MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-second Session

February 14, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Vice Chairman Maurice E. Washington at 8:14 a.m., on Friday, February 14, 2003, in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Terry Care

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Dennis Nolan

Senator Valerie Wiener

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Dina Titus (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33

Assemblyman Tom Grady, Assembly District No. 38

Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea, Assembly District No.35

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Lydia Lee, Committee Manager

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary

Lora Nay, Committee Secretary

Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Philip H. Brown, Acting Chief, Investigation Division, Department of Public Safety

Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Commission

Mark Jackson, Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County

Richard Sears, District Attorney, White Pine County

Scott Slobe, Lobbyist, Department of Public Safety Employees Association

Larry Etter, Sheriff, Eureka County

James Weller, Ex-Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Robert Davidson, Police Chief, City of Winnemucca

Eric Larson, Student, Carson City Middle School

Catlin Gunn, Student, Carson City Middle School

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association South and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14

Cheri Emm-Smith, District Attorney, Mineral County

Arthur Mallory, District Attorney, Churchill County

Jim C. Shirley, District Attorney, Pershing County

Jackie Rasor, M.S.W., Licensed Social Worker and Drug and Alcohol Counselor

Larry Stout, Former Chief, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City

Dave Hosmer, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety

Daryl Riersgard, Criminal Information Services Manager, Department of Public Safety

Alan Rogers, Data Processing Manager, Information Services, Department of Public Safety

Amy Wright, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Public Safety

Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners

Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections

Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Department of Corrections

The Honorable Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Supreme Court

The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC)

Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, Gobel Lowden Veterans Center & Museum

David K. Schumann, Independent American Party (IAP) of Nevada

John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association North, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Richard (Fritz) Weighall, Police Chief, City of West Wendover

William Bauer, Chief of Police, City of Carlin

 

Vice Chairman Washington announced a major presentation was on the agenda. He asked interested parties to come forth and discuss the cause and effect the State budget would have on the Department of Public Safety, the Investigation Division, and the Department of Corrections. Vice Chairman Washington said, “We know there is going to be an impact, but we want to get a feel for what the impact is going to be.” He referenced the inference in newspapers regarding release of prisoners and stated the purpose of today’s presentation was not to justify the release of prisoners, but to ensure the safety and well-being of Legislators’ constituents and the State as a whole. He said: “Our primary job is to protect our citizens from elements that would cause them harm.” The vice chairman asked the presenters to put their prejudices aside for the facts and “give us your insight, give us what you see, and hopefully, as Legislators, we can make intelligent decisions based on the information delivered to us.”

 

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, stated Chairman Amodei suggested he attend, as the meeting was to feature “the most important topic.” Mr. Carpenter said:

 

The downsizing of the Nevada Investigation Division (NDI) will create a crisis of major proportion in rural Nevada. The NDI in rural Nevada is our homeland security. Al Qaeda is lurking in rural Nevada in the form of meth [methamphetamine] labs and drug dealers.

 

Mr. Carpenter read quotes from Sheriff Bernie Romero of White Pine County and Sheriff Neil Harris of Elko County in which both stated the NDI was vital to the control of drug trafficking in their respective counties and without the NDI, the public safety would be seriously compromised. Mr. Carpenter said the same sentiment echoed throughout all rural Nevada counties and noted the rural communities of Nevada had been spared some of the drug and gang activity because of the cooperative efforts between local law enforcement and the NDI. He added drugs are big money and urged the Legislature to work in harmony with the Governor to spare rural Nevada from a serious disaster. Mr. Carpenter pointed out the impartial nature of the NDI was just what was needed in these close-knit rural communities.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked Mr. Carpenter if the bulk of investigations in rural Nevada were related to drugs. He inquired if meth was the drug of choice there and wondered just how many labs had been broken up because of the investigative service. Mr. Carpenter responded he believed a bust occurred at least every month or two.

 

Mr. Carpenter added, in Elko County the border towns of Jackpot and West Wendover were frequent passages for drug dealers from other states. He said without the assistance from the NDI there would be no control at all Mr. Carpenter explained rural counties are limited in resources and law enforcement personnel; therefore, the NDI was critical to their safety and well being. He stated the judges had been tough on drug-related crimes and said it was well-known if you “get caught doing drugs in Elko County, you are doing time, there’s no question about it.”

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked Philip H. Brown, Acting Chief, Investigation Division, Department of Public Safety, to testify. Chief Brown announced he was representing Director Richard Kirkland and Deputy Director David Kieckbusch and read into the record a letter addressed to Chairman Amodei from Mr. Kieckbusch, Exhibit C. The letter acknowledged a weak economy, diminishing revenue to the State, and the Governor’s desire to streamline and avoid duplicating services provided by overlapping agencies. It supported the Governor’s budget cuts and stated the lack of resources remained a concern.

 

Senator Care asked for more information about rural Nevada and its limited law enforcement agencies. He specifically asked about drug-related crimes that cross county lines and how the NDI coordinated with local law enforcement. Chief Brown responded the NDI consisted of a force of 79, but currently had 9 vacancies. This division worked throughout the State, with offices in Las Vegas and Carson City. Chief Brown explained there were seven narcotic task forces working within the State. One, he said, worked with similar forces from California in the Lake Tahoe area and the remaining were supervised by the NDI. Chief Brown continued, the department also participated in federal initiatives out of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program, which applied to Clark County and Las Vegas.

 

Speaking in terms of staffing, Chief Brown said 6 months ago the department consisted of 81 members; the 3 percent initial budget cuts brought the number down to 79 personnel, but with vacancies, retirements, and transfers, the staff was now at 70. The Governor’s recommendation, he said, would reduce the department to 40 total personnel to maintain the jurisdictional authority at 32 sworn officers and 8 support staff.

 

Senator Care said there were two factors, an economic downturn and a rise in the threat of a domestic terrorist activity. He continued, it was “bad enough if you have to downsize … but now you had this additional complication … the alert state was high, which must put some demands on your department …” Senator Care asked what additional demands the terrorist alert placed on the NDI.

 

Chief Brown responded Senator Care was accurate in saying there were additional demands placed on the department because of the threat of terrorism. He said the areas of law enforcement, homeland security, and terrorist threats were new business for many of his staff. Chief Brown remarked the special investigations unit now worked full time on homeland security in conjunction with Jerry Bussell, Special Advisor on Homeland Security; these officers disseminated information and maintained a link of communication with federal authorities.

 

Senator McGinness said he wondered, with a new mission and the force reduced now to 32 sworn officers, what presence would NDI have in rural Nevada, and were there any drug task forces assigned to those areas?

 

Chief Brown responded affirmatively saying, “We will do the best we can with the resources we are given.” He added the NDI put together an organizational chart wherein the division was divided into three geographical areas. Carson City now represented northwestern Nevada, including Douglas, Washoe, Storey, Lyon, Churchill, Mineral, and Pershing Counties. This force was made up of four groups of seven officers. In northeastern Nevada, he said, there were two investigator positions servicing Elko County. Chief Brown said in southern Nevada, serving Clark, Nye, Esmeralda, and Lincoln Counties, there were six sworn NDI officers. Chief Brown concluded saying, the breakdown of the organization consisted of five teams of seven and added, “Certainly these kinds of personnel cuts will not come without consequences. That’s pretty obvious to see.”

Senator Nolan opened his comments by expressing how impressed he was after visiting the NDI operation in Las Vegas. He asked Chief Brown if there was some federal funding coming through the Nevada homeland security office to offset the cost of the additional responsibilities.

 

Chief Brown stated there were many law enforcement personnel present who were equally interested in funding from the federal government. He said at this time there was not a specific answer, but added he was aware of some potential federal grants. Chief Brown then said the division might have to realign, change the current procedures, and focus more on homeland security issues. He said he understood the grants were aimed at first responders and NDI would not fit into that category, so realistically, the grants were a bit elusive at this time.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked Chief Brown to reference the letter from   Mr. Kieckbusch regarding the Governor’s concern about duplicating services and elaborate on that area of concern.

 

Chief Brown said in his conversations with Director Richard Kirkland, it was clear all jurisdictions of Nevada, counties and cities, had their own police or sheriff force. This, he explained allows them the authority to make arrests and conduct all the necessary police work. The NDI assisted local law enforcement in this area as a team member.

 

Vice Chairman Washington clarified the NDI’s function was basically to aid and assist local law enforcement agencies. Chief Brown affirmed this and said major police departments had detectives as well as patrol officers. He explained most investigative work took place after an arrest is made. The Nevada Investigation Division, he said, functioned as investigators similar to the work of detectives. He said the officers of NDI were not only specialized criminal investigators, but some were certified public accountants. This, he continued was “expertise hard to find in the smaller communities.”

 

Vice Chairman Washington questioned Chief Brown about a correlation between drug trafficking and terrorist activity. Chief Brown responded he had not seen a significant relationship between the two. He said there remained a substantial problem with drug abuse and drug trafficking, and the NDI continued to assess the relationship between drug traffic revenues and terrorism.

 

Vice Chairman Washington expressed his interest was in the problem of illegal immigrants moving in and out of the State and questioned whether this specific problem also placed an additional strain on the NDI. Chief Brown said the NDI increasingly received requests from local law enforcement, other states, and federal officials, who were trying to keep track of the whereabouts of illegal immigrants.

 

Chief Brown concluded his comments stating, in an ideal world, the NDI functioned very well for a number of years with a staff of about 80. He said the division recognized a need to stay in the narcotic enforcement business. Whatever the changes destined for the NDI, Chief Brown pledged to continue to do the best they could and said in closing, the NDI could lose some very valuable employees in addition to a loss in funding.

 

Vice Chairman Washington then said, “I guess it takes us to the age-old question. How do we balance public safety with public education? So here we go again.”

 

Assemblyman Tom Grady, Assembly District No. 38, gave full support for the services of the NDI, especially for its efforts in rural Nevada. Mr. Grady reiterated one of Chief Brown’s comments regarding law enforcement in every community in Nevada and emphasized the lack of expertise found in smaller communities without the funds or staffing which, therefore, depended on the expertise of the Nevada Investigation Division. Mr. Grady expressed concern over the proposed loss of 18 officers in the rural Nevada communities and said the State could not afford to lose that many officers. He added, the Edward M. Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance formula grant could be used to fund the 18 officers in question. Mr. Grady said he knew cuts in the budget affected everyone in Nevada, and cautioned, “We cannot afford to have 18 positions eliminated in rural Nevada.” Mr. Grady stressed such a move would send drug dealers a message to come back and take over again. He praised the NDI for its efforts to control the drug problem in rural Nevada and declared his intention to speak with the Governor and the money committees regarding resources to keep rural Nevada safe.

 

Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea, Assembly District No. 35, said he represented most of rural Nevada to be impacted by the loss of the 18 NDI officers. He estimated with the budget cuts there would be only two NDI officers in rural Nevada, the two assigned to Elko. Field offices in Ely and Winnemucca had two crucial, eliminated positions and, he said, these cuts “put the welcome mat out to all drug dealers that northeastern Nevada is wide open.” He admitted the street talk already was, “Just wait ‘til July. It’s home free.” Mr. Goicoechea described the police departments as competent in Lander, Ely, Eureka, and Humboldt Counties, but said, “they are small and they are very limited.” He stated it was impossible to conduct a sting operation in these communities without the assistance of the NDI as the officers were known in the communities. He testified the need for drug task forces was vital to the safety of the people.

 

Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Commission, said she had lived in several counties and many remote locations. She testified, “There is not much out there except the folks who are there.” Ms. Licht said she realized there was a shortage of funds in the State, but Elko County was also experiencing a pinch in its financial resources and struggling to find money to fund many positions.  She pleaded with the State to find ways to fund the NDI for rural counties in Nevada. Ms. Licht announced Neil Harris, Sheriff, Elko County, and Clair Morris, Chief of Police, Elko, were present to answer any questions.

 

Vice Chairman Washington thanked Ms. Licht for her testimony. He invited Mark Jackson, Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County, to come forward. Mr. Jackson referred to the letter written by NDI Deputy Director Kieckbusch and the issue of duplication of services. He said he had been a criminal defense attorney before assuming his position with Douglas County as a deputy district attorney. In his legal career, Mr. Jackson said, he was involved with thousands of cases involving drug abuse, primarily cases involving methamphetamine abuse. He said the argument of duplication of services between local law enforcement and drug task forces would not carry much weight, comparing the relationship to that of the infantry and the special forces. Mr. Jackson announced he was one of four prosecutors in the United States who teaches a nationally recognized and accredited drug task force class. He said it was a 2‑week class offered twice a year. He said drug task forces are comparable to special forces units in the military, with local officers at the front line, much like the infantry. Mr. Jackson explained these frontline officers made weekly drug-related arrests.

 

Mr. Jackson went on to explain drug trafficking had changed dramatically in the last number of years, describing it as covert and sophisticated by use of counter-surveillance techniques and video monitoring of drug labs. Because of the changes, special training was required of law enforcement officers, who, he stated, had on-the-job training daily. Sometimes, he said, an arrested person became an informant and chose to work with the government at the “game of tag” and assist in arresting the drug dealer. Mr. Jackson said the meth problem was really a “food chain,” the top of which was the manufacturer of illegal drugs, with the manufacturing of methamphetamine prevalent in rural communities.

 

Mr. Jackson next referenced Governor Guinn’s State of the State Address and applauded the Governor for his interest in education and honoring the federal mandate of “No Child Left Behind.” There are flaws in that plan according to Mr. Jackson, because he said he knew drugs were introduced in our school systems where many young people became addicted to methamphetamine and then only cared about getting the next hit of the drug.

 

He told the committee the Nevada Investigation Division supervised the Tri-Net Narcotics Task Force, which worked in conjunction with law enforcement officers from Carson City, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey Counties, to target people who manufactured and distributed methamphetamine in school districts.

 

Specifically, Mr. Jackson expressed sadness about the large number of juvenile crimes before the courts of Douglas County. He said often robberies were committed to facilitate the purchase of drugs, calling it a snowball effect.

 

Mr. Jackson related a recent day in court wherein all nine people were charged with drug-related crimes. Responding to Vice Chairman Washington’s concern about safe schools, Mr. Jackson stressed the schools were not safe without the protection of law enforcement and emphasized the strong need to be proactive instead of reactive to drug-related crimes. He described deputy sheriffs as the front line who enforced the laws and made arrests, but called it reactive, stating these actions were not enough.

 

Senator Nolan said he assumed the rural meth operations produced the drug to target larger cities. Mr. Jackson agreed it used to be that way, but said over the last 30 years things changed a lot, explaining a meth lab could be operating right in front of Senator Washington or Senator Nolan because, he said, “they are so mobile,” and indicated many labs are in trailers. He said the recipes for producing meth were readily available and the technology so advanced that mobile labs were easy to set up. He admitted within a rural community problems arise from these little labs, adding children were present in 70 percent of the meth labs.

 

Mr. Jackson believed there were no “super labs” in Douglas County. Most of those labs were out of California, where drug trafficking had been going on for decades. He said San Diego, California, was the “methamphetamine capital of the world.” He attributed the problems in the community to the small, portable labs set up in trailers, motel rooms, or houses. He explained explosions were common due to the volatile chemicals used in the production of the drug, and when children were about, they were endangered. Mr. Jackson said the disposal of chemicals also posed environmental problems because the chemicals seeped into the soil and contaminated water supplies. He told of a company in Reno specializing in the disposal of chemicals used in meth labs.

 

Senator Nolan said he appreciated Mr. Jackson’s description of the role of the NDI and noted it was helpful to have information on those prosecuted. The Senator said he was aware meth labs in rural Nevada marketed their product in Clark County and agreed it was important to Clark County for the NDI to continue its work in rural Nevada.

 

Vice Chairman Washington announced everyone was experiencing budget cuts and many other departments wanted to testify. He asked testifiers to limit their time to 3 minutes to accommodate all the agencies who wanted to speak.

 

Richard Sears, District Attorney, White Pine County, testified about half of the 70 felony cases tried in White Pine County during 2002 were drug related. He continued, stating drugs were produced in the woods and in homes. Mr. Sears commended NDI Officers Matt Hibbs and Chris Brewer, whom he depended upon to issue search warrants and act as experts in prosecuting cases. Many of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) arrests were also drug related and the NDI officers assisted them, too, he said. Without the help of the NDI, Mr. Sears clamed it would be necessary to hire experts from Washoe County and the cost was very high, explaining because it took 6 hours to drive to Ely, an expert had to plan on 2 days to put an offender into the prison system. Mr. Sears said without the NDI, it would be very difficult to “keep a lid on these cookers,” small or large. He mentioned in 2002, a large lab supplying Clark County was broken up due to the efforts of the NDI. He summarized:

 

We cannot do the work; we cannot prosecute these cases without expertise. Expertise is not available to us. We are keeping a lid on it, but quite frankly, if you take away those two officers, I don’t know how I am going to keep the cookers off the ranches, to keep them from cooking, to keep them from transporting the drugs into your communities.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked for questions and reminded those testifying of the 3-minute limit to ensure everyone would be heard.

 

Scott Slobe, Lobbyist, Department of Public Safety Employees Association, stated he represented the Investigation Division employees and referred to a booklet (Exhibit D. Original is on file at the Research Library.) providing statistics and information about the drug problem in Nevada. Mr. Slobe continued to question whether public safety was an appropriate place to make budget cuts because of the financial crisis in the State of Nevada. Exhibit D contained letters by elected officials from various counties opposing the removal of the task forces. He said if the status quo of the NDI, 70 officers, was maintained, they would do the job. Mr. Slobe added a 1998 study conducted by the University of Nevada, Reno, found multijurisdictional task forces to be economically feasible. Additionally, he pointed out the reduction in the budget would hurt the Division of Parole and Probation, whose role was one of supervision when drug offenders were released from prison.

 

Larry Etter, Sheriff, Eureka County, announced he was newly elected to his position and stated during his campaign he most frequently was asked, “What are you going to do about the drug problem in Eureka County?” Sheriff Etter said the question was very difficult to answer with a force of 5 street officers stretched between 2 communities 120 miles apart, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The sheriff expressed there was no problem of duplication of services in Eureka or White Pine Counties. On the contrary, he said, “We are lucky to get the streets staffed so we can be the frontline defense.” He asked how many were really familiar with the vast spaces rural law-enforcement dealt with, stating his purpose was to ask for consideration towards keeping the NDI officers in rural Nevada. Sheriff Etter concluded his testimony stating, “I need their (NDI) help.”

 

James Weller, ex-Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified he was with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for more than 24 years. In 1986, Mr. Weller was assigned to Nevada as special agent in charge of all FBI operations. Upon Mr. Weller’s retirement in 1992, ex-Governor Miller appointed him director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. Based on his wealth of experience, Mr. Weller said he spoke with some knowledge:

 

I think to cut out the rural service (NDI) would be a total disservice to not only law enforcement …, as you have heard from many sheriffs and will hear from many others, but to the citizens of Nevada. Our first responsibility, I think, as government, is to take care of our citizens and our visitors. If we can’t do that, then we have lost everything. With the terrorism threat being what it is, I would even suggest adding additional officers to NDI to address that issue from the State’s perspective.

 

The frontline troops are those uniformed officers out there who respond to those calls, but it takes the follow-up work to put the investigation together and to bring it to a successful conclusion.

 

Let me say there are other places in Nevada’s criminal justice system where I think savings can be found … One would be training consolidation, including shifting the basic P.O.S.T. [Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission] requirements to the community colleges. Number 2 would be reorganization and restructuring of individual State law enforcement agencies. And No. 3 would be merging those law enforcement agencies and the entities from various State departments into one department. Economies can certainly be realized.

 

…I was in the business for 30 years working all over this country and I have run into probably 28 to 30 state police or state investigative agencies and I would definitely put NDI in one of the top 5 (Exhibit E).

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked Mr. Weller to submit his suggestions for review and consideration. He added, Mr. Weller’s expertise would be very helpful in the deliberations.

 

Bob Davidson, Police Chief, City of Winnemucca, addressed the local government impact of the Governor’s proposed fiscal plan, specifically the issue of the extreme downsizing of the Department of Public Safety Investigation Division and the resulting effect it would have on local drug task forces. The services, he said, provided by the Humboldt and Pershing Counties task force (NDI) were invaluable and the results were quite effective. Chief Davidson added this was not always the case; at best, he continued, it had been hit or miss in the past.  He submitted a summary of crime rates and statistics regarding the drug problem (Exhibit F. Original is on file at the Research Library.).  Among the statistics he cited, the Nevada overall crime rate rose 3.2 percent, higher than the national average, due to an increase in drug use and accompanying crimes; he stated there had been more than 10,000 arrests in Nevada for drug-related crimes. The statistics indicated 15 percent of drug-related crimes involved children under 17 years of age, and in 63 percent of the drug-related crimes involving children, the children were 10 to 12 years old.

 

Chief Davidson noted the geographical location of Winnemucca made it a major distribution route for drug trafficking. The drug of choice was crystal methamphetamine, which Chief Davidson said, was more potent and addictive than simple methamphetamine and more expensive. He added, “When you consider every one of our local drug trafficking cases has eventually led to a connection at our local high school, or occasionally even our junior high school, the future can get to look very dismal indeed.” Chief Davidson concluded his commentary stating, “…pandemic drug use and abuse will become the future of our great State … Only by the continued cooperation of cities, counties, and the State can we effectively battle the illegal drug trade and ensure a safe Nevada for our children’s future” (Exhibit F).

 

Eric Larson and Catlin Gunn, students, Carson Middle School, came forward to put “faces to the terms ‘students’ or ‘kids’”. Mr. Larson said he and Ms. Gunn were the children to whom Assemblyman Carpenter referred when he said the budget cuts would be “sentencing our students to an environment of drug dealers and criminal activity.” Mr. Larson then described the world for the average teenager as a rapid succession of learning experiences, demands, temptations, peer pressures and half-truths. “War coming on the horizon worries us and our achievement gaps worry you,” he said.

 

Continuing with the topic, Ms. Gunn addressed Legislators regarding mandates and standards required of students and said, “Now we, the students, are here and want to ask something of you. We would like to meet all your requirements in a safe, secure learning environment.” Ms. Gunn reported a recent straw poll conducted at her school revealed 89 percent of her classmates had been exposed to some kind of drug-related event (Exhibit G).

 

Mr. Larson compared cutting half the teaching staff with cutting law enforcement personnel and asked if you cut all the English and math teachers would you have eliminated duplicated services or cut expertise. He asked that the expertise of the NDI not be eliminated in rural Nevada.

 

Vice Chairman Washington congratulated the students on their delivery and made comments about juggling H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and also providing protection and safety to individuals and their families. He said, “We are in a balancing act as I currently speak, so trust me, your testimony will have weighted consideration.”

 

Senator McGinness asked the students how many were included in their survey of classmates. Mr. Larson said about 25 students were included.

 

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association South and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, stated the NDI was not a duplication of services.  He explained the work of the NDI allowed law enforcement throughout the State to work together to coordinate activities and actually operate as a unit. He went on to say the proposed “cuts will be absolutely devastating to law enforcement.” Mr. Olsen said the service of the NDI was not limited to narcotics enforcement; he cited a recent case in Mesquite where two young girls were assault victims, one died and the other was paralyzed for life. It was NDI officers who responded and made the appropriate arrests. He stated NDI handled homicide investigations and assisted in places where the expertise for special investigations was not available. This, Mr. Olsen said, was critical because, “If you mess up in the field, you don’t get a conviction in court.”

 

Mr. Olsen asked all the sheriffs and chiefs in the room to stand and said, “We truly believe and understand there are budget concerns and that …”

 

Vice Chairman Washington interrupted. He asked Mr. Olsen to stop for a minute, “to allow the committee and staff to applaud those people who put their lives on the line daily … we appreciate you. Thank you very much.”

 

Mr. Olsen continued, “I will be brief and wind up right here. We understand the need to balance the budget, but we also understand firsthand the need to protect the public. This one is critical.”

 

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, noted he represented Nevada Highway Patrol troopers and other State employees, commented on the presentation by the children, and appealed to the committee:

 

Do not give these criminals out here the continuing upper hand. Every time you pull a cop off the street, you jeopardize another decent citizen of this State. Taking 39 NDI agents off the road who protect you and I, I believe, flies in the face of what good citizens want as protectors in our State. …We oppose any reduction of law enforcement, especially in this case with the NDI agents.

 

Cheri Emm-Smith, District Attorney, Mineral County, said, “I pray of you today, do not cut NDI.” She continued, stating a cut would mean more crime and pose a threat to officer safety and predicted officers would be killed in the line of duty for lack of backup.

 

Ms. Emm-Smith said she had been the Mineral County District Attorney since May 2002, and had already been involved with NDI in two homicide investigations and one criminal prosecution on a homicide. She said the prosecution would not have been done without NDI doing the investigation. The accused murderer had committed the homicide 20 hours after release from prison and she noted this murder involved narcotics.

 

In addition, Ms. Emm-Smith indicated NDI was not only actively involved in narcotics investigations, but also in conflict of interest cases. Because the community was so small, the NDI was crucial to taking polygraphs, interviewing witnesses, and providing good plans and decisions on ways to prosecute a case. She reported there was no investigation department within the Mineral County sheriff’s office and because of a scant budget she, as prosecutor, had an assistant only 6 days a month.

 

District Attorney Emm-Smith stated Hawthorne was located between Las Vegas and Reno, and the heavy traffic going through Hawthorne involved many arrests for speeding. Many of those arrested for speeding were drivers headed for either of those cities and were involved in narcotics trafficking, she observed.

Ms. Emm-Smith said, “When we call for them [NDI officers], they are there.” She reiterated, the NDI was essential and crucial and without its support there would be more crime and more deaths.

 

Arthur Mallory, District Attorney, Churchill County, quipped he was testifying on behalf of the meth dealers in the State who appreciated these cuts because “We now have a safe haven for us to manufacture meth in rural Nevada.”  Mr. Mallory added these cuts would also open up a new market for the manufacturers of methamphetamine.

 

We constantly have seen people transporting drugs across county lines, most frequently, he said, was drug traffic between Mineral County and Washoe County. He claimed the drug problem was an intercounty issue that absolutely needed an investigative team to work with all the counties in Nevada. In addition, Mr. Mallory said the NDI was invaluable to the rural counties not only for dealing with serious drug problems, but also for the expertise and resources it had available.

 

Mr. Mallory concluded his testimony:

 

It is a quality of life question for all of Nevada, not just rural Nevada. To cut these people, you’ll be cutting the quality of life for all of us who live in this wonderful State. So, please ask everyone to seriously consider that. Thank you very much.

 

Jim C. Shirley, District Attorney, Pershing County, said he wanted to echo the comments presented. Given an operating drug network, he declared, logic dictated law enforcement working with a task force would break down the drug network.

 

Mr. Shirley read a letter from the Pershing County Board of Commissioners to the Legislature (Exhibit H) requesting the NDI remain funded because the expertise of this law enforcement support was critical to the people of Pershing County. Investigation Division Agent Jimmy Mercado, noted Mr. Shirley, deserved praise as a very experienced narcotics officer and valuable task force officer.

 

Jackie Rasor, M.S.W., Licensed Social Worker and Licensed Drug and Alcohol Counselor, said she was an alcohol and drug abuse counselor practicing in Carson City. She addressed the committee on the importance of keeping the drug task force intact. She stated many report their problems with drug addiction began when they were 10 to 12 years old. Approximately 75 percent of her clients were in drug and alcohol abuse treatment. Ms. Rasor said if we would not keep the task force fighting the problem, the age for drug problems would likely start at 6 or 7 years old.

 

Larry Stout, Former Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission, said he was a retired Nevada law enforcement officer, who had 8 years with the NDI. He said, “My purpose here today is to encourage you, in the strongest terms, to eliminate the staff reductions for the Nevada Investigation Division proposed in the Governor’s budget for the upcoming biennium.” He assured the committee NDI performed an extremely valuable function in areas of narcotic interdiction and criminal investigations particularly in rural Nevada.

 

Mr. Stout said he was surprised to learn of the staff reductions, especially at a time when the government was alert for a terrorist attack and advising us to prepare for biological or chemical warfare. He suggested the decision to cut the staff of NDI, which protected the citizens of Nevada, was irresponsible. Mr. Stout reasoned the expertise of the NDI in networking resources was invaluable. “This is not the time to reduce law enforcement resources in this State even in the face of our troubling budget issues,” he said, concluding he would rather pay more taxes and create some dedicated funding sources to support law enforcement in this State.

 

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, said he was testifying in a different role adding that he, like many others, had accountability to Carson City. The mayor noted his responsibility was to consider budgets and fund positions, and worry about the tax rate.

 

Mayor Masayko said Carson City’s position was slightly different than the rural communities, but still the issue was the same, drugs, drug interdiction, and the loss of resources. He explained Carson City contributed to the NDI with the Tri‑Net Task Force by taking advantage of the Byrne grants. He said:

 

The large cuts in these NDI resources and this drug interdiction resource is going to have a chilling effect on all of us in northern Nevada. Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, if the pressure is less in Carson City or Lyon County or Douglas County than it is in Washoe County or Reno, the meth labs and the dealers are going to be here. And, if we don’t have resources to handle those issues … they are going to be here.

 

I say on behalf of my constituents and my board of supervisors that we, at all levels of government, have a role to play. We think the multijurisdictional, the regional approaches are effective; they save money. We want to be a partner in that process. … We need the State to step up as a partner with the locals and the federal government in maintaining these resources. It’s important for us all.

 

Dave Hosmer, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, noted he was formerly with the NDI, and introduced Daryl Riersgard, Criminal Information Services Manager, Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety.

 

Chief Hosmer said, in conjunction with what had been said today, the key issue for the repository was the lack of funding. The court assessment funding forced staffing shortages because the repository was fee-based. He continued, “If we do not have the money, we cannot hire the personnel. Staff shortages logically caused work backlogs.” He explained the repository had little or no control over the workload or the revenue to pay operating expenses.

 

Mr. Riersgard introduced staff members Jeff Artz, fingerprint program manager, and Dana Howry, budget analyst, and gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit I. Original is on file at the Research Library.) in which he described the State Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit report as the “tip of the iceberg.” He said his presentation related to budget constraints, the key point being the budget was flawed. Mr. Riersgard described the budget as having a serious ripple effect and the court assessment funding was both unreliable and inadequate. He said Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chief Justice Deborah A. Agosti, and Court Administrator Ron Titus had offered support to the criminal information department.

 

Mr. Riersgard said the repository for fiscal year 2003 was underfunded by $797,000, which forced him to leave positions unfilled and his staff, in turn, was unable to handle the workload and left 40 percent of it incomplete. Stating staffing shortages had become the norm, he explained the backlog was rapidly growing at a rate of 2700 cases per month or 25 percent per year. Currently, he said, the domestic violence reports were 20,000 cases behind. Mr. Riersgard testified, “The net result of these factors is the criminal history records for the State of Nevada are in trouble and will get worse unless something is done to address this problem.”

 

At a recent meeting of the national SEARCH conference in Denver, Colorado, Mr. Riersgard said he had an opportunity to survey the other state repository managers regarding their budgets and failed to find one other who described his or her budget situation as serious. He conceded, “Our current budget situation is serious.”

 

To make the most of time allotted, Mr. Riersgard said he would focus on three points. The No. 1 issue he identified was the funding problem: a flawed budget which, he acknowledged, did not happen overnight. He explained the subsidies from the Nevada Highway Patrol made the repository look healthier than it was. Next, he went on, the 1999 Legislature made a major $2.6 million change regarding how expenses were met called “cost distribution” in which subsidies and unmet court assessments began to sink the criminal history repository. The third phase he called the “trouble phase,” was described as a realization this department was unable to disseminate criminal information mandated by law with its current budget (Exhibit I). He said the problem at the repository was summed up logically: with inadequate funding there was a shortage of staff, which yielded a serious backlog in production.

 

Senator Nolan questioned Mr. Riersgard about the transfer of information via phone lines. Mr. Riersgard responded the repository is part of the State switchboard system that received approximately 20 million inquiries per month. He explained the technical personnel at the repository reported the repository had the highest per capita use in the country. He said the telephone inquiries also included background, firearm, and name checks primarily for the casino industry. Criminal history records, he said, were generated by an automated system for everyone in the criminal justice system, police, courts, jails, prisons, and prosecutors.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked Mr. Riersgard to verify funding for the repository was generated primarily by court assessments. Mr. Riersgard answered the funding for criminal record checks was the critical area because the court assessments were unreliable and inadequate.

Vice Chairman Washington said Mr. Riersgard indicated there was a decrease in court assessments and asked him to elaborate. Mr. Riersgard referred to the LCB audit meeting. Court assessment collections, he explained, at the district court level were about 22 percent with the justice court level about 78 percent; when collections went down, it meant funding went down too.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked if there was any correlation between court assessments and the reduction in the crime rate. Mr. Riersgard said the answer was twofold. One, he explained, the criminal records repository provided a service to the criminal justice system and was paid for services through that system. If criminal activity went down, he said the repository was affected and then suffered additionally when judges failed to collect previous assessments.

 

Vice Chairman Washington next questioned the 11 vacancies Mr. Riersgard was unable to fill. Mr. Riersgard said the personnel shortage covered all areas of the operation, although the fingerprinting section where the staffing was at 77 percent was of most concern. Staff, he further explained, was moved around to prioritize the workload.

 

Vice Chairman Washington voiced concern about the projected elimination of processing misdemeanor crimes and asked what the Legislators could do to reduce the caseload. Mr. Riersgard responded the repository had no ability to influence a workload determined by the amount of criminal activity. What the Legislature would control, Mr. Riersgard continued, was funding support and authorization for staffing. He identified technology as a critical function of the repository and said part of the budget must be spent on technology because it directly affected the efficiency of the department.

 

Vice Chairman Washington recalled the Legislature had authorized funding for an increase in automation and asked where the automation process was at this time. Mr. Riersgard said he had cut 1200 hours of computer programming and described the action as going in a backward direction. He deferred the question to Alan Rogers.

 

Alan Rogers, Data Processing Manager, Information Services, Department of Public Safety, said the computer system for Statewide criminal justice was highly dependent upon the funding that came through the criminal history repository. As a cost-distributed entity, he said, it was necessary to bill those agencies who received or requested services; therefore all Statewide activity was billed through the criminal history repository. Divisions within the Department of Public Safety paid for their usage of the computer system. He described Information Services as a microcosm of the private sector working for government because, he explained, ”We have to compete and prove ourselves in order to continue our funding stream. … The problem is the criminal history repository is unable to pay its bills, so we’re having some struggles.”

 

Mr. Rogers said the technology situation was good and while containing costs, the division had provided solutions and state-of-the-art equipment for the public safety department. He affirmed they were currently reengineering the entire State computer system to server-based processors and moving off of the mainframe that had been used for about 20 years. The improvement and efficiency of the electronic transfer of data was one of the objectives of the engineering project; key projects were electronic warrants transferred throughout the State which, he explained, completely eliminated data entry at the local law enforcement agencies.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked if there was an assessment placed on agencies using the system. Mr. Rogers replied assessments were based on usage and charged to court assessments. Another project he said they were working on was the electronic transfer of fingerprint data in image form to the repository; this process, too, eliminated data entry. The courts were also perfecting ways to electronically transfer the dispositions on cases directly to the repository and he noted the success of these projects would significantly effect the efficiency of the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Rogers stated technology played an important part in streamlining and providing a more efficient system, but remained dependent on the manual input of data at the repository. Mr. Rogers concluded the divisions were combining and sharing services to save taxpayer dollars.

 

Vice Chairman Washington said he toured the data processing facility and was impressed with the automation. He indicated the taxpayers had demanded the repository become more automated and streamlined and efficient in its use of tax dollars.

 

Amy Wright, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Public Safety, announced she was newly appointed to her position along with Deputy Chief Richard Varner, and Management Analyst Katherine Thompson who accompanied her. Ms. Wright gave an overview of the Division of Parole and Probation and discussed the effects of the 3 percent budget cuts. She explained information provided in a written document (Exhibit J).

 

When Senator Care asked what impact to expect if 1500 prisoners were released, Ms. Wright agreed there would be an impact and strain on parole and probation personnel, but also stated the crime rate was holding steady and the growth level was at a minimum.

 

Vice Chairman Washington verified with Ms. Wright the growth rate was marginal in the probation department. He said he was concerned with low-level crimes, misdemeanors such as drug offenses, driving under the influence (DUI), and domestic violence, stating these types of offenders often committed more serious crimes.

 

Ms. Wright said steps had already been taken to reduce those caseloads with staff moved from interstate caseloads to the prerelease department. She expressed confidence in the plan.

 

Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, said the board was challenged to reduce all expenditures due to the financial crisis in Nevada. To comply, she said, the board acted in several areas to provide some economic relief as outlined in a handout (Exhibit K) which contained charts of innovations to continue to serve and protect the public while reducing expenses such as the use of videoconference technology. Ms. Salling admitted the board had been borrowing videoconferencing equipment and the board’s budget request was to fund its own equipment, which she explained as a trade-off, because the driving and mileage expenses were significantly down.

 

Ms. Salling explained the Bill Draft Request (BDR) 16-551 (later introduced as S.B. 232), included in Exhibit K, was requested by the State Board of Parole Commissioners to allow parolees to earn credit and incentives to keep the prison population down and rehabilitate prisoners; the objective of these proposed plans was to promote parolees who were productive in society. The board worked with the director of the Department of Corrections, Jackie Crawford.

 

Vice Chairman Washington said the Senate Committee on Judiciary worked with the State Board of Parole Commissioners in the 1990s as part of the entire crime package. He commented some new things were implemented and, from Ms. Salling’s report, they seemed to have worked well in seeing the commission was fully staffed. Ms. Salling expressed appreciation for the efforts and affirmed the implementations worked well.

 

Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections, introduced Glenn Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Department of Corrections, and Frederick Schlottman, Economist, Administration, Department of Corrections, who she said, would handle the technical aspects of the presentation, and Darrel Rexwinkel, Assistant Director, Support Services, Administration, Department of Corrections. Before beginning her slide presentation Ms. Crawford said:

 

We come with a different proposal this morning. Some of what I want to share with you is what we anticipated as perhaps what you wanted to hear. Part of what we want to share with you today is about the fiscal crisis, not only what we have now, but if the Governor’s budget is not passed what could we anticipate.

 

Ms. Crawford paused and asked Mr. Whorton to introduce his staff members who were in the audience. He said there were 13 staff members there who walked the beat at High Desert State Prison including Warden James Schomig. Vice Chairman Washington welcomed the High Desert staff from the Indian Springs facility and said he appreciated their contribution.

 

Ms. Crawford began her PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit L. Original is on file at the Research Library.) by identifying the Nevada Department of Corrections as the eighth largest city in the State of Nevada with 20 facilities housing 10,300 inmates. She highlighted State prisons with Ely as maximum security, High Desert as high-medium security, Southern Desert Correctional Center as a program-directed facility for preparing prisoners with less time to serve for reentry into the community, and the Southern Nevada Correctional Center as closed for 3 years of renovation with an expected reopening in 2004. Ms. Crawford reported the prison population had become somewhat static, which had helped immensely because the duties of the Department of Corrections were complex and required management of difficult people.

 

Ms. Crawford explained what the 3 percent cut in the budget had done to the prison system and the likely consequence if the Governor’s budget was not passed (Exhibit L). She explained the prison system was funded 100 percent by the General Fund, and in addition, there were training program grants for inmates. Currently, she said, the Department of Corrections supervised more inmates per staff than any other state in the West. Ms. Crawford said legislation must be passed to release inmates in order to slow the intake of projected releases. Ms. Crawford then asked Mr. Whorton to profile inmates housed in minimum-security facilities.

 

Mr. Whorton explained a chart showing those incarcerated primarily for property, drug, and DUI offenses were housed at the minimum-security facilities and at the community trustee facility, and totaled approximately 2500 inmates. He said these were the prisoners who would be released.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked how many of the property, drug, and DUI offenders were eligible for these programs and Mr. Whorton affirmed as many as possible from the residential confinement program. He mentioned those who had been released or would be released became a burden to the Division of Parole and Probation. One of the considerations for releasing prisoners was inadequate housing and the employment issue, he said, noting the Casa Grande Housing Development in Las Vegas, a transitional place for prereleased prisoners, was one of the facilities eliminated in the 3 percent budget cut.

 

Ms. Crawford referred to a map of the prison facilities and discussed the importance of their locations to fire fighting efforts. She said strategically, they were well located as many prisoners were trained to fight fires.

 

Vice Chairman Washington remarked the committee was concerned about the release of 2500 inmates and the budget cuts. He said he wanted it understood the committee was not advocating or endorsing the Governor’s budget proposal in one way or the other. We were trying to figure out where we were, what we needed to do, and what decisions we had to make and hoped to make those decisions intelligently.

 

Senator Care returned to the subject of minimum-security inmates whom, he said, the newspapers referred to as “the least dangerous” and asked why, if they would be released for budgetary considerations, they were there in the first place. He said it made him ponder when it came time for release if the releases were based on simple categories according to the crimes committed. He noted if two individuals committed the same crime and received the same sentence, there would still be differences between the two inmates and there would be some due process issues to consider. With regard to due process, he said there were two issues: one was the violation of a statute, and two was the punishment connected to the infraction. Senator Care continued, certain conduct guaranteed the deprivation of one’s liberty to some degree, although he said he could foresee a defense attorney arguing at a sentencing hearing for certain crimes to receive no sentences at all.

 

Ms. Crawford said Mr. Whorton was the historian and would provide an overview of how who was released was determined. She wanted it known the Department of Corrections was “not advocating letting all these people out [of prison]. This is not a Jackie Crawford Plan. Please know that.”

 

Mr. Whorton commented Senator Care was as careful in his questioning as the Department of Corrections when considering and making decisions about releasing prisoners. He described the process as very difficult and contentious with consideration given to the appropriateness of the release policy. He asked, “Do we accept the Governor’s budget and tax plan and fund these essential functions the way intended when legislation was enacted in 1995, for revisions of the criminal code, when we determine the releases?” Mr. Whorton continued, this was a road they had wanted to avoid. He said there were differences in behaviors and attitudes of prisoners convicted of the same crime and decisions regarding the degrees of custody were based on those differences.

 

Vice Chairman Washington asked about mentally ill people who were incarcerated and their effect or impact on the process. Mr. Whorton responded the release program excluded the mentally ill population, adding the prisoners under consideration were housed in minimum security and minimum trustee facilities.

 

Vice Chairman Washington inquired about proposed rehabilitation programs and if the mentally ill were eligible. Mr. Whorton responded if the funding were not approved, there would be no programs.

 

Senator Wiener said she was part of the corrections task force appointed by the Governor and had helped formulate recommendations designed for the Department of Corrections. One cost factor issue attached to the assessment process was used to determine who was released, she said. The costs were extraordinary, she continued, stating releases generated new costs and required consideration with regard to public safety and protection. Senator Wiener asked what costs were anticipated.

Ms. Crawford said the risk assessment, program component, and start-up costs were estimated at $450. Mr. Whorton stated the release program had needed to be integrated into the current system for efficiency, and added the Department of Corrections was very good at assessing risks and controlling inmate behavior. To decide on release, he continued, “We have to rely upon our own experience and our own instruments. That is why we looked at the minimum custody.” He said there would be some costs, but they would be minimal and significantly outweighed by the savings of $27 million per year. Mr. Whorton said in order to meet this obligation, the Department of Corrections had made significant inroads into its population. He concluded there would be some personnel costs, but it would not be hugely expensive.

 

Senator Wiener asked Mr. Whorton if prisoners were assessed and deemed eligible for release, how many of the proposed 2500 would he feel confident regarding the safety of their new communities. Mr. Whorton responded, “I am not comfortable with any of this.” He continued, “This is something we do not want to do.” He explained he had been in situations and recommended people for parole and when it was granted, they had gone out and hurt people. Mr. Whorton said:

 

The most difficult thing in corrections … is to say “yes.” You are putting yourself at risk, your fellow employees at risk, other inmates at risk, and most importantly, you’re putting the public at risk. I am not comfortable with any of this. There is no magic number there. What we are doing here is taking an actuarial stance. Anybody who can tell you they can predict the behavior of a single human being is either lying to you or a fool. … We’re looking at this on a percentage basis and saying, “These are the people who will do the best,” and that’s all we’re saying.

 

Senator Wiener said that was her point:

 

We have processes, procedures, and people in place who know how to work with those at-risk populations with the best knowledge they have … Now we are imposing huge question marks, using numbers to balance budgets and putting the public at risk.

 

She concluded, these decisions should not be made based on numbers only.

Senator Nolan said these lengthy presentations represented the other side of the story the public had not heard, specifically, the consequences of proposed budget cuts. Senator Nolan commented, the cuts forcing the NDI staff to cut back on efforts in attacking drugs out in the rural areas as well as urban areas, the inability of parole and probation to track those people who are out on release and are coming into Nevada through interstate agreements, the potential failure for the repository to document misdemeanors and include them in the database as well as process and disseminate criminal records to law enforcement agencies, and the potential release of 2500 prisoners creates a formula for potential pandemic for crime in this State.

 

Senator Nolan said approximately 10 years ago, Nevada was within the top 10 percent of crime in the nation and Las Vegas was the No. 1 city for urban crime in major cities for a number of years. He asserted those figures are down due to the efforts of law enforcement and the Department of Corrections. He expressed concern about creating potential grounds for such problems and status again.

 

Senator Washington said the committee would watch deliberations before the money committee intently. He thanked the various agencies for participating in the presentations and noted he had seen John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, and asked if anyone found Mr. Comeaux, to ask him to come before the committee and report what the Governor had to say regarding these presentations, especially the testimony of the Department of Corrections, and the Division of Parole and Probation. He said the hearing remained incomplete until Mr. Comeaux testified.

 

Chairman Amodei announced a recess for the informational hearing and reopened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 73.

 

SENATE BILL 73: Makes various changes to provisions governing juries. (BDR 1‑934)

 

Chairman Amodei said he was in receipt of amendments sent by Chief Justice Agosti and Associate Justice Rose, dated February 12, referencing the proposed changes to the bill (Exhibit M). He invited Associate Justice Rose and Associate Justice Gibbons to present their testimony.

 

The Honorable Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, introduced Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court. Justice Rose said he would discuss 4 of the 19 recommendations made by the Jury Improvement Commission. He said Chief Justice Deborah A. Agosti was unavoidably absent, but credited her as the co-chairman of the commission. He said other members of the commission were present and introduced them to the committee.

 

Justice Rose explained the purpose of the commission was to make jury service easier for jurors, make jurors more effective in their duty, reduce time involved, and improve the court system in accommodating jurors and jury trials.

 

Justice Rose then referred to page 11 of Report of the Supreme Court of Nevada Jury Improvement Commission (Exhibit N. Original is on file at the Research Library.), the recommendations to increase juror pay and eliminate mileage if less than 65 miles one way. He said the appearance fee, the show-up fee of $9.00 and mileage would be eliminated. Justice Rose stated most people called to jury duty were not selected to serve because they were excused for one reason or another. He explained the $40 per day would only be paid when a person was called to jury duty and was sworn for duty prior to the third day. Currently, he said, the pay was $15 for the first 5 days on actual jury duty, not jury selection, and then paid $30 per day thereafter. In addition, he elaborated, if the juror travels 65 miles or more one way, he would be paid mileage at the State rate of 36.5 cents per mile.

 

Justice Rose explained the rationale for this proposal: many times the payments received were insignificant, such as $2 for mileage, which required a lot of administration. He said they balanced the civic duty against the significant service and concluded 2 days in the jury selection process would be considered community service; thereafter, there was some compensation.

 

Referring to the jury’s table, page 35 of Exhibit N, Justice Rose said an average of $170,000 would be saved with this change and the adjustment to mileage paid saved an additional $189,000, Statewide. Justice Rose identified the combined total estimated savings to the State at over $350,000. He described this new jury payment plan as “revenue neutral,” but, he said, it accomplished a lot in deleting the administrative costs associated with issuing checks for small amounts. The estimated cost to issue a check was approximately $5.40 and Justice Rose observed the administrative savings reaped by issuing fewer checks was not included in the figures. Therefore, the net impact would be less and the savings greater. He concluded these were the recommendations for mileage and jury duty payments.

 

Senator Wiener asked about the elimination of checks for nominal amounts and what the differences were. Justice Rose explained it depended on the individual counties and how they called in prospective jurors; he added the volume of jury cases and size of jurisdiction were factors.

 

Senator Care said he agreed completely with the rationale for the bill. Senator McGinness asked how the 65-mile distance was determined. Justice Rose said if someone was 65 and had to travel 65 miles or more, he or she had an automatic exemption.

 

Senator McGinness noted people who lived in Pahrump had to travel to Tonopah, a distance of 180 miles. He said if a trial was cancelled there were unhappy jurors.

 

The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, said he had served as the chief judge in the Eighth Judicial District, Clark County. He said the first issue was the proposed amendment to codify, in statute, that a person called for jury duty would not be recalled for at least 1 year unless there were no other qualified jurors, which occasionally happened in counties with small populations.

 

Justice Gibbons addressed the second issue eliminating all statutory exemptions for jury duty except the one excusing Legislators while in session, with the desired goal to get broader-based juries. He said juries currently consisted of retirees and government employees and were not necessarily reflective of the community. Justice Gibbons explained hardship exemptions would still apply. Included in this proposal was an option to defer jury duty for 6 months if one was called during a busy time in his or her work schedule. He said the objective included making jury duty more juror-friendly and broadening the base of the jury pool.

 

Senator Care noted current legislation allowed Legislators to defer jury duty until after the Legislative Session was complete.

 

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, SNRPC, said Clark County was in favor of S.B. 73. He explained the State paid the judges’ salaries and the county paid all other operating costs. He claimed this bill equated to a savings for Clark County and reported he had statistics on jurors he would provide to the committee (Exhibit O).

 

Chairman Amodei said a technical amendment needed to be added to S.B. 73 before it could be advanced and he anticipated it would be addressed in a work session within the next week.

 

Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on Senate Bill 74.

 

SENATE BILL 74: Authorizes person who holds permit to carry concealed firearm issued by another state to carry concealed firearm in this state under certain circumstances. (BDR 15-760)

 

Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, Gobel Lowden Veterans Center & Museum, said those he represented supported S.B. 74. He claimed the bill was about carrying a concealed weapon, but more importantly, about true freedom accompanied by responsibility. Mr. Gobel said the subject of carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) was a right defined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and was proud to say the right was more clearly defined in article 1, section 11, of The Constitution of the State of Nevada.

 

Mr. Gobel talked about the need for homeland security and the threat of terrorism and said he recognized the value of granting reciprocity to responsible and well-trained people with concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits issued in other states. He submitted documents supporting this position (Exhibit P. Original is on file at the Research Library.)

 

Mr. Gobel remarked the sheriffs and chiefs of police in Nevada would also benefit from this bill because they would be allowed to carry their weapons when traveling in other states.

 

Mr. Gobel said he spoke with Mr. Olsen, who objected to S.B. 74 because Connecticut, for example, had different requirements regarding CCW than Nevada. Mr. Gobel contended if requirements were reviewed and found to be different, reciprocity would be denied.

 

The other main objection, Mr. Gobel noted, was to yield reciprocity determination to the federal government. He said he believed in the sovereignty of the laws of Nevada:

 

If Nevada entered into reciprocity agreements with other states that agree with our laws and what we think is responsible gun ownership and carrying of concealed weapons, I think that’s the best determinant. And let the people who enforce the laws, the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, determine whether they [other states] meet those requirements.

 

Senator Care referenced gun legislation discussed during the last two Legislative Sessions and said he did not believe the proponents or the opponents of S.B. 74 would present anything the committee had not heard before. Senator Care noted as a Legislator he had to be convinced changes or amendments were necessary. He said the current CCW statute had only been in existence for a year and a half. Last session, Senator Care reported, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was agreeable to the statute; therefore, said Senator Care, “Is there anything to demonstrate the statute we now have isn’t working?” He said the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association would not be empowered by the Legislature to do anything, stating he believed the law enforcement association was a nonprofit organization officers voluntarily joined.

 

Mr. Gobel responded he had discussed involving the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association with Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, whose opinion was it could be done.

 

Another compelling reason to enact S.B. 74, Mr. Gobel argued, was legislation passed last session did not address reciprocity. He said reciprocity was a key issue, especially in these threatening times. Mr. Gobel stressed requirements for a CCW permit should be stringent and urged Legislators to consider and codify this bill. He called S.B. 74 an issue of basic freedom.

 

Senator Nolan asked Mr. Gobel to provide a list of states that comply with Nevada’s stringent concealed weapon requirements (Exhibit P) and said a review to determine states compliant with Nevada’s standards would be helpful.

 

Senator Wiener questioned why California was obviously missing from a list of neighboring states regarding CCW issues and requirements. She said there were so many people from California who cross into Nevada and the reciprocity issue would not work.

 

Mr. Gobel explained the reason California was not on the list for reciprocity was because the restrictions in California were not the same as Nevada and they failed to meet Nevada standards (Exhibit P) page 4, section A. The states on the list would qualify in Nevada for reciprocity. Mr. Gobel said Nevada required each handgun to qualify, rather than qualification by category.

 

David K. Shuman, Independent American Party (IAP) of Nevada, testified in favor of S.B. 74. He said the petition for CCW permits in Nevada had 6000 signatures (Exhibit Q). Mr. Shuman reported he had a CCW permit and was familiar with rigorous requirements to obtain the permit. He said many counties in California did not have and therefore will not issue CCWs and predicted California’s CCW requirements would never mesh with Nevada’s.

 

Mr. Shuman said his main point was if reciprocity were permitted in Nevada, there would be more legally carried guns in this State. “That is a good thing,” he said and indicated John R. Lott documented this opinion in his best-selling book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Mr. Shuman also cited Florida and a significant drop in the crime rate there after CCWs were permitted. Conversely, he said, in Australia, when no guns were allowed, the crime rate increased 44 percent. He concluded:

 

Law-abiding citizens carrying guns is an absolutely thing. If we can have people who meet our sheriffs’ and chiefs’ requirements here and be qualified in other states and circulating in our State that will make the criminals less sure that they can pick on somebody…

 

Mr. Shuman said a concern he had when traveling to other states was his need to disassemble his gun and store it in the trunk of his car. The procedure negated a deadly weapon status because the gun was disassembled. The objective of supporting S.B. 74 was to have states with the same level of scrutiny enforced in Nevada, Mr. Shuman said, because all states were benefited by having more legally armed citizens.

 

John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly, spoke in support of S.B. 74 stating Utah and Colorado accepted Nevada’s CCW permits. However, he continued, the same was not true for Utah or Colorado residents who visit Nevada. Mr. Wagner stated people with CCW permits were not criminals.

 

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, reidentified himself and noted his groups’ opposition to S.B. 74 because while Nevada residents may have gone through the rigorous process of obtaining a CCW permit, those of other states may not have done so. He explained the problem was not with citizens of Nevada who were known to be law-abiding; rather, “We don’t know anything about the people from other states.” Mr. Olsen pointed out there would be a fiscal note connected to the bill and verification would be required to ensure standards were met. Mr. Olsen said the legislation passed last session allowing CCW permits was agreeable to the NRA and it was sufficient.

 

Senator McGinness questioned how long the CCW permit bill had been in effect and Mr. Olsen answered the bill had not been in effect for a year yet.

 

Senator Wiener asked for clarification on California law regarding CCW permits.

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association North, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, stated Sheriff Dennis Balaam had been working on the issue of CCW permits. Mr. Nadeau said the sheriffs and chiefs oppose reciprocity for many reasons. Mr. Nadeau contradicted Mr. Gobel’s statement that law enforcement officers had the luxury of traveling from state to state carrying concealed weapons. This was absolutely incorrect because there was no reciprocity, he said, adding currently, there was federal legislation pending to allow this practice, but to date it had not been successful.

 

He said the issue had always been the validation of CCW permits from other states by verifying domestic violence convictions, which would revoke the permits. Mr. Nadeau said, “There is no way we can do that unless we call each individual agency of issue.”

 

Mr. Nadeau concluded stating the CCW permit laws had been expanded to accommodate, but questions always came back to reciprocity.

 

Chairman Amodei asked Mr. Nadeau to respond to Senator Wiener’s California question. Mr. Nadeau said California CCW permits were issued at the county level, recognizing some counties issued CCWs and some did not. “They have a very protracted CCW program. California does not recognize any other CCW from anywhere in the United States.” He said Californians who could not obtain a CCW permit in California would come to Nevada to get one and this was one of the problems to consider.

 

Mr. Gobel reiterated his original testimony stating one of the problems he had mentioned was law enforcement was not able to carry their weapons out of State. Specifically, Mr. Gobel said he said in his original testimony law enforcement officers were not able to travel from state to state with their guns.

 

Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 74 and reopened the presentations on public safety.

 

Richard (Fritz) Weighall, Police Chief, City of West Wendover, said West Wendover had a total of 15 sworn officers with 12 of them assigned to patrol. Chief Weighall said the northeast Nevada task force based in Elko was needed all the time. He said, “It is impossible for me, in a small town to do narcotics enforcement. I can hire an officer at 8 o’clock in the morning, by 5 o’clock that afternoon my community knows he’s a police officer.”

 

Chief Weighall noted West Wendover was situated along Interstate 80 at the Nevada-Utah border and had 1.5 million visitors annually, many with narcotics problems which NDI had helped with for several years. He said, “If we lose that [NDI] in West Wendover, it’s going to have devastating effects on narcotics enforcement there.” He said the West Wendover schools would not be safe without the assistance from the NDI. He noted the Elko task force had been fighting methamphetamine, which he described as a cancer in the community and in the State. Chief Weighall said he lacked the budget to train and equip the necessary officers and cited the NDI as “a vital tool in my tool box and without it I am going to be faced with some serious consequences.” He said every time the burglary rate went up or a homicide occurred, it had been related to narcotics.

 

Chairman Amodei verified the proposed budget cuts would mean the loss of the Elko task force officers.

 

William Bauer, Chief of Police, City of Carlin, emphasized his community also could not afford to lose the assistance Carlin received from NDI. He said, “It is absolutely imperative you hear our impassioned pleas that you not destroy or assist in dismantling a very successful tool in our law enforcement arsenal.” Chief Bauer remarked he had been in Nevada for over 30 years and witnessed the war on crime both with and without the assistance of the Investigation Division. He stated cutting all of the narcotics personnel would leave Nevada as the only state in the country without a drug enforcement agency (Exhibit R. Original is on file at the Research Library.)

 

Chief Bauer presented some Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports statistics which stated 11,234 drug violations occurred in 2001, nearly a third of which involved sales, trafficking, or manufacturing (Exhibit R). Nevada’s part 1 offenses, he said, were among the highest in the nation. Therefore, he continued it seemed strange the Executive Budget proposal was going the opposite direction in fighting crime. He said the State public defender’s budget was increased by 21 percent more than they asked for, and yet the parole and probation division was significantly cut. Chief Bauer noted it seemed ironic, “The only law enforcement agency in the State to have received excessively high fiscal kudos is the Governor’s dignitary protection unit.” It was increased 6.3 percent over their request and he suggested, “I would submit to you that such a fiscal arrangement of our crime fighting dollars borders on reckless.” He asked the committee to “Please carefully consider this information in making your recommendations.”

 

Senator Washington asked to clarify the Office of the State Public Defender received an increase. Chief Bauer said the proposed budget listed a 2.1 percent higher amount than requested by the State public defender.

 

Chairman Amodei asked to verify positions being deleted from NDI were all drug-related sworn officers. Chief Bauer responded 18 narcotics agents were being dropped. The Chairman asked if this loss left the mission undone from what had been the norm for the last few years. Chief Bauer said, “Absolutely,” and he remarked two officers would remain in the Elko office to service two‑thirds of northern Nevada. He said he learned at a meeting with NDI these cuts would mean those officers would not be actively participating in any drug enforcement task force.

 

Mr. Slobe, NDI, returned to say the reorganization of the task forces eliminated all drug task forces statewide, 35 of 39 total positions would be eliminated.

 

Chairman Amodei asked Chief Bauer if he could gather the information as to what exactly would be needed to restore the task force just to where it was before the budget proposals came forward, what was needed to restore the status quo in terms of positions and what the proper budget accounts would be, and provide it to the committee, saying he would appreciate it and the committee would be indebted to the Carlin police department.

 

Chief Bauer said he was not sure what the chairman was requesting. Chairman Amodei responded there were many in attendance who would help him put information and materials together.

 

Chairman Amodei closed the public safety presentations and adjourned the meeting at 12:56 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Ann Bednarski,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman

 

 

DATE: