only tell the Committee the problems these people go through, but will help you keep in mind that this is really about fairness. Justice demands fairness. If people have paid their debt to society, as Denny has, and they want to be rehabilitated, reintegrated into society, who are we to tell somebody like Denny that he can’t vote? So, at this time, Mr. Chairman, I am here in general support and I would like you to hear from Dependable Denny.
Dennis J. McMullen, Citizen, owner of Denny’s Dependable Automotive:
I grew up in the Bay Area in San Francisco and came to Nevada in 1977. After a couple of years, I made a mistake and was convicted of a… I was arrested in 1979 for a non-violent crime. In 1981, I was convicted and served one year in Carson City, did seven months’ parole, and got off parole. I had a professional career before but there wasn’t too much available to me after this time. So I fell back on an old childhood talent and I starting working for various organizations around Reno as an automobile mechanic.
As time went on, my wife and I got together and opened up a very small one‑bay operation in Reno as a business. It grew and grew. I miss my right to vote and I miss my right to apply for various things. My teaching credential had been revoked; I had a state of California vocational teaching credential. When we went to get our smog station license, I was denied that, of course. We had to take my name off the business license so that she could have the station license, although I was able to get an inspector’s license.
In 1994, I started into a process of trying to get my civil rights restored, get a pardon, and get my record sealed. It was difficult because I really wanted to participate in some community projects, but I was afraid and embarrassed to either let them know about my record and also be a liability to them in case it ever came out. In 1996, I contacted my attorney and said, “I want to start this process.” The process went on for three years, I got my pardon in 1999, and it took until late 2000 before I was able to get my record expunged. I was able to back my right to vote and be a taxi driver or a beautician if I wanted to. It cost me quite a great deal of money, over $8,000 in legal fees. You wouldn’t believe the “hooch” you have to go through, surprise visits from Probation and Parole doing background; one such [visit] took place while we were having a family gathering after my brother OD’d (overdosed) and died at the house, and here comes the parole officer coming in to do the background, and here is the family sitting there grieving.
I just want to say one thing. It should be more automatic. I know there should be some screening. I was a one-shot wonder; it was my first and only arrest. I have to credit my wife with a lot of this because of the business; we run it as partners. It is a successful business and it has done well for us. It should be more automatic and it should be more systemized so that people can vote. That was my greatest thing, I wanted to be able vote, to be part of the community, and yet I was prevented and it was very frustrating. This bill would be going a long way towards getting people who are not career criminals to get back into the community and be able to take jobs. Maybe they had a job before and that was their skill and now they can’t do it anymore, possibly getting a limited gaming license or even a police card. So, thank you very much for listening to me and if you have any questions…
Chairman Anderson:
Thank you for coming forward. It is always difficult, I think, to tell your own story and yet, as Ms. Leslie and Ms. Giunchigliani have already indicated, by putting a face with the bill, it makes us all the more understanding what could potentially take place.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I believe Eric Garner is in Las Vegas…
Chairman Anderson:
I have 37 people who have indicated a desire to speak, and there is no possible way that we can do that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Eric Garner is an ex-felon that I have requested if he could get off work today. Then you may take it in whatever order you wish to go, if that is acceptable.
Eric Garner, Citizen:
Currently, I am a married man; I have a family, three children. I am a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, student; I graduate in May [2003]. I already hold an associate’s degree. I have worked all my life. When I was 18 years old I got in trouble, one time. Actually, when I was 17 [years old] I got in trouble, but it was a small thing. When I was 18 [years old] I got in trouble again, all within a two‑year period. I lost track of what I wanted to do with my life. What ended up happening, I got a felony. Since I was 18 years old, and I will be 30 this year, I have been disenfranchised. I never felt like I was a full American because I never had a chance to vote. I have always been afraid to come out into public and say, “I am a felon.” I came here two years ago and told my story. At that time I was just graduated from the community college. I ran for President and I did not want to let anyone know that I was a felon, so when there were problems with the election, I dropped out so that no one would dig into my records and find out I was a felon. I think that this bill is a good thing; the reason being, all Americans deserve the chance to vote, to have their opinions voiced, to be part of the system, and part of America. If you have any questions, I am open.
Gene Munnings, Citizen:
I am in favor of A.B. 337; it has just two sections that would particularly affect me directly and I wrote out what they are. The reason I am here today is that this bill would affect my life very positively. Let me explain. In 1980, at the age of 21, in Baltimore City, Maryland, I was charged with two counts of arson to a vacant structure. In February 1981, through a plea bargain, I pled guilty to these two counts under the North Carolina v. Alford plea, which is commonly called the Alford Plea. This means that I plead guilty without admitting any guilt and the prosecutor does not find me guilty, but if the case were to go to trial, there is a good possibility that a guilty verdict could be found. I was told that even though I was pleading guilty, I was not being found guilty, and therefore would not have a conviction. I was therefore sentenced to 10 years in prison; I spent 8 years and 16 days in various state prisons.
Upon release on October 31, 1988, I had to complete a small period of mandatory parole, which ended on October 18, 1990. I should note that I never saw a parole officer because I was employed immediately upon release. On September 1, 1980, before I entered prison, I received a Bachelor of Science degree from Towson State University in biology, botany, political science, sociology, and economics. Upon release from prison, I found work as a seasonal manager for a Hickory Farms store, which I held until I moved to Nevada. I also found other positions moving up, since that was only a seasonal position, starting as janitor in a restaurant and bar, substitute teaching in inner city schools with delinquent children, and I was only paid $21 a day because I did not have an advanced degree other than the bachelor’s degree. Then I became a nursery manager at Frank’s Nursery and Crafts, and then I became a social security adjudicator with the state of Maryland. But in order to hold that position, I had to pass an FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) check, since I was handling social security numbers.
The entire time, including the time I was in prison, I was allowed to vote; I never lost the right to vote. In fact, they mailed me the absentee ballots because I was not considered losing any rights. When I was released I also became an election judge for two precincts. That was because of being a Republican; there was a real shortage of them in Baltimore City, when you are outnumbered 74 to 1. You had to open the precincts and they were both in the same gymnasium, so I was running two of them. I was a very active member of the local improvement association that had 6,000 homes that we covered. I did housing inspections, I ran an environmental committee, I did garden contests in the neighborhood, and I was still considered a full citizen.
I was recruited from Maryland by Nevada to come work for social security disability here because I was trained and had very good record; I never had any of my cases overturned and I never held a case more than 30 days, I got them through. As soon as I got here to Nevada, in October 1993, one of the first things I did, besides finding the Methodist Church and joined the church, was I went down to City Hall and registered to vote. I had voted every election until last year because I was always under the assumption that I still had the right to vote.
While here in Nevada I have served on several committees in the city. I was on the Economic Vitality Carders Committee. They are still holding an open position for that on the city committee from the six-month one; I was appointed to that but was not able to hold it since I lost my citizenship. I was on the Storm Water Advisory Committee and then I had to be removed. I also completed the Leadership Program in 2001. Before I got on those committees, I tried 16 times to get on various other committees, but was not elected to them because there were other people more qualified with expertise.
About five years ago, when my wife and I moved into our current home from the condominium, I went through papers, I figured these papers were no longer any good, I never used them, didn’t have anything to do with this conviction. So, I threw all that stuff away. All I have left is some court docket entries and a newspaper article that my father happened to have had left when he moved here; we found them in stuff left in Baltimore. I also threw out most of the elementary and high school papers, and donated all the textbooks to the library. In fact, when I was going through to see if I had thrown it away, I found my old SAT scores, college term papers, and a sixth grade magazine from France. I was surprised I had that, but I did not have anything else left.
In June 2002, after I submitted an application to run for the Assessor’s position here in Carson City, I found out I was unable to vote due to not having any citizenship rights. I was shocked and I tried to explain this to Alan Glover, Clerk‑Recorder, and he told me that Maryland was one of two states that Nevada did not recognize their laws equally across the board, and that I would have to come here to the Legislature to have that fixed. When I contacted the Maryland Parole Board that is responsible for pardons and sealing of records, I was told that I was ineligible due to the fact that they did not have any conviction on record. They agreed to send me the forms to fill out, which I did return, and I have never heard back from them, because it took five months just to get that far.
As I read this bill, on page 11, Section 13, subsection 3, is where I would fall under the bill as an out-of-state person. I would also be affected by page 57, Section 60, subsection 1(d)(1), which would allow me to obtain a private investigator’s license, since the crime I was involved in had nothing to do with being a private investigator. Why would I bring this up? I have been a mystery shopper for more than 10 years for 14 different companies. I earn, maybe, $100 a month doing the shops. When I signed up for another company that was doing casino shops over at the Lake [Tahoe], they told me that I was no longer an independent contractor for them because of some state law; I had to obtain a sheriff’s license from Washoe County. When I applied for it, I was denied and told that because I had a conviction, therefore they had a list of all the companies I worked for and they contacted them and all of them have ceased doing operations in Nevada, which has put out at least 68 people that I know of out of supplemental income because they do not have a private investigator’s license here with the state.
I am a very productive citizen here in Carson City. I own two businesses, a landscape maintenance company and a transmission shop in Reno. I am an active member of the Carson City Chamber of Commerce, I am an ambassador on the Leadership Planning Committee, and I am also a member of the local business group called Leads Unlimited.
Chairman Anderson:
I have to ask you to conclude your testimony.
Gene Munnings:
I would like to get my rights restored so that I could vote again.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions for Mr. Munnings?
Assemblyman Geddes:
You said you did vote in Nevada for a few years and then…
Gene Munnings:
…all the way until last year.
Assemblyman Geddes:
…and you lost that by moving into Carson?
Gene Munnings:
No, when I ran for Assessor that is when it came up that there was an indiscretion on the FBI report and they have never been able to get the records because Maryland, at that time, didn’t have anything computerized, they were all paper records, and they were lost. So there are no records of anything. Mr. Glover said we could not prove anything one way or another now.
Chairman Anderson:
Actually, your honesty in admitting that you were a felon, we found out that you were a felon.
Jan Gilbert, Northern Nevada Coordinator, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN):
I am passing out a chart (Exhibit J) to you; it basically shows the system we use now to get your rights restored. I think it is very clear, when you look at this sheet that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani requested from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, how difficult it is and convoluted. That is all I want to say. I have a PLAN person in southern Nevada who would like to testify. We would just like to urge your support for the bill.
Chairman Anderson:
This (Exhibit J) looks similar to the chart that was in Ms. Giunchigliani’s presentation (Exhibit C).
Liz Moore, Southern Nevada Coordinator, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN):
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit K.] I wanted to point out that Nevada recently received a grade of “F” regarding ex-felon voting rights from Dēmos. That does put us still with states like Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Virginia, and Tennessee, states whose disenfranchisement laws date back to the Reconstruction. So Nevada, unfortunately, is in that category. In Nevada there are 44,000 people who are banned from voting due to former felonies. These are 44,000 people who have completed their entire sentence, have completed their parole, have completed their probation, have not re-offended, and they are still banned from voting.
According to the Bureau of Prisons, 2,400 additional individuals become eligible each year for the lengthy and burdensome process that Jan Gilbert just described. According to the Nevada ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), one-quarter of Nevada’s African-American population over the age of 25 is former felons. I think it is important to view these numbers in the context of what we’ve learned from the A.B. 500 of the 71st Legislative Session study of traffic stop data, which revealed systemic racial profiling. It showed that African Americans are stopped at a rate twice their percentage of population and are much more likely than whites to be handcuffed, searched, and arrested, in spite of data showing whites are more likely to be carrying illegal items. Since Nevada incarcerates more people of color than whites, the impact of that is that communities of color are being systematically silenced at the ballot box and systematically kept out of licensed professions.
The economic barriers are a never-ending penalty that ex-offenders continue to pay after their sentences have been served in full. They create permanent barriers that prevent ex-felons from becoming contributing members of the community. These barriers worsen economic hardship in communities of color.
Restoring the right to vote certainly helps not only strengthening democracy but also helps reintegrate folks into society, and that is certainly the goal. There is overwhelming public support for restoration of voting rights. According to a 2002 poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that all ex-felons who have completed their sentences should have the right to vote. That same poll found that 60 percent of Americans believe that people on probation or parole should have the right to vote. Newspapers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor have editorialized in favor of voting for ex-felons. States are moving to restore the right to vote to many ex-felons.
We certainly support that A.B. 337 makes re-enfranchisement automatic for all felons upon completion of their sentences, whether it’s prison, probation, or parole. That’s a great step forward and will reduce problems and barriers in the future. I do have some concern regarding…although it makes it automatic for folks who are ending their sentences now, people whose sentences are already over, still do face the process to regain their voting rights. I think the ideal would be that it would be automatic and retroactive.
It is my understanding that under this bill that folks who are former felons just need to go “one stop,” bring their discharge order to a court of law, and it will be a one-stop, one-time event. Then their rights will be restored from that one interaction, which is a vast improvement over the number of hurdles and hoops that face folks now. I did submit my testimony in writing and it does accompany a chart listing the various categories of felons disenfranchised under state law in all the 50 states and Washington, D.C. It also includes the state report cards showing Nevada getting an “F” from Dēmos.
Chairman Anderson:
We appreciate both your written testimony, which we will make a permanent part of the record, and the testimony you have given. Questions for Ms. Moore? I see none.
Gary Peck, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:
[Introduced himself and deferred to Ms. Mijanovich.]
Laura Mijanovich, Northern Nevada Coordinator, ACLU of Nevada:
[Introduced herself.] I am here to express my most enthusiastic support for A.B. 337 pertaining to restoration of civil rights including the right to vote for ex‑felons who have completed their sentences, have been pardoned, or have been honorably discharged from parole or probation. This bill represents a great improvement over prior assistance because principally of the automatic restoration feature and therefore its ability to reach out effectively to the segment of the community, by doing away with barriers for a group that already faces great challenges on their way to full integration into society—social, economic, and other nature.
In this way, the restoration of rights represents an incentive and reward for those who meet the challenge. If I may say, this is not a free ride that is being offered under A.B. 337; it is actually a reward, a positive reinforcement for those who have met the conditions and who have earned the opportunity to be fully reintegrated into society. I would want to add that the Americans sanctified the right to vote. The limitation on ex-felons represents the largest remaining obstacle or limitation on the right to vote for the American adult. It affects principally, largely minority populations. Therefore, A.B. 337 will bring Nevada more into line with the majority of states throughout the country. We applaud the effort.
Chairman Anderson:
I have a long list of people who have indicated a desire to speak on the bill. If you feel that your point has not been made in support of the legislation, this would be an opportunity for you to come forward to make your presentation at this time. This is not to tell your particular story, but relative to the bill itself. The reason we need to do this is so that we can hear the bill in its entirety.
Ben Blinn, Citizen:
I came here today wearing the keys of the prison system to remind you, the elders on the Committee like Mr. Gustavson, you all know me, to the new people here who are getting to know me, I don’t need to do that before the Committee. I echo what you’ve heard this morning. This is the absolute reason I came to influence you because taxation without my vote doesn’t back up the history I used to teach kids. I think that this goes for Americans of African descent or Hispanic descent or people like me that have blown it, now misdemeanors, possessions that I had, things that I did, but no crime of moral turpitude, which is why I was allowed to teach afterwards. I fully support this issue and wish the young doctor members and lawyer members of this Committee and my new friends would join the elders like Mrs. Angle, Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Anderson in allowing us to be able, the 50,000 members, ex-felons to be able to vote in your districts for people like you.
Larry D. Struve, Religious Alliance in Nevada (RAIN):
Thank you for giving me this opportunity on behalf of RAIN to also weigh in support of the bill. Last week the RAIN board, which I have explained to this Committee… I have been before this Committee before, so I won’t reiterate all of the member congregations we have; I assume you know that. The congregations of RAIN work a lot with the people that are in the category that this bill is aimed at, people who are working to rehabilitate themselves, they work in 12-step programs, many of which occur in the congregations of RAIN, and many of the pastors of our Alliance work with these individuals to help them become full-fledged citizens after they have paid their debt to society.
Last session, RAIN was in support of the general policy decision to move to make it easier for people who have paid their debt to society to regain the rights of citizenship, and we strongly support the effort of this bill to finish that job. As I wanted to indicate, the board of RAIN met last week, they reviewed this bill, and wanted me to put on the record that they are strongly in support, all five judicatories of RAIN.
Peggy Maze Johnson, Member, Executive Committee of PLAN; and Board Member, The Spartacus Project:
We would like to thank Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for her leadership on this issue, but we also would like to say that we still find some problems with this bill. I’ve been involved personally in political campaigns for over 30 years and the last time I looked, people were not beating down the doors of the election bureaus around this country demanding to vote. This so-called right that is exercised by less than half of those eligible to vote, I would rather call what I believe it is, a responsibility, not just a right. I am still, even at this stage of my life, somewhat idealistic and would like to believe that we still subscribe to a system of justice. When a person has committed a crime and has done their time, they should automatically have their rights restored, though I personally support the laws of Vermont and Maine, which strip felons of the right to freedom but still allows them their vote. It seems that this is what a civilized society demands.
I am sorry that Mr. Bob Warden had to leave before he got called upon. This is a gentleman who has been out of prison in New Jersey for over 40 years, has been a voter registrar in the state of Hawaii, has received commendations from the Lieutenant Governor and from the Mayor of Honolulu, came to Nevada to get a job as a janitor in a casino, and said honestly that he was an ex-felon, even though it had been that many years ago. Then, he received a letter from the Clark County elections bureau telling him that he had committed a felony because he had voted this time around.
We believe that we need to look at people moving into this state not having to go through the process. When somebody has been out of prison for over 40 years, they do not need to revisit that by having to visit an election bureau and bearing themselves that they had 40 years ago committed some kind of a felony. We believe also that we need to take a look on page 5, about registration of felons. I heard what Assemblywoman Giunchigliani talked about as far as this being the only state other than Alabama that requires people to register as something other than sex offenders. I think that says it all. Personally, I don’t want to be right up there with Alabama.
Chairman Anderson:
I’m sorry; we need to hear from those people who are going to speak against the bill in order to hear the third bill that we have on our schedule today. I know that having heard it now for not quite an hour, but we need to move to the other side of the issue.
Jim Nadeau, representing Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
In all seriousness, we have a difficult time signing in on this bill, obviously there are elements of this that we feel strongly need work. But when it comes to the restoration of civil rights and voting, we feel that’s a policy issue for you, not a law enforcement issue. The registration card, we do not require. We don’t have problems with some elements of the bill. We would certainly want to work with the writer of the bill and the sponsor of the bill to work out those differences.
Chairman Anderson:
Do you have suggested amendments that you’ve had prepared?
Jim Nadeau:
No, we don’t, but we are concerned about the fiscal impacts dealing with the automatic sealing of records and those types of things. Some of the tracking mechanisms that would be required in order for us to try to impose or implement some of the elements of the bill, particularly some of the language we are confused about, particularly related to the issue about needing to register if they are convicted of a felony only after three or more convictions. That would be almost impossible for us to track that type of information. Being able to validate that or even be able to inquire about that in some cases requires significant work. An example is to try to verify a record out of the Los Angeles Police Department takes us somewhere in the area of two months at least. There are elements here that are unworkable and would really put a significant burden on us in the element of having to bring on additional personnel to put some of these policies to work.
Chairman Anderson:
You have not put anything in writing at this particular moment in time?
Jim Nadeau:
It was our understanding that the sponsor of the bill was planning on putting together some type of work group on it to go ahead and work out some of these issues; we thought we would be working in that environment.
Kristin Erickson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Divisions, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office; and Nevada District Attorneys Association:
I will make it quick and simple, and add a “Me, too” to Mr. Nadeau’s statements.
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association:
Me, too. We do have some concerns with the bill; we’ve already talked with the sponsor of the bill. We are willing to work with her in correcting those concerns.
Chairman Anderson:
Do you want to raise those concerns here in the Committee, or not?
Lt. Stan Olsen:
I can submit to you a copy of documents I’ve got, but they are numerous, upwards of 20 pages’ worth of concerns. I think it would be better if I submit them to the sponsor.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I want some legal clarification on the meaning of civil rights and what would actually be restored. My understanding is that when you have your civil rights restored it is not only your right to vote but also your right to keep and bear arms as well. My second question is, do you notify the registrar of voters when a felony conviction has been brought forward, because it was my understanding from the registrar that they don’t have a handle on who’s a felon and who isn’t. If you could clarify that for me.
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association:
The only reason I step up here is because I have about three times the years of service in the District Attorney’s Office than my very capable person here. With regard to civil rights, there are certain things that have to be specified and probably the last to be specified is the right to keep and bear arms. Unless the order specifically does that, we have viewed that and I think the courts have too, that right has not been restored unless specifically restored.
In regard to the felons and voting, as a prosecutor we don’t really notify anybody about that. My unit does get two or three calls, generally no more than that, each election in regard to felons that have voted or were going to vote. Essentially, we remind them of the statute and we ask them not to do it again. We even had one last year that voted three times at different polling places. We did not rush out and put him away, but we told him not to do it again or we might.
Dennis Neilander, Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board:
[Introduced himself and Scott Scherer, board member.) We will make our presentation very brief. We are not opposed to the bill necessarily; there are certain sections in the bill that we believe raise some significant concerns for us. You should have a letter (Exhibit L) dated March 25, 2003, from Peter Bernhard, Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. That letter is commensurate with the comments we are going to make today, if not in fact identical. It raises the exact same concerns that we have.
Essentially there are three sections in the bill that cause us some concern; we have discussed this matter to some extent with Ms. Giunchigliani and certainly will be available to participate in any sort of working group if that’s the desire of the Committee.
As you know in Nevada, the regulation of gaming all stems from the Legislature’s declaration of the public policy with respect to that regulation. It provides and declares, in essence, that public confidence and trust, that licensed gaming is conducted honestly and competitively and free from criminal and corruptive elements. From that legislative declaration is what flows into the Nevada Gaming Control Act. Our concern, essentially, is that the bill not place us in a position that limits our discretion, because right now persons who are convicted of felonies are not automatically disqualified from being involved in the gaming industry. We consider those matters on a case-by-case basis and each case has it own unique set of facts. There are lots of people in the industry today who are working either as gaming employees or, in fact, are licensed who have felony convictions in their background. We think the system, as it exists now, works pretty well. If you would like us to, we could walk through the exact three sections that are causing us some concern.
Chairman Anderson:
I think you might want to raise the awareness of the Committee by mentioning or pointing out those sections of the bill that cause you concern so that they are more comfortable with it.
Dennis Neilander:
Mr. Scherer will walk you through the three specific sections.
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board:
[Introduced himself.] The first section that concerns us, Section 3, appears on page 4. Currently in conducting investigations, the State Gaming Control Board has the ability to access sealed records if the event or conviction was related to gaming. This would apply not only for work permits but also for license investigations. The bill as currently written would strike out that ability for us to access those records, which could result, for example, in people convicted of cheating being granted a gaming license. As Chairman Neilander said, we consider those on a case-by-case basis; even those convicted of cheating are not forever barred, but usually we look at their history since that conviction, what they have done, and what other kinds of offenses may have been committed. In speaking with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, I think that we can perhaps work out some language that might more directly target her concerns with work permits and specifically with the crime involved being directly related to their fitness to work as a gaming employee.
The second section that concerns us is Section 6. Section 6 begins on page 6, with the language we are concerned about on page 7, lines 12 and 13. What this would do is strike out our ability to get access to fingerprint information. There are other sections of the Nevada Gaming Control Act that specifically require us to check fingerprints, but this provision would prevent us from getting access to that information that we need to comply with that requirement.
Finally, to be brief, Section 21, which begins on page 17, and the language we are concerned about begins on page 20 in lines 8 through 11, which strikes out the ability to object to a work permit based on the fact that someone has been convicted of a felony or gross misdemeanor. The effect of this would be to prohibit us in some cases from objecting to people who have committed certain violent crimes. These employees would include security guards; we do see security guards who have convictions for several violent offenses, which we object to having in those positions in casinos.
Subsection (c) would remain in lines 4 through 7 and this would create perhaps a disproportionate effect that someone who is convicted of a larceny crime, perhaps stealing a CD from a record store, about $20 value, we could object to them getting a work permit. Someone like Jeremy Strohmeyer who assaulted and murdered a child, we could not object to. We think that would be a disproportionate result.
The system is working well now with us having the discretion to look at all the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest and conviction, the person’s background since the conviction, and the particular nature of the position that they are going to be employed in. I can say to you that we have tried very hard to make sure that the people who commit a single offense or even just a couple of offenses and have a clean record for some period of time after they get another opportunity to go back to work in the industry and prove that they are fit to work in the industry and are not a threat to the industry. With that, Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to take your questions.
Assemblyman Conklin:
In Section 3, which is page 4, the last sentence of that line, “Events and conviction, if any, which are the subject of an order sealing records may form the basis for recommendation, denial or revocation of those licenses or work permits.” That is part of the language that is scratched out. I am just curious: currently does the State Gaming Control Board review sealed records in an effort to deny or grant certification to police or is that part of your ability?
Scott Scherer:
It is part of our ability, currently, if the crime was related to gaming. If it was unrelated to gaming, we cannot access sealed records and do not access sealed records. It is only if it was related to gaming that we have that access.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Is there a time limit that you use in the use of those records? For example, there have been several people here who have committed a crime 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, do you have general practice in that regard?
Scott Scherer:
There is not a hard and fast time limit, but there is perhaps a general practice, depends on the type of crime that has been committed. I mentioned crimes related to gaming; a lot of the crimes, even some of the more serious gaming-related crimes like cheating and gambling, again related to being a gaming employer holding a gaming license, that’s one of the more serious offenses. Generally speaking, about ten years, depending on what the person’s record has been since then. If they’ve been out of prison or off of parole or whatever the case may be and they’ve had ten years of clean record, typically we are going to give them another opportunity to be involved in the industry again.
Assemblyman Horne:
Overall, what are the odds, if you have a felony conviction, of being approved by the State Gaming Control Board for a job?
Scott Scherer:
I don’t know that I could speculate about the odds; it really depends on all the facts and circumstances. We have a number of ex-felons that are employed in the industry or are licensed. I mentioned the cheating offenses; we like to see a period of time, and I mentioned ten years. But even with lesser offenses, it is usually a shorter period of time before someone can come back to the industry. We look at have they committed other offenses since that time, what have they been involved in, what have they been doing. I know for example if the felony is, I know the law is now changed but we had some older ones, for possession of marijuana, typically for a work permit the Board is not going to object to a work permit on the possession of marijuana charge. The enforcement division has in the past objected, but I think they have gotten the message from the current Board that we don’t view that as grounds for objection; they have stopped objecting on that basis. It really depends on what the crime is, if it is related to their duties that they will have in the particular gaming establishment, how long has it been, and if they have other offenses after that. It really is a case-by-case thing that we look at.
Amy Wright, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Nevada Department of Public Safety:
[Introduced herself.] As you are aware, as is currently in legislation, the Division is involved the process of applicants who requesting restoration of civil rights in three areas. We process those applications to the respective jurisdiction, whether it is district court or the parole board for the restoration of civil rights. As the amendments are being proposed, it would have a significant impact upon the Division and the workload. I have already spoken to Ms. Giunchigliani regarding the Division’s concerns and we are going to work together to try to minimize that and work on some language. I have some issues regarding, and if you want me to note them for the record I will, providing…
Chairman Anderson:
Are these all listed here (Exhibit M)?
Amy Wright:
Yes, some of them. That has been provided to you (Exhibit M). The issues that we have, of course, would be a fiscal impact to the Division regarding workload, particularly the issue of all inmates who are being discharged within the institution. The Division would then have to acquire those names, the offenses for which they were convicted, the date of the offense, the court of jurisdiction, and petition the court for restoration of civil rights, then be able to locate those offenders, who have now been released from the institution, and provide them with their restoration of civil rights by the court. At this time, we do not have any programming or information that is exchanged between the Division and the Department of Corrections to enable us to do that. We feel that, at this point, it would take additional staff to be able to accomplish this.
Also of concern is the wording “releasing the persons from all penalties and disabilities which resulted from the offense or the crime for which the person was convicted.” I am wondering if that would negate legislation or that provides for a victim to recover restitution from an offender that was unpaid at the time of completion of his sentence. At this time, that restitution turns into a civil liability upon the completion of the [sentence]. As it is worded now, I have concerns whether the victim would then have civil recourse.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions for Ms. Wright? Ms. Wright, there is no fiscal note on the bill and that concerns me in light of your testimony. Did you have an opportunity to review the bill beforehand or not?
Amy Wright:
No. I think that in speaking with Ms. Giunchigliani, there is a way that we can reword this and work out some issues and to negate or minimize that to a great extent.
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, Board of Parole Commissioners, Nevada Department of Public Safety:
[Introduced herself.] I would certainly echo what Chief Wright said. I just wanted to add a little clarification as it concerns the Parole Board. It would also have a fiscal impact to the Parole Board as it is written. Philosophically, the Board does not have any objections to it, but rather to some of the language. What has been handed out to you (Exhibit M) is not really our objections, but our suggestions as to perhaps another way to address the questions. We certainly would agree that the process as it exists presently is very convoluted.
My office also handles the paperwork to the State Board of Pardons Commissioners, which for clarification is the only body at present that can grant the restoration of the right to bear arms. There are other bodies that can restore your civil rights, but not your right to bear arms. As it stands now, the Pardons Board meets twice a year and sees about ten people at a time. Obviously that leaves many people that are never going to be able to get on that agenda to address their right to bear arms, so philosophically we have no objection.
I did want to point out that Senate Bill 430, which is pending, also takes all of these issues and allows the original court of jurisdiction not only to restore the civil rights but to restore the right to bear arms. Philosophically, we have no objection to the immediate restoration of civil rights.
Assemblyman Brown:
What’s the range of probation for the various categories of felonies in terms of years?
Amy Wright:
For all felons, probation could be granted up to a period of five years for all felonies.
Assemblyman Brown:
With a minimum at all?
Amy Wright:
The court will set the length of probation. It may be one year, two years, up to five years.
Chairman Anderson:
We generally spend 40 percent of the sentence in prison and the remaining part out; that’s the way our scheme is generally set up. Thank you, I see no other questions. Ms. Wright, if you and Ms. Salling would make yourself available so that we can try to get this through, if we are going to be able to get it through here in the next couple of weeks. We are down to the last three weeks; it is getting a little tight.
Anybody else speaking against this piece of legislation that feels that they need to have their concerns listened to by the Committee? Let me indicate that I have in addition to the information submitted, I also have a letter (Exhibit N) from David Gibson, attorney at law, from the Office of Public Defender in Clark County, who wishes his information submitted; we will make it part of the record. We have already taken the testimony of everybody else who sent material in.
I will leave the record open for an additional day for anybody who wishes written testimony to be submitted relative to either in favor or against A.B. 337. So there is an opportunity to still have your information put into [the record]. I would suggest that it would be a good thing to do. Let me close the hearing on Assembly Bill 337 and indicate that it is my intention to allow Ms. Giunchigliani to work with the interested parties on her bill and see if we can’t bring it to some level of resolution. I will ask Ms. Giunchigliani to come back, not for the next work session, but by next Wednesday [April 2, 2003]; that would be very helpful.
Let’s turn to the last bill, A.B. 336, the only other piece of legislation in front of us today. We are waiting for Mr. Manendo, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.
Assembly Bill 336: Revises provisions regarding notification of certain victims of crime if defendant is released before or during trial. (BDR 14-1186)
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District No. 18, Clark County:
[Introduced himself.] I am sandwiched in between Barbara Schell, Director of the Victim Witness Center, and, of course, none other than Ben Graham. I submitted this bill on behalf of Barbara Schell.
Barbara J. Schell, Director, Victim Witness Assistance Center, Clark County District Attorney’s Office:
I am here to provide testimony on A.B. 336, which is part of NRS 178.5698. This bill allows for notification to crime victims and witnesses when a defendant is in custody. Victims and witnesses would like notice if that defendant is released during or before trial, and if there is any change in bail status. A.B. 336 simply allows for technology that is available in the marketplace.
One of the most important things we in the system can do for crime victims is to provide information to them. That information must be accurate and it must be very timely. Automated notification systems currently allow for that where they are available. In Clark County and Washoe County, both have automated notification systems, which are extremely accurate, and they are timely. Victims, witnesses, and members of the community can acquire information regarding the crime, the defendant, the bail status, and if there is any change in that status, such as if the defendant is released on house arrest, which is an electronic method of tracking. And that is some new technology that is available.
I would ask that you look at this bill and strongly consider it, because it does, in fact, provide additional protection to crime victims and witnesses. Also, in Washoe and Clark Counties, it is cost-saving because both counties currently have a system called VINE (Victim Information Notification Everyday). We are currently paying for these systems, and where victims, witnesses, and other people in the community must provide written notification, it requires use of personnel time within the jail systems. Does anybody have any questions that I might answer?
Chairman Anderson:
Your concern about automatic notification system rather than the term “telephone,” do you perceive that it has to be…that somehow the telephone limits your ability to use that in some way?
Barbara Schell:
Actually, use of the word “telephone” alone could really exacerbate a situation in that any victim or witness could pick up a telephone and they could call the prosecuting attorney, the chief of police, or the sheriff, because those are the three systems that are responsible for notification. Simply picking up the telephone and calling the jail, if I am not aware of how the system works, I could be speaking to anyone in the jail and believe that I am, in fact, requesting notification, when the person answering the phone does not understand that is what I am requesting. Just use of the “telephone” is just too broad.
Chairman Anderson:
I guess I have a bit of a question, then, relative to the fact that the witness notification or victims have a difficult time carrying on a conversation with a machine, because they may need additional clarification at that time. That concerns me that… I guess it comes from the schoolteacher in me; I have to admit that we have a notification system that when a kid’s absent from school, the machine automatically calls the home. I frequently hear from parents that the machine called the home and was the kid in class and the kid was in class. It ended up with a problem because you cannot communicate back and forth. Is that going to happen here with this system if we move from telephone to automatic system, or am I missing something here?
Barbara Schell:
Using the automated notification system, what happens is that a person calls into a toll-free number and that toll-free number is located wherever the system is located. In the case of Clark and Washoe Counties, we both use the VINE system, located in Louisville, Kentucky. You are in fact speaking with a computer, so to speak, but you are doing it with your finger and using the touch-tone pad. If you don’t have that available to you, then you certainly will be able to access a person to speak with.
Chairman Anderson:
Maybe we will turn this over to bill drafting and come up with something like “telephone, if an automatic system is not available” so that both of them are covered. Additional questions?
Assemblyman Horne:
I am still confused on that very same point. To me it seems like the requesting of the information is coming from the victim or the witness, as I read it. I don’t know where I am messing it up, but if that is the case, I don’t know why a victim or witness would have an automatic notification system. I thought this was related to how they could request the information.
Barbara Schell:
It is very important that victims and witnesses be able to access information regarding the status of a defendant for safety reasons. What victims and witnesses currently are able to do is put that request in writing that if the defendant is released from the facility, they wish to be notified. At this time, it is an operation that is done by hand, so to speak. A person will handle it and do the notification to the victim or witness. Of course, they only have a certain limitation that they are dealing with. With automated systems, you use a PIN (personal identification number) when you go into the automated system, which means it then calls back the victim or the witness and it calls for a period of 24 hours to provide notification. Use of this system doesn’t mean that you can’t also access information in any jail facility regarding the status or to perhaps provide enhanced information regarding the defendant; you can do that as well.
Chairman Anderson:
I read it like Mr. Horne. On page 2 of the bill, [Section 1, subsection 2], at lines 7 through 11, “A request for information pursuant to subsection 1 must be made: (a) In writing; or (b) By telephone, if a system for making such a request by telephone is available.” So, if the fact that they’re making it available means that you are going to be able to operate the PIN system, not them operating a PIN system, a machine system. If you give them a PIN, they are going to pick up the telephone and use it. Isn’t that what lines 10 and 11 is about…”a system for making such a request by telephone is available?” So you get to set the criteria for the receptive system.
Barbara Schell:
The system gives out the PIN to the caller.
Chairman Anderson:
If I am sitting at my home, how am I going to use the system?
Barbara Schell:
If you were sitting at your home, you would use your touch-tone phone. You would call the facility that has an automated notification system, and you would give the system certain information using the pad on your telephone.
Chairman Anderson:
That is exactly what this line says.
Barbara Schell:
Yes…you mean “by telephone?”
Chairman Anderson:
Yes.
Barbara Schell:
But the concern with telephone is…let me give you an example. I am not knowledgeable about the system and I call the Clark County Detention Center this evening at 5 p.m. I tell them that I understand that they have an inmate that committed a crime against me and I want to be notified. I just tell the person who is taking the telephone call. If that facility does not have something in place, then notification may not take place.
Chairman Anderson:
So, you want this to read, “automatic telephone system, if a system…” So I am going to use… “A request for information pursuant to subsection 1 must be made by automatic telephone system, if a system for making such a request by telephone is available.”
Barbara Schell:
A better wording would actually be “automated notification system” because it takes in other technology that may become available.
Chairman Anderson:
It’s not going to happen.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel:
If it helps for clarification, the way this is drafted currently is that the person requesting the information can make the request by telephone. That is modified by the subsequent language that says you can only make that request by telephone, if a system is available. I think the confusion is that there is some discussion about this part is talking about making the request, not the manner in which the notification is made. So in terms of whether or not a person can make a request, they wouldn’t be able to use a system, they can only make the request by phone if a system is available, because a person making the request wouldn’t have a system. That’s what the people making the notification have.
Chairman Anderson:
The second “telephone” should be made “automatic notification system” and not the first one. That is the whole question here. It’s not… Mr. Horne’s question, I think, is the whole point. Not the first “telephone,” but the second “telephone” needs to be “an automatic notification system.”
Barbara Schell:
That I am not following.
Ben Graham:
I heard your support of this legislation. In proper form, Mr. Schulze is in the south; he participated in this. We just want to make sure this system is available for people to do this.
Chairman Anderson:
By telephone.
Ben Graham:
By telephone or …
Chairman Anderson:
Utilizing your automated notification system.
Ben Graham:
…or if a computer system would become available, or something.
Victor-Hugo Schulze, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General:
[Introduced himself.] I work in the areas of habeas corpus and victim advocacy. I drafted this bill at the request of Barbara Schell through my interest in victim notification issues and I would like to give you some background; I think I can clarify the problems that some of the members of the Committee are having regarding the use of the word “telephone.” Ironically, when I drafted the bill, I did not use the word “telephone”; that was inserted during the bill draft process. I have some suggestions that might clarify your concerns.
Right now, you will recall, as you, Mr. Chairman, have always been a sponsor of victim legislation, the Department of Corrections (prisons), the State Board of Parole Commissioners, the State Board of Pardons Commissioners, and the Division of Parole and Probation all have notification requirements as to custody of inmates and perpetrators, as do sheriffs’ and police departments, when a victim requests to know where that perpetrator is. As you recall from past years, this kind of legislation was passed to provide safety so that a victim of crime who believes a defendant or convict is in custody would not run into that defendant or that perpetrator in the bank or in the grocery store. Victims will often take prophylactic action to protect themselves, but in order to do that they need to know the custody status of their defendant.
The bill has actually a very simple purpose: to write into the statute the VINE system that exists in Washoe County and in Clark County. Right now, whether we are talking about sheriffs, the State Board of Parole Commissioners, the Division of Parole and Probation, or the State Board of Pardons Commissioners, the victim, in order to get on that notification list for change of custody status of their perpetrator, has to make that request in writing. That is true consistently throughout all the statutes.
What Barbara Schell wanted me to do when I drafted this was to provide for the continuance of that system, where a victim of crime could request notification from local government as to custody status on a pretrial defendant, but also write in the VINE system so that if there was telephonic notification system in place all a victim would have to do is to call into that notification system, get a PIN, and—Ms. Schell would have to correct me if I am wrong; my understanding of the way the systems work is if there is a change—the computer in Louisville or Lexington will actually call your house and a computerized voice will inform you that there is a custody change. For example, the defendant made bail or the defendant was placed on a house arrest program.
The term that I initially used was not “telephone” because I didn’t want people simply to call up on the telephone and talk to a clerk at the sheriff’s office or the jail. What I originally proposed was language that read, relative to the existing statute, “for purposes of subsection (a) and (b) about, any request for such information shall be sufficient if properly made through a telephonic notification system where such system is available.” We did not want to require the system; clearly Esmeralda County is not going to have funding to put a system like this in, but we wanted it to be a permissive system where it is already in effect.
The only other change we made in the bill was simple and that was we wanted to expand the concept of custody from legal custody to actual custody to write in a concept of house arrest, because you can be in legal custody under a house arrest program, but still be out of that facility, and victims need to know that. My own preference would be to change the term “by telephone” on line 10 of page 2 subsection (b) back to what it was originally: “telephonic notification system.” If you like “computerized notification system” or “automated notification system,” those would all be great too.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions from the Committee?
Ben Graham:
[Submitted Exhibit O.] I think with all the eloquent talk and what we want to do, I would appreciate an Amend and Do Pass on A.B. 336, and bring the language back to the Committee.
Chairman Anderson:
I am in a bit of a quandary because I am not sure what… You are asking me to take a risk here that I’m not too sure that I’m willing to take. When I look at this it doesn’t match with how I see this as happening. I need to get some clarity for myself. I am disappointed that the Attorney General is not happy with the way the bill drafters drafted [the bill], because generally speaking they try to make our stuff all fit together pretty tight. I understand the need for the automatic notification system. I guess access to the system is what I am trying to understand. How tight do we have to draft this relative to a “black letter” that doesn’t hamstring the system from being used, and [at the same time] makes sure that the victim has access to it? It is foolish to have a system that people can’t use. So I am in a bit of a quandary. I’ll look to my partners and see what they think.
I will entertain a motion of Amend and Do Pass on A.B. 336. We are going to see what Ms. Lang is gong to come up with relative to the amendment with possible clarification on page 2, lines 10 and 11, to deal with the question in front of us.
Anybody else feeling that they need to testify on the bill?
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 336 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO LINES 10 AND 11 ON PAGE 2.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
We will take a five-minute break. We have a subcommittee report from Mr. Conklin that we can take and we will take care of that, it will be distributed directly.
[Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting to consider the subcommittee report on A.B. 160.]
Assembly Bill 160: Makes various changes to provide protection to certain persons. (BDR 3-160)
Assemblyman Conklin:
Reporting back to you from the subcommittee on Assembly Bill 160, we met last Thursday, March 20, 2003, to hear the remaining testimony on the bill. We brought it back to Committee, worked on it briefly, and have a report ready for you at this time. The subcommittee is recommending to this body, unanimously, to Amend and Do Pass A.B. 160. There are two amendments provided in the report of the subcommittee (Exhibit P). I must also say that all sides had worked most of their issues prior to the subcommittee meeting, so it made it very easy. I will take both of these amendments in turn.
In the report of the subcommittee, the first amendment, I believe is in green paper, with Susan Meuschke’s name in the top right corner, deals with the second half of the bill, Sections 18 through 27. Although in your actual bill, there are 28 sections, if I am not mistaken, because there is one deleted from the bill. There are two primary issues as relates to this amendment. The first is in Section 23, defining a victim, and also just above that in Section 22, for clarification purposes, a victim’s advocate, because the term “victim” is tied in. Really what we are talking about with respect to this bill are advocates who work for nonprofits exclusively. People who work for the government are already covered by law.
Then in Section 24, subsection 3, there is a paragraph added or a section added, which is on the top of page 2. This includes records concerning a victim and the services provided. What we are trying to get here and the concern is that if the victim’s advocate is protected but not the documents, which the victim’s advocate keeps as part of their record, also needs to be protected, so that it can’t be subpoenaed by the victim’s assailant in an effort to get off or get access. That was a pretty important amendment.
In the amendment provided for the first half of the bill, which is in blue, Wendy Kameda provided testimony, and also there was testimony from one of the government agencies on employment. There apparently was some problem with how we were going to access or get funds from the assailant to the victim without letting the assailant know what the victim’s new name was, because in many cases they have changed their name and address to hide or get away from their assailant. So what the bill provided was that the employer submits it to the state agency and the state agency then sent it to the victim. Somewhere in the mix, and I can’t remember right off the top of my head, where the catch was for the department…
There was a problem that was quickly rectified, Ms. Kameda provided for the amendment, I believe it is the third page of the blue section, to strike out Sections 1 through 16 of A.B. 160 and provide the language in her Exhibit B (Exhibit P) in its place, which basically allows a lot more freedom for the state agencies to fulfill their duty for the Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, and still keep the bill intact, how we are trying to protect the victim from their assailants and still get money, rent, and wages that are due to the victim.
Based on testimony, Mr. Chairman, we recommend to the Committee a motion to Amend and Do Pass with those two amendments.
Chairman Anderson:
The first question deals with the problem of… in the green sheet, if you could explain to me [Section 23, subsection 3],
A person who is a participant in the advice, counseling or assistance of the victim, including, without limitation, a member of in the victim’s family. This includes all records concerning the victim and the services kept by…
Would this extend some right to a victim’s family that doesn’t currently exist? The records of the family relative to…the calendar of visits to the…or the telephone number of the…that might be listed in a family document, is that what you are trying to get to? For all family papers? Or are they already protected?
Assemblyman Conklin:
What they are talking about is any communication between the victim and anybody providing that victim advice, be it a family member of the victim or an advocate for the victim through a nonprofit organization. That’s as I interpret the bill, is that incorrect, Ms. Buckley? That’s OK, I am being corrected. My understanding is that this section particularly applies to conversations, documents, and etcetera between the victim and the shelter or the advocate for the victim.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions from members of the Committee? Let me suggest that we hold this over for the work session, unless everyone feels comfortable. Looks OK to me, but… We can either take a motion, Amend and Do Pass, and get it out of here, or put it our work session document, whichever you prefer.
Assemblyman Horne:
I have one quick question; maybe the attorneys can answer it for me. Would this prohibit, for some of these documents that would now be privileged, the defense from using them in their defense? Are we eliminating that?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Yes, it would. It would create a privilege between the counselor at the shelter and the victim. It would also prohibit the defense from subpoenaing the counselor’s records. It does not prohibit the defense from subpoenaing the victim or anyone who was a percipient witness. The testimony revealed that women who were poor and have no doctor to go to, go to the shelters. That same counseling that they received from a counselor is the same that they would receive from a doctor if they had insurance. I think it is 26 other states have adopted this and after some initial concerns, the Nevada Association for Criminal Justice spoke with the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, got clarification on the scope to make sure that it did not apply to the district attorney’s office victim/witness program, and after those conversations, they were satisfied and withdrew any concerns they had for the bill.
Assemblyman Horne:
I have no problem with an Amend and Do Pass motion for A.B. 160.
Chairman Anderson:
There are several great advantages to getting it up and going; it means that the sooner things could move with it into the bill drafter’s office, to get the amendments adopted and to the Floor, it would be one less thing we are going to have address in our long work sessions. It is up to the Committee, though. If the majority of us are comfortable with the bill, and I am comfortable with the bill, but it is never my intent to force…occasionally I have to do that, I don’t like castor oil.
Assemblyman Mabey:
I had the privilege to sit on the subcommittee; to me, I can honestly say, that of all the bills that I’ve heard throughout this session so far, this is my favorite bill. The way it is written with the amendments, I absolutely support it.
Assemblyman Brown:
I agreed with the bill. I just hadn’t had the chance to look over things. I think I am OK with it proceeding. I will look at it afterwards; certainly, if I have any objections, I will bring it to your attention.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I would like to commend Mr. Conklin for the wonderful job he did chairing this subcommittee. I would also like to thank Ms. Buckley for her input; without that input I am sure we would be here quite a while. I have to agree with Mr. Mabey, I thought it was a wonderful bill as well.
Chairman Anderson:
[Entertained a motion on A.B. 160.]
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 160 WITH THE AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)
I will assign the bill to Mr. Mabey to defend when it comes forward on the Assembly Floor. I will take care of the amendments. It’s Ms. Buckley’s bill. Mr. Mabey, would you like to present it? You’ll have to ask Ms. Buckley. We will make you the backup, but it looks like backup is going to play. We will assign it to Ms. Buckley with Mr. Mabey as backup. In reality, it is going to be Mr. Mabey.
Anything else that needs to come before the Committee? With that, we are adjourned [at 11:15 a.m.].
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: