MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
April 22, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Tuesday, April 22, 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:
Senator Valerie Wiener, District No. 3, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Carrie Lee, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brad Wilkinson, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Dianne Steel, Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division
Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, and President, Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators
Kirby Burgess, Director, Juvenile Justice Services Department, Clark County
Willie Smith, Division of Child and Family Services, Youth Correctional Services
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Katherine Kruse, Professor, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Program Manager, Office of the City Manager, City of Reno
Rick Bjelke, Sergeant, Reno Police Department
Gabrielle Carr, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, City of Reno
Jim Endres, on behalf of the National Council to Prevent Delinquency
Fred Hillerby, representing the Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission
Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Chairman Anderson:
[The Chair reminded the Committee members and those present in the audience of the Standing Rules and appropriate meeting etiquette. He also acknowledged Judges Ward and Bunch who were viewing via the Internet. Roll called.] A quorum is present. Let’s start with Senator Wiener’s bill, S.B. 197.
Senate Bill 197 (1st Reprint): Repeals, reenacts, reorganizes and revises certain provisions relating to juvenile justice. (BDR 5-633)
Senator Valerie Wiener, District No. 3, Clark County:
[Introduced herself.] Today I appear before you to urge your support for Senate Bill 197, which repeals and then reorganizes all sections of NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) that deal with juvenile justice, juvenile corrections, and interstate compact.
As a brief background, let me explain how this project evolved and why I am the legislator who is privileged enough to bring this bill before you today. When I first came to the Legislature in 1997, as all citizen legislators do, I brought a special interest in juvenile justice. I have been involved with this issue since that time, and have introduced 16 bills and facilitated 7 others for the committees that I chaired that deal both directly and indirectly with juvenile justice. This area has been important to me for more than 20 years, and I’ve written books, delivered programs, and performed community service in this arena.
Several months ago, Judge Dianne Steel approached me during a program that I was giving and asked me if I would be interested in introducing a bill that would repeal and reorganize these statutes; of course I said yes, because the bill is in front of you today. S.B. 197 represents a collaborative effort to provide assistance to anyone who needs help in navigating these statutes that affect juvenile justice, interstate compact, and juvenile corrections. At this time, and with special thanks to Governor Guinn—he also had a very keen interest in reorganizing the statutory scheme—and when he learned that I was involved with this high-powered team of professionals, he kindly withdrew his bill request, recognizing that this would be a time consuming and redundant effort.
As I do with many of my bills, I assembled a team to tackle this particular project, which was probably 20 or 30 years overdue. Many of the individual team members will be testifying today and I want to thank each and every person who made a major contribution to this effort; we’ve been actively working to draft this bill since August of 2002.
With any project of this size it’s very important that I go on record and thank the Legislative Counsel Bureau for its extraordinary contributions to a huge project. To Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, I want to say thank you for allowing two bill drafters to work on this, almost exclusively, for several months; she was kind enough to see the importance of working early so that we could accomplish the task. To the drafters sitting next to me, our Senate Committee on Judiciary Counsel Brad Wilkinson, and his able colleague Stephanie Haft, I can’t come up with the accolades for the work that they offered to create this document. Not only were they intelligent and insightful, they were also very patient with the project that involved a lot of players who had a lot of interest in reorganizing these statutes.
[Senator Wiener continued.] This effort was comprehensive and complicated; the key to everybody’s commitment was the effort to create a manageable section of law for any person who would be involved in the process, whether they be the professionals, the juveniles themselves, members of the community, and certainly, the families of those children in the process. In that vein, I want to stress that the intent of this bill was to reorganize statutes, not to address substantive issues, nor to make policy changes. However, in reorganizing something this complicated, the bill drafters needed to make minor changes so that the bill could be consistent and comprehensive.
I also want to add that I have encouraged the contributors to this bill to support this comprehensive reorganization bill in its present form. We did make modest changes in the Senate, and they certainly helped clarify some of the concerns that a couple of the people who were not at the drafting table might have had but now don’t, and those changes will certainly better serve the people of Nevada.
As this bill is processed, and hopefully you will support it, we know that there will be some changes that will be necessitated next session, and I would certainly be privileged to bring it to the next session if I’m reelected. At this time I’m going to turn it over to our senior bill drafter, Brad Wilkinson, who could respond to any of the technical or drafting questions; if there’s ever an expert on a bill, it’s Brad with this one, and following Mr. Wilkinson there will be other witnesses who can address their contributions. I hope that the Committee will see what an advantage S.B. 197 will provide the people of Nevada, and I urge your support.
Brad Wilkinson, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
[Introduced himself and submitted Exhibit C.] Let me preface my remarks by saying I’m appearing here at Senator Wiener’s request to explain the provisions of the bill; as an employee of the Legislative Counsel Bureau I’m prohibited from urging the passage or defeat of any legislation. What we have done is repealed:
· NRS Chapter 62 in its entirety
· NRS Chapter 210, which pertains to state detention facilities
· NRS Chapter 214, which is the interstate compact for juveniles
· And several provisions in NRS 213.220—213.290, inclusive.
We’ve then taken those provisions and reenacted them into new chapters which we would expect to codify as NRS Chapters 62A to 62I, inclusive, and NRS Chapters 63A and 63B in Title 5. In working on this bill we’ve attempted, at all times, to retain the substance of those provisions but reorganize and rewrite them in a way that will reduce redundancy, omit any archaic language, improve the consistency of the language, grammar, and structure to make the title more reader-friendly.
This bill appears to have much new language, but I would point out that there are no new fees, fines, administrative assessments, or criminal penalties included herein. There are some minor substantive changes, which are more in the nature of clarifications of the existing law rather than major changes, and I will note those as I go through the scheme of organization that we have here for the new chapters.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62A would be the general provisions that would contain the title-wide definitions. One thing we did hear regarding the section is we don’t have any definitions that say NRS “x” has the meaning ascribed to it in another section of NRS which might be 300 chapters away; we’ve taken those definitions out of the other section and incorporated them into the new title definitions for Title 5 so it’s self-contained.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62B would be the next chapter and it sets forth the organization and jurisdiction of the juvenile court. One thing that was added in this section is a provision in Section 43, which provides for appointment of temporary masters by the juvenile court or the chief judge of the judicial district.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62C pertains to administration of juvenile justice; it contains the provisions that set forth how these provisions will apply in different counties. Under the current scheme of NRS Chapter 62, they are grouped by subject matter rather than by counties, so a particular county, based on its population, would have to read through every third provision to see what applies to them; we’ve grouped the provisions by county population to make it more user-friendly for the counties.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62D pertains to basic procedures and includes sections on: the right to an attorney, the filing of documents, fees, complaints and petitions, informal supervision, summons and extradition, and custody and detention. A specific provision pertains to the rights of parents and guardians in proceedings before the juvenile court. There are a few minor clarifications in Proposed NRS Chapter 62D which are contained in Section 107, which will provide that the court itself does not assume custody of a child during the proceedings as the current language would suggest. In Section 124 there is also a similar concept where during a continuance of proceedings the current language suggests that the court supervises the child when, in fact, it’s an agency that would be doing that. Section 131 also contains a new provision that requires a court to notify all parents and guardians of each proceeding scheduled after the initial detention hearing.
Chairman Anderson:
Is it your intention to go all the way through the bill before answering questions?
Brad Wilkinson:
However you would like to proceed. I don’t have too many more chapters to go.
Chairman Anderson:
I’ll let you continue, but I want to come back to the explanation of the rights of the child.
Brad Wilkinson:
Proposed NRS Chapter 62E, the chapter on disposition, contains a couple of new sections. Section 167, which was requested by Judge Steel, provides that the juvenile court can determine the amount of restitution it “orders a child or the parent or guardian of the child to pay to a victim of the child’s unlawful act.” Similarly, Section 169 clarifies that even though there is a specific order for restitution that a civil action for damages can still be brought.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62F pertains to juvenile sex offenders and contains the provisions concerning community notification of juvenile sex offenders, and prohibitions on juvenile sex offenders attending the same school as their victims. One change that we made is we’ve added references to parole officers; currently the statutes state that a child who is a sex offender is assigned to custody of a probation officer regardless of whether that child is ultimately sent to a state detention facility. At such time a child were released from a state detention facility and placed on parole, there would be overlapping jurisdiction.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62G pertains to programs for rehabilitation; these are the provisions that are contained in NRS Chapter 213. I don’t believe that those programs are currently in use, but they could at some time in the future be used, so we left those alone.
Proposed NRS Chapter 62H pertains to local and regional facilities for the detention of children; there are no changes there. Proposed NRS Chapter 62I pertains to records related to children and the sealing of records; there are no changes there. Proposed NRS Chapter 63A pertains to state facilities for the detention of children. One provision in here is a good example of archaic language; Section 237 states that the state must provide only an electric or gas stove or refrigerator and an automatic washing machine in the residence of the superintendent of the facility, and subsection 3 of the current statute would preclude the state from providing any other sort of appliances to superintendents, such as a dryer, dishwasher, garbage disposal, so we’ve changed that language to allow whatever appliances would be appropriate to be provided.
Proposed NRS Chapter 63B is the interstate compact on juveniles; we haven’t changed that, it’s just been reenacted in its entirety. The remainder of the bill, another 100 pages or so, are merely internal references to other sections of NRS.
The effective date of this bill is January 1, 2004, and we chose that date because it roughly coincides with when the printed NRS is released by our office. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would entertain any questions.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I had a question on Section 24 to define “parent” to include “parent and stepparent.” Could you tell me what import that change will have throughout the chapter, if at all? Will a stepparent be liable for the acts of a child?
Brad Wilkinson:
I believe that might be a better question for Judge Steel; I think that was specifically included at her request. As a practical matter, I don’t believe that change will make much of a substantive change at all. I believe, currently, stepparents would be subject to the same rules as a parent, but I’ll let the judge address that.
Judge Dianne Steel, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division:
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to be here and speak with you today on this bill. [Introduced herself.] The change in Section 24 is so that all throughout the chapter we don’t have to continue to repeat the “parent, stepparent, guardian, legal custodian” language. There is a section in the bill already, as it’s formatted in Chapter 62, that says that the court has jurisdiction over stepparents, and that stepparents are also responsible for the conduct of the children living in their home. To make it clear to the stepparent that they are also considered parents in this particular chapter, we included that in the definition.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I’d like to disclose that I am a stepparent and I’m willing to take full responsibility for my stepson. I can understand why you’d want to have jurisdiction if the family needs to go to counseling; I’m wondering about stepparent liability for damages for actions of the child, and does this definition change that standard by expanding “parent”?
Judge Dianne Steel:
No, it does not. NRS 62.044 is where that particular provision is currently housed. It says, “the stepparents of any child subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the same court orders as the natural parents of such child under the provisions of this chapter.” It’s only been broadened in the context of NRS Chapter 62.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
On page 7, line 30, it says, “Conduct all proceedings before the master of the juvenile court in the same manner as a district judge conducts proceedings in a district court.” Are we saying that the appointed court master is going to conduct the hearings and make the recommendations to the district judge, and then the district judge is going to approve or disapprove this without the district judge actually hearing the case?
Brad Wilkinson:
I would point out first of all, that Section 44 just retains existing procedures for the use of masters so there’s no change being made here. Essentially, that would be correct; the master would hear that and then the judge would have the opportunity to review the recommendations of the master and either accept or reject those.
Chairman Anderson:
My concern rests with the protection for the child. How do they go about getting an attorney, does that remain the same? We haven’t lessened our ability to act, have we? We haven’t lessened our definition of the best interests of the child, so is it possible for the child to stand alone, both to the agency and to his parents or former parents?
Brad Wilkinson:
There is no change regarding the right to an attorney in the juvenile court.
Chairman Anderson:
It’s a pretty comprehensive document.
Brad Wilkinson:
The yellow document that I distributed contains each section in numerical order. In the left-hand column is the source of that section. The section that you were referring to—the right to an attorney, Section 96—is currently codified as NRS 62.085. In some sections we have taken one or two sentences from a particular section of NRS Chapter 62 and broken them out into separate sections, or combined them in another way; this is a guide to what currently exists and how that’s been translated into the bill.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I want you to define what instruction on “habits, attitudes and conditioning, self-conditioning processes, and developing a successful way of life” on page 28 of the bill means.
Brad Wilkinson:
I believe you’re referring to “a program of cognitive training and human development” in Section 89; that provision currently exists. As to what is specifically included in that program, other than the description there, I’m probably not the person who could explain the specifics of how that program works. That could probably be addressed by one of the administrators of the juvenile justice department.
Assemblywoman Angle:
But that language has been brought forward from the law as it exists now?
Brad Wilkinson:
Yes, that’s correct.
Assemblywoman Angle:
On page 100 in Section 259 there is some language there about a “physical examination of the child.” Is that already existing language?
Brad Wilkinson:
That is existing language.
Chairman Anderson:
The yellow document is most helpful as a cross-reference to the existing statutes and what is new. Thank you very much, and the Legal Department, for developing such an extensive document.
Judge Dianne Steel:
[Reading from Exhibit D.] I want to thank all the people who have pored over this project to bring it to today’s hearing. First, Senator Wiener, who took an immediate interest in the reorganization after I approached her, at a luncheon where she was speaking, with a one‑minute request to help.
Thank you to: Kirby Burgess, who has also been a champion in this process with his input, insight in the system, and his ability to get people together to work a worthy project; Bob Teuton, District Attorney; Susan Roske, Public Defender; Judges David Gamble and Frances Doherty; Willie Smith with the Department of Child and Family Services, and her supervisor, Ed Cotton; the Office of the Attorney General; Leonard Pugh with Washoe County Juvenile Services; the membership of the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Commission’s work study group; and countless others who helped with this process as advisors or staff members. Of course I would like to give a special thanks to Brad Wilkinson and Stephanie Haft for taking a very rough draft, several ideas, and their own legislative skills to come up with this complicated, but very much improved, proposed chapter.
The reorganization of NRS Chapter 62 embodied in Senate Bill 197 is necessary to the future of juvenile justice. This area of the law has had some major overhauls in history and this will probably not be the last.
Imagine if you will that there is a group of laws created just to address the youth in our community. The laws direct the courts to protect the community from juvenile delinquent conduct and, when possible, to help the youth who find themselves in trouble for such conduct, for needing supervision, or for needing therapeutic placement. These laws create a legislative court system. The laws direct how to choose a juvenile court judge depending on the size of the county or counties. They also indicate the structure of probation departments and probation committees based on the same criteria.
The courts process the allegations in petitions involving minors pursuant to a cross between civil court process and procedure, with an overlay of constitutional protections also afforded their adult counterparts. Included in the court’s jurisdiction are the parents, stepparents, guardians, and legal custodians.
The statute directs various entities to perform certain functions. The county probation departments are to supervise those children coming before the court when they are placed on some form of probation. They engage the juveniles in a variety of programs, correctional supervision, random drug tests, home visits, community service projects, counseling, and other functions too plentiful to address at this time.
The juvenile justice services include: detention, placement and intake services, diversion programs, psychology departments to evaluate mental health and drug issues, and administrative services to address financial issues. The court clerk’s office is heavily involved in this land of juvenile law, preparing calendars, receiving administrative fees, filing the confidential documents, and ensuring that confidentiality is maintained. They also staff the courtroom and record information.
The education community is called upon by the laws to do various tasks. Many times the school police officers on campus are required to come to the courts to testify. The administration assists in the truancy court development and process. They provide necessary information regarding the child’s education and progress, and the school system helps to educate the children held in custody pursuant to various charges.
[Judge Steel continued.] In an ongoing process the statute, as we now know it, grew, but without any long-term, historical oversight to direct the laws toward a goal or to effectuate organization of those laws.
Imagine that you are a judge assigned to the juvenile bench. The only contact you’ve ever had with juvenile justice is the knowledge that family court judges have exclusive and original jurisdiction over matters listed in NRS Chapter 62. Imagine that you are looking through the group of laws and you discover that the term “sexual offender” is defined in several places, usually verbatim, some six times. You begin to notice that there are several programs mentioned in the laws, which have been created by the Legislature, and other programs, which are routinely recommended by the probation department without legislative oversight. You remember reading somewhere about other driver’s license suspensions, but now you are looking for driver’s license suspensions in truancy court only.
Why are the directives to the court and the county commission on how to build a coroner’s program listed under the powers of the court? How would anyone think to look there? Many more examples exist. Now imagine that you are the new probation officer and you need to make recommendations to the court, or to the child who doesn’t understand what comes next, or to the parent who is trying to help his child get out of the gangs, only to find himself in the mysterious land of juvenile justice.
Finally, you see a theme running throughout the group of laws—parents; they are mentioned everywhere. The Legislature instructs the courts and others involved with juveniles to get the parents more involved with their children. The courts send subtle messages along these lines to have the parents: pay costs of court and placement, pay restitution, complete programs and counseling, or be held in contempt. But basically, the group of laws say: don’t be punitive, be helpful; don’t overwhelm the child or the parent, but get their attention. You ask yourself why are these laws so difficult to grasp? It’s just one statute. So you start separating different types of information and collecting the information in common sense, logical groupings. The overlapping, the repeating, the mixing from one subject, which is blended into another, start to make sense.
Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 62 is just one statute; it is the only statute in Title 5, and herein lies the problem. In our zeal to address and assist the kids and the parents, we look at the immediate issue and try to solve the problem at hand. Crime is up; lower the age of consideration for adult prosecution. Sex offenders are in the papers; take care of those situations. Guns are everywhere; pass special legislation. But due to the lack of consistent oversight, the changes are not always separated into like-categories.
Clearly, Senate Bill 197 shows that there are various areas of concern in the statute. When placed in a more logical sequence the statute becomes immediately more effective. I have had no less than ten calls asking me why I put something in the bill, to which I was able to reply that if the bill fails, the “something” would still exist in the statute. The reorganization merely brought to light the “something” because it was now where it belonged. It’s in a more logical, understandable, bite-sized piece.
I am grateful to all those who listened and cared enough about our troubled youth—our invisible population as I like to call them—and our future to help bring this reorganization to life. With that, I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I have a concern about Sections 167 and 169. It appears that what we’re trying to do is create an opportunity for restitution to be made, if not by the child, then by the parent or guardian. How will this work? If somebody breaks a window they should be held accountable for it; if somebody takes a life, completely out of control of the parent, what type of restitution is laid upon the parent if the child can’t pay? Where does restitution really fit into the daily conduct of the court’s business, and how large can it become?
Judge Dianne Steel:
Restitution is a concept in juvenile law that helps the child to become more responsible for his own conduct. There may be a circumstance where the child has done some $20,000 worth of damage, but his restitution amount might be $500 because that’s what someone has estimated this child to be able to do in the one-year period of probation. They would in no way tell that child to pay that whole, large sum of money. That’s why I also asked to have the statute include that the parent may still be civilly charged in another court for the entirety of the balance, but that would not be restitution that we would be charging the child.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Let’s suppose a child does $20,000 worth of damage [to a house] and you, as the presiding judge, charge the child $500 of restitution. Can the owner go to civil court and file a suit against the parent for $19,500 because of this law? In the grand scheme, I think people should be responsible, but what if this is a single parent family with four kids? That’s what I’m worried about with this piece of the bill.
Judge Dianne Steel:
This piece is already here in the statute as it now stands; the only thing we changed on this piece was a frustration that the court had with restitution. If the child has damaged the property, say for $400 worth of damages, and we want them to pay restitution, but that’s all covered by insurance, the child doesn’t have to pay anything; the insurance company now has to take the parent to court to get the insurance company’s money back and they’re not going to do that. The child is getting off scot-free without this piece in the bill saying that the court can “also” have that child reimburse the parent for any insurance amount that was there. Some parents believe because I give the child $200 in restitution that they’re not going to be responsible for the rest of it; it’s just been written off by me, and it hasn’t. That’s why I want to make clear to the parents that they could still be subject to a lawsuit.
Assemblyman Horne:
I noticed in the yellow document, Section 4, where “child” is defined, that it was requested that juvenile court would have jurisdiction over a juvenile sex offender who is 21 or older. Is that included in statute, or was it requested?
Judge Dianne Steel:
The statutes on sexual offenders where you’re addressing a certain issue aren’t global throughout the statute. The statutes that are in the juvenile section for sexual offenders say that if I have a sexual offender who is a juvenile and he has reporting requirements that have to be reported to different public agencies, he has a certain amount of time to comply and to show that he has either recidivated or can be in control of his sexual urges before I can terminate him from the program. I have jurisdiction over juveniles until they are 21 years old. The statute, as it now reads, says that after the child becomes 21 the juvenile court will have a hearing to determine if he has complied, or if he now needs to register as an adult sex offender. If I don’t have jurisdiction over this person for this one hearing after he turns 21 years old, then no one has that jurisdiction; that’s why I included it in the language for the juvenile so I can hold that one hearing and make that determination.
Chairman Anderson:
Therefore the only action that you as a judge can take is to transfer him into an adult court or program and then lose his supervision, or can you continue to have jurisdictional control for a longer period of time after his 21st birthday?
Judge Dianne Steel:
For this bill, we have not changed any language in the statutes as they currently read. Let’s say you are a 15-year-old person and you’ve offended sexually and I find that you’ve offended in such a manner that, if you were an adult, it would be a felony and you might have to serve life [in prison.] In the juvenile courts, we don’t have a jury trial and a lot of the protections that would be there had the person been an adult doing the same thing. It’s just called “juvenile conduct” at this time. The juvenile is directed to go through a probationary period of time, take some classes, get some counseling, and comply. If, at age 21, they are still offending, not getting their counseling, or not complying with the juvenile statute, I lose jurisdiction when they turn 21. The adult criminal court cannot come in to take over because there’s nothing pending before the adult criminal court, so jurisdictionally they cannot do anything to this child. The statute, as it now reads, says the only thing I can do is direct the District Attorney to have Parole and Probation from the adult side register this person as an adult sex offender.
Chairman Anderson:
What happens when the person re-offends when they are over the age of 21? Would that not automatically move them to the higher court?
Judge Dianne Steel:
If he re-offended after 18, yes.
Chairman Anderson:
If he has not re-offended and his sexual offense was at age 15, even though he’s not doing counseling, you will be able to retain control, even though he’s over 21 years of age?
Judge Dianne Steel:
I don’t keep control after he’s 21; I only make a recommendation if he should have to register as an adult sex offender.
Chairman Anderson:
Thank you, Judge Steel.
Judge Dianne Steel:
You will notice that I’ve distributed a handbook called, ”Adults in Juvenile Delinquency Court,” (Exhibit E), and that’s just to show all the different places where parents have responsibility within the system.
Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, and President, Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators:
[Introduced himself.] As Senator Wiener and Judge Steel have both indicated, the Juvenile Justice Administrators have been involved in this process, and Mr. Burgess and I have been participating in it as part of the work-study group. I’ve also taken the bill back to the entire Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators, discussed it, and have their support.
Kirby Burgess, Director, Juvenile Justice Services Department, Clark County:
[Introduced himself.] I want to thank everybody for their support and involvement in this matter. I’ve also been empowered by Mr. Bob Teuton, who is the Deputy District Attorney in Clark County, who could not be here this morning, to speak on his behalf in support of this bill.
The only thing I’d like to say about this bill is that I do believe this is an historical occasion in that we are restructuring a piece of legislation that has such broad implications and putting it into meaningful components. Hopefully by the next session, we can come back, address and define some things that need to be cleaned up so that this statute can be more effective. Certainly for my agency and staff at the Department of Juvenile Justice Services, this restructuring will not only allow the court to better carry out its orders, but will allow my staff and me to become better trained in how this statute works so it can become a better resource in the future. Even after 29 years of being involved in this business, I really believe we’re on the right track. I want to commend you and the Committee for taking this under advisement and I encourage your support.
Willie Smith, Division of Child and Family Services, Youth Correctional Services:
[Introduced herself.] I, too, am here to support the passage of S.B. 197. First, I want to thank Senator Valerie Wiener, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and Judge Dianne Steel for their leadership and support. I also want to give recognition to Governor Guinn for his encouragement and support of reorganization of NRS Chapter 62. I would like to indicate that our Division believes that this bill is a representation of a milestone in Nevada juvenile justice; the reorganization of this chapter will minimize confusion and make the collaboration between the counties and the state much more efficient. We encourage your support and involvement in this process, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
[Introduced herself.] We simply wish to go on record in support of this effort. It simplifies the statutes to the extent that the layman can actually sit down with something like this, go through it, and understand what’s there; I think that was the intent. They’ve resisted the temptation to try to make major changes in these laws while they were working with it, and some of your questions point out that you see some potential concerns in these laws. Those were hard to see before; now they’re easy to see, and in future legislative sessions it will be much easier to deal with those concerns and keep these statutes in a form that parents and citizens can also understand them and make them a more effective part of the system that they need to work in.
Katherine Kruse, Professor, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
[Introduced herself.] About half of my teaching responsibility is co-directing the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the school. The clinic has students practicing under the student practice rule representing juveniles in the juvenile court in Clark County. I speak in support of this legislation. I joined the faculty this past fall; this spring was my first rotation into the juvenile justice clinic, and it began earlier than I expected. I was thrust into appearing in court in a number of hearings that I had not intended to be at, so I had to quickly familiarize myself with NRS Chapter 62. What resulted from that experience was an exercise that I created for my new students called the NRS Chapter 62 scavenger hunt, which was a list of hypothetical situations asking them to look through NRS Chapter 62 to find the answers; they were all based on problems I had finding a particular section in NRS Chapter 62 because it was so difficult to use. This bill responds to a great need for reorganization, clarification, and ease of use of this chapter. I commend Judge Steel for her hard work and thoughtfulness in pursuing this, her dedication to juveniles who are often overlooked, being a population that falls between the cracks, and to Senator Wiener for her leadership in sponsoring this bill.
Chairman Anderson:
Any questions from the Committee? Are there any more speakers for S.B. 197? I will close the hearing on S.B. 197.
Now we’ll open the hearing on S.B. 105, a piece of legislation sponsored by the City of Reno.
Senate Bill 105 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to crime of placing graffiti on or otherwise defacing property. (BDR 15‑375)
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Program Manager, Office of the City Manager, City of Reno:
[Introduced herself.] I’m joined today by Gabrielle Carr, Deputy City Attorney for the City of Reno, and Sergeant Rick Bjelke, Reno Police Department. This legislation was drafted at the request of the City of Reno to address the issue of graffiti, and it was proposed to provide law enforcement tools to further criminalize the act of graffiti.
Currently graffiti can be addressed at the local level through the enactment of ordinances and the City of Reno, as well as other cities in the state, has addressed some of these issues through ordinances. There is civil abatement of graffiti as a nuisance; however, it does not address the perpetrator. The ordinances that we can enact deal with graffiti tools—markers, spray paint, and so forth.
Graffiti affects business and impacts the profits by causing an expense to the business for the eradication of the graffiti. Local governments cannot increase the seriousness of the offense for criminal penalties above a misdemeanor; therefore, we are asking the Legislature to pass legislation allowing cities to accumulate monetary damages caused by a perpetrator in more than one instance of graffiti for the purposes of determining an appropriate sentence.
For instance, if one perpetrator is responsible for ten instances of graffiti where the cost is approximately $180, each offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or by both. However, when the conviction is a misdemeanor, an alternative sentence of community service may be imposed as part, or all, of the punishment.
Senate Bill 105 would allow each of the ten instances to be accumulated, putting the value of the damage at $1,800, which would be a gross misdemeanor; the penalty for a gross misdemeanor is imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $2,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. Under NRS Chapter 193.140, community service is not an alternative for gross misdemeanors. We would like to emphasize the fact that victims are paying for the price of graffiti. We have provided a packet (Exhibit F) for you of incidents of graffiti; it talks about the types of graffiti that we face. It’s used as an educational piece; Sergeant Rick Bjelke will talk more about that.
Some of the graffiti that we have seen in our city actually advocates killing cops and the District Attorney; it is not just juvenile graffiti. We are seeking to address the graffiti done by taggers, or members of a crew—that’s more serious than just the “Johnny loves Susie” on the sidewalk; we’re looking for the repeat offenders. We believe this is a small step in addressing the graffiti penalty, and I’d be happy to answer any of your questions, or to direct them to Sergeant Bjelke or Gabrielle Carr.
Assemblyman Horne:
On page 2, line 6, it talks about multiple offenses, in particular, “if one or more persons commit the offenses pursuant to a scheme or continuing course of conduct.” I read that as if I tag a building that a whole bunch of other people have tagged, but I get caught, I can be held accountable for that aggregated amount of damage by others and be charged accordingly. Am I interpreting it wrong?
Rick Bjelke, Sergeant, Reno Police Department:
Most of the tagging is done by either an individual or by a “crew.” When we talk about crews, that’s a series of individuals, sometimes up to 20 people, who will go out into a certain neighborhood, sometimes with pre-made stencils, and will cover a city block. When they do this, they sign a name, either a crew name or individual name, and then they list the individuals that were responsible for putting up that type of graffiti. It’s very easy for us to identify specific individuals who are responsible for that type of crime, because this is what graffiti is all about to them—the recognition and being seen. I hope that answers your question.
Assemblyman Horne:
No, it really doesn’t. I understand that many of these taggers are easy to identify; they are pretty consistent with what they do. I’m talking about if I’m a tagger and I go to a Wal-Mart building that’s already covered in graffiti. Maybe it’s got a rival gang’s tag on there and I’m going to put my own mark on there and the police roll up when I’m in the middle of it. I’m arrested and there’s extensive damage. The way I read the bill, you could aggregate all the damage here; Wal-Mart could say it was $10,000 worth of damage, and clearly, we have 15 different tags up here. The bill says you could aggregate that and charge me with the entire sum because it says, “if one or more persons commit the offenses.” I have a problem with that.
Gabrielle Carr, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, City of Reno:
If I could provide a caveat to my answer, I am here on behalf of the Reno City Attorney’s Office, but I was not the person who was involved in preparing any of the changes here, with this particular draft. I received information from our criminal section, as well as Karen Fraley, who is a Deputy City Attorney who represents the City of Reno Police Department.
My understanding is if we have a perpetrator who commits more than one offense after July 1, 2003, when this bill becomes enacted, then we can aggregate those offenses to increase the penalty to that individual. I don’t think it was intended, and correct me if I’m wrong, to address other property damage to a piece of property by other individuals, separate and distinct from this perpetrator.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel:
I want to clarify that this provides that “the value of the property damaged or destroyed” can “be aggregated if one or more persons commit the offense.” The language is patterned off of several other sections of NRS dealing with theft and larceny. These sections also say that the “amounts involved in thefts committed pursuant to a scheme or continuing course of conduct, whether from one or more persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.” Because the offense is based on a dollar amount, it helps to define where they’re at. That’s used in NRS 205.0834, and also on NRS 205.251.
Chairman Anderson:
So Mr. Horne’s supposition is correct, in that you could be the fourth or fifth tagger and be responsible for all the tagging that had been done prior to that if you’re the person that’s caught?
Risa Lang:
I’m not entirely sure; it says that “the value of the property damaged or destroyed from the commission of multiple offenses may be aggregated if one or more persons commit the offenses,” so I guess that’s possible for determining the amount of damage that was done to the property because it may be difficult to determine how much can be attributed to any particular person.
Gabrielle Carr:
Ms. Lamboley has set forth the position of the City of Reno very succinctly and I emphasize the support of the bill by the Reno City Attorney’s Office.
Sgt. Rick Bjelke:
I concur with everything that’s been said here at the table today. There are three types of graffiti out there: gang, tagging, and juvenile. We’re not after the juvenile graffiti; we’re after the gang and tagging, which causes substantial dollar amounts of damage throughout Reno. Last year alone, we had an estimated 3,000 reported cases through the City of Reno Police Department; that’s probably just a small fraction of what’s actually committed. More than $15 billion was spent on graffiti removal in law enforcement, court, and probation costs in the United States last year; out of that $15 billion, $8 billion is spent on graffiti removal efforts alone. It’s estimated that over last year, there was a 2 percent increase of graffiti on a national level. Property value decreases between $5,000 to $15,000 when graffiti is in your neighborhood. Based on this, our local graffiti removal efforts and costs total about $188 per work order for a two-hour minimum. The passage of this bill would give law enforcement more teeth when dealing with the violators of this crime.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
The bill states, “where the damage results in the impairment of public communication, transportation or police and fire protection.” How would graffiti impair these services?
Nicole Lamboley:
That language is proposed by the Regional Transportation Commission and I believe that they are here to talk about that. If a railroad car is tagged it is a felony federal offense because they have to take the car off the line. With mobile communications if fire trucks and police cars are damaged, we actually have to take them out of service and repaint them, and there is a cost involved.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
In the handout on page 6 in the top right-hand corner it says, “Change legislation to allow district attorneys and judges to charge graffiti vandals with felonies when damage done to property exceeds $400 instead of $5,000.” Can you explain how that would come into play?
Nicole Lamboley:
That is old information and it no longer applies; it was something that was under discussion by law enforcement, district attorneys, and judges.
Assemblyman Brown:
Regarding the language that Mr. Horne was discussing, I don’t think your testimony is that one individual will be held liable for the damage or remediation costs of an entire wall when more than just his particular tag is on that; it’s just for his tag, is that correct? A tag usually has something of a signature on it that indicates who did it, so you are adequately able to identify the perpetrator. Going from not aggregating the tags on one wall, but aggregating the tags that have that particular signature mark, so that’s the course of conduct that you’re talking about, isn’t it?
Nicole Lamboley:
That is correct. It is our intent to look at the individual, not the piece of property, for the assessment of the accumulation. Sometimes we will know that they will go and hit several buildings in a two-day span, and it is identifiable; it is looking at the individual, and not the total destruction to the property.
Assemblyman Brown:
With gangs, I would imagine that it’s a little more difficult to identify a particular perpetrator. They don’t leave an individualized signature marking, do they?
Sgt. Rick Bjelke:
At times, certain gang members will put their name up on the wall for the direct purpose of that threat. You’re correct to say that most of the time it’s just a gang affiliation crossing out another gang affiliation; that’s not what we’re targeting here. The burden of proof would fall on us as we can actually, through investigation, identify the person that would be responsible for that type of graffiti that we’re investigating.
Risa Lang:
I want to clarify that subsection 2 is just dealing with determining the “grade of the penalty” that’s set forth in subsection 1, so it won’t determine who is going to pay for what in terms of remediation. Whether it’s going to be deemed to have a loss value of $250, which would be a misdemeanor, or whether it’s going to be a value of $250 to $5,000, which would be a gross misdemeanor, or $5,000 or more with the public communication’s part, which would make it a Category C felony, so it will be determined what the penalty is going to be, as opposed to who’s going to be liable for what particular damages, in more of a civil sense.
Assemblyman Horne:
I understand Ms. Lang’s interpretation, however, I’d be more comfortable if that language could be adopted to reflect that this aggregation will be on particular offenses of that defendant; I think this is vague and could be construed otherwise.
Jim Endres, on behalf of the National Council to Prevent Delinquency:
[Introduced himself.] When we testified in the Senate, the National Council to Prevent Delinquency supported this bill, and we’ll continue to support this bill as amended. The National Council is an organization that works with many cities, counties, and state legislatures around the country to try to define and develop local ordinances and statutes that help get to the problem of managing graffiti. Graffiti is a growing problem, and by imposing upon the retail community better business practices and by coordinating those practices with cities and local governments, in terms of ordinances and enforcement programs, the issue of graffiti can be best managed through a cooperative effort with the private and public sectors.
We’re looking forward to the passage of this bill, and should we need to meet together with other parties to address Assemblyman Horne’s concerns, we’d be pleased to sit down and work with the folks on that.
Fred Hillerby, representing the Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission:
[Introduced himself.] We are here in support of this bill. I might initially respond to a question that Mr. Carpenter asked. On page 3 of the bill, paragraph 8, is the language that we had asked for in an amendment relative to what “impairment” means. I believe the language regarding public communication is an addition that the Legislative Counsel Bureau made. In the case of transportation, we sometimes have to take vehicles out of service to be able to repaint them and that would be the interruption of service. Our agency spends about $55,000 a year to repaint and repair the damage of graffiti; sometimes it’s not just paint. We had an incident not too long ago where they actually etched the graffiti in the glass; that was a very expensive repair. We are here urging your support of this bill.
Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
We are in support of this legislation and just as a note, it’s surprisingly easy to recognize taggers; they leave their signature or particular mark, and it is amazing what they’ll do.
Chairman Anderson:
Is there anybody else who feels compelled to speak on S.B. 105? Let me close the hearing on S.B. 105. [The Chair mentioned that there was pending litigation against the Committee but it had not been received yet. He also mentioned several informational handouts that he had sent to the members’ offices.] We are adjourned [at 9:41 a.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carrie Lee
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: