MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
March 14, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 8:17 a.m., on Friday, March 14, 2003, in Room 2149 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 Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman William C. Horne, Assembly District No. 34
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Warren Wish
Jack Middleton
Christina Van Hook
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Tim Kuzanek, Deputy, Patrol Division, Sheriff, Washoe County
Kristen L. Erickson, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office and Nevada District Attorney’s Association/Carson City
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Kevin Higgins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Fraud Control Unit for Industrial Insurance, Office of the Attorney General
Tara Shepperson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Nevada Cyber Crime Task Force, Office of the Attorney General
Elizabeth MacMenamin, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
Leland Sullivan, Chief, Child Support Enforcement Program, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas
Noel S. Waters, District Attorney, Carson City
Don Winne, Chief, Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, Office of the Attorney General
Sean Gamble, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District
Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors
Ivan R. “Renny” Ashelman, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association
Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors
David Howard, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Apartment Association, Southern Nevada Multi-Housing Association
Judy Stokey, Lobbyist, Nevada Power Company, Sierra Pacific Power Company
David Noble, Assistant General Counsel, Public Utilities Commission of Nevada
Chairman Amodei announced the committee would hear testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 231.
SENATE BILL 231: Revises provisions concerning service animals. (BDR 38-98)
Warren Wish said he was one of the leaders of the Carson City Guide Dog Club and related the experiences of Mary Yoshisato whose guide dog was attacked more than once including an incident with vicious dogs as she and her dog walked down the street (Exhibit C). Mr. Wish explained Ms. Yoshisato was unable to attend and had asked him to testify on her behalf. Mr. Wish said guide dogs had special rights by law, yet the current law did not afford protection to guide dogs if attacked by another dog. Mr. Wish’s group requested protection with this legislation.
Jack Middleton testified he has used a seeing-eye dog since 1995, when the dog needed to be replaced, he went to California for that purpose. Mr. Middleton said his dog was replaced in San Rafael. He related the events of an incident at a bus stop in California, wherein a guide dog was attacked by a “pretender,” an untrained dog outfitted as a service dog, taken to the pound. Mr. Middleton said police were unaware of the laws protecting guide dogs.
He explained there were approximately 3000 guide dogs in use from the San Rafael guide dog training center, alone, and a number of their keepers reported attacks by stray or unleashed dogs. He said he came to support S.B. 231 and stressed the importance of the public and law enforcement being aware of the laws protecting these animals that service the blind.
Christina Van Hook announced she was also a member of the Carson City Guide Dog Club. She said she raised puppies destined to become guide dogs. Ms. Van Hook read a letter from Bill Schley, a blind guide dog user from Sparks who proposed an amendment to S.B. 231, to make subsequent attacks against a service dog a class C felony (Exhibit D).
Chairman Amodei said his only question was the amendment proposed by Mr. Schley through his letter, requesting a felony offense charge for any subsequent offenses against a service dog. The chairman said there would be a fiscal note on S.B. 231 and commented that adding an amendment could delay passage of the bill.
Senator Titus voiced appreciation for Chairman Amodei’s remark and suggested the committee act on it.
Senator Care asked if an accident, without malice or intent, would be construed as a violation of section 2 of the bill. Chairman Amodei said the intent of this legislation was specifically to afford these special animals protection by law. When asked, Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, agreed with Senator Amodei’s interpretation of the intention of the bill.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 231.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care said he would vote for the bill today, but needed to talk to prosecutors to hear their interpretations and suggested he might offer an amendment on the floor.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 33, which addressed the penalties for the manufacture of methamphetamine (meth).
ASSEMBLY BILL 33: Provides additional penalty for manufacturing methamphetamines in certain circumstances. (BDR 40-817)
Assemblyman William C. Horne, Assembly District No. 34, testified A.B. 33 was introduced to increase the penalty for manufacturing methamphetamines and to enhance the sentence from 3 to 15 years for those who manufactured meth in a residential area. Assemblyman Horne explained the reason for this legislation was the risk and inherent danger these labs posed to the dwelling’s occupants as well as the residents of a neighborhood. He said law enforcement officials were present and prepared to testify. Assemblyman Horne said the general public policy required protection of the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens. Neighborhoods were the one place, he said, where families should feel the safest, and A.B. 33 was designed to accomplish this goal.
Senator Care questioned whether this legislation would require an increase in law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and corrections officers. He said he assumed these labs posed a widespread problem.
Assemblyman Horne responded he would support any legislation deemed good for the State of Nevada.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, said legal counsel was present and he would be testifying in conjunction with Deputy Tim Kuzanek who worked in the Washoe County Sheriff’s narcotic unit. He added Deputy Kuzanek was part of the hazardous materials task force.
Mr. Nadeau said Washoe County had a consolidated narcotics unit comprised of all local law enforcement entities in the area. The task of this unit, Mr. Nadeau explained, was to respond to the meth lab problems. He said these labs posed a serious hazard to the community because of the hazardous materials and the explosive nature of the chemicals involved.
Tim Kuzanek, Deputy, Patrol Division, Sheriff, Washoe County, said during his 4 1/2 years in the narcotics unit, he had extensive training in investigation and cleanup of clandestine methamphetamine labs. He estimated he knew of approximately 300 labs, which were only a fraction of the number of labs in existence.
Deputy Kuzanek testified he learned, from the schools he visited and labs he investigated, the meth producers in the area attempted to adapt themselves to the community to elude the law. He said the chemicals they used, the ways used to obtain necessary chemicals, and the way they used these chemicals, all presented problems to law enforcement for investigative purposes. The safety issue for those within the house as well as neighbors and the cleanup of the chemicals when added to sewer systems posed huge problems for the task force.
Deputy Kuzanek referred to photos of labs and lab scenes he had to demonstrate what meth labs really looked like. He described a meth producer as one who used anything he or she can lay hands on to manufacture the drug. He pointed out photographs in which regular kitchen dishes were used in the manufacturing of the drugs and then used for eating purposes. Sometimes, he explained, the chemicals used for drug production were stored in children’s bedrooms. He said some of the chemicals used in the production of meth were cancer-causing and more dangerous when mixed with other chemicals.
Kristen L. Erickson, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, and Nevada District Attorney’s Association/Carson City, said when she began prosecuting drug cases 10 years ago, cocaine was the drug of choice. Now, she said, due to the low cost, the availability of the ingredients, a plethora of drug labs, and the recipes readily found on the Internet, methamphetamine was easily the drug of choice. She added, the popularity of this drug posed a threat not only to the meth cookers themselves, but also to the neighbors nearby. “Anything we can do to strengthen our stance against these methamphetamine manufacturers, the district attorney’s office is ready, and willing, and able to do,” Ms. Erickson concluded.
Senator Care asked Ms. Erickson if she had ever prosecuted a case where the manufacturer was not within 500 feet of a residence, church, or business. Ms. Erickson responded, “No, I have not. Every meth case I have prosecuted was usually within a residential area or certainly fell within the scope of this bill.”
Assemblyman Horne added a meth lab could be set up in a motor home and transported anywhere in the city. He said if A.B. 33 caused meth producers to drive out to the middle of the desert, he felt it would be better than them being located in a parking lot placing many people at risk.
Senator McGinness asked, “Do you think this is going to force these guys to rural Nevada?” Mr. Horne responded he thought the bill could be useful in rural Nevada. Senator McGinness said from other hearings on the subject, he knew meth manufacturers did go to rural Nevada, specifically, to be out in fields.
He then questioned the $58,000 fiscal note attached to the bill and asked Assemblyman Horne if it had cleared the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Assemblyman Horne said the chairman of Assembly Ways and Means, Morse Arberry Jr., Assembly District No. 7, Clark County, determined the fiscal note attached to A.B. 33 was minor.
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, said she wanted to go on record the City of North Las Vegas strongly supported this measure. She said, “It is very good public policy for the health and safety of our citizens.”
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 33.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened testimony on A.B. 93.
ASSEMBLY BILL 93: Makes various changes to provision governing electronic mail that includes advertisement. (BDR 3-267)
Kevin Higgins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Fraud Control Unit for Industrial Insurance, Office of the Attorney General, said one of the last requests made by ex-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa was to “try to do something about spam.” He explained with a public e-mail address, the ex-Attorney General received a lot of unsolicited commercial e-mail or bulk e-mail as others do, and it was an annoyance that, he said, quoting Mark Twain (speaking about Nevada’s weather), “Everyone complains about it; nobody ever does anything about it.” He said spam fell under this category.
Mr. Higgins said he provided some materials (Exhibit E. Original is on file at the Research Library.) containing a summary of what other states had done with this circumstance. The experts estimated at least 15 percent of all e-mail was spam, Mr. Higgins reported. He explained the advantage to the sender of such mail was the ability to send massive volumes of advertising at little or no cost. He said the response rate on spam was less than 1/10 of 1 percent. Mr. Higgins compared spam to paying postage due on a letter that contained junk mail because a user paid for the Internet service, sometimes the fee was calculated by the minute, and the mailbox becomes filled with ads of no interest to the user. Mr. Higgins continued some of the e‑mail was offensive, such as ads for pornography and “nothing desirable under any circumstance.” He predicted the trend was moving towards private e-mail systems wherein a user would only received mail from preauthorized people.
Mr. Higgins said the state of Washington had formed an aggressive unit to prosecute unsolicited e-mailers. But, he added, he had discussions on the subject with Attorney General Brian Sandoval and with consideration of current budget problems, such a unit might be created at a future date, but for now, S.B. 93 strengthened the penalties that existed in current statutes. He remarked Nevada, in 1997, was the first state to pass an anti-spam law. It was patterned after the junk facsimile (fax) bill, Mr. Higgins explained, stating it was Senate Majority Leader William Raggio who supported the junk fax bill after he received several junk facsimiles and viewed this abuse of an electronic communication device as a waste of expensive paper. It was ex-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa who, like Senator Raggio, motivated by her own personal annoyance with spam, requested this anti-spam legislation.
Mr. Higgins said there were three basic components to S.B. 93: unsolicited commercial advertising would have the notation “ADV” on the subject line of the e-mail. The user could set up an automatic dump rule if desired; the civil penalty would be increased to $50 per message sent; and the penalty increased to $500 per piece for e-mail within certain categories.
Mr. Higgins said several states had similar legislation adding, in California some lawyers specialized in litigation regarding unsolicited commercial advertising via e-mail. He reported spammers used false return addresses, ignored requests from recipients, and sold get-off-e-mail lists to send more e-mail. He said some spammers broke into Web site e-mail providers and obtained addresses that way. Mr. Higgins discussed several methods used to steal or obtain e-mail addresses and said the increased penalties would make civil enforcement more likely. He added the Attorney General’s office would eventually be involved in enforcement of anti-spam legislation. Mr. Higgins reported the state of Washington had successfully sued some major spammers.
Mr. Higgins introduced Dr. Tara Shepperson as the executive director, Nevada High Tech Crimes Advisory Board, and described her as Nevada’s best expert on Internet crimes.
Senator Care recalled previous legislation and asked if the thrust of new anti‑spam legislation was focused on it as a nuisance or did it cause harm. Mr. Higgins responded, “Both. It is a nuisance but harmful in that the receiver paid for it.” He said, additionally these spam e-mails clogged the systems and were regarded as an abuse to e-mail systems.
Senator Care asked about political advertising and free speech issues. He said a “No Trespassing” sign on lawn kept candidates from going up to a house. He said he wondered whether political advertising should be exempted from this legislation.
Mr. Higgins said in discussions on this subject in the Assembly, it was determined political advertising was inadvertently exempted. He said the objective was not to cut off First Amendment rights to speak, rather, to keep out offensive and unsolicited advertising.
Senator Washington said he believed software was available to exclude spamming or unsolicited advertising.
Tara Shepperson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Nevada Cyber Crime Task Force, Office of the Attorney General, agreed with Senator Washington, there was inexpensive and available commercial software that can block. She explained users programmed this software according to their needs and wants or “don’t wants.” She said S.B. 93 would make it easier to use the software. The difficulty today, Dr. Shepperson explained, was without the “ADV,” the advertisement label, on the subject line, it was difficult to program the software. She said the software available could be installed with most existing e-mail systems.
Mr. Higgins added the criticism of the software on the market was its imperfection and explained if set too high, no e-mail was received; and if too low, still allowed for spam. He said, “If the burden is moved to the sender to put ‘advertisement’ in the e-mail letter, that makes it a lot easier.”
Chairman Amodei asked if S.B. 93 went into effect and he received unsolicited e-mail violating this legislation could he take a civil action against the sender. Mr. Higgins responded, yes, that option was already provided in statute and S.B. 93 increased the existing penalties for these acts. Chairman Amodei clarified the penalty for unsolicited commercial e-mail would increase from $50 to $500 and verified the ultimate objective of S.B. 93 was a civil action against spammers who were in violation of the statute. Mr. Higgins answered affirmatively.
Senator Washington asked Mr. Higgins how difficult a violation was to prove. Mr. Higgins said this legislation differentiates by category what e-mail was considered spam and, if spammers sent it without consent, it was a violation. He explained the difficulty was in locating the spammer, but added, “We have people in the State who could trace e-mail back to the sender.”
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 93.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened the work session portion of the meeting and announced the first consideration was for S.B. 74, and added there was no amendment attached to the bill.
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)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 74.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on S.B. 40, which had an amendment, found in tab A of the work session document (Exhibit F. Original is on file at the Research Library).
SENATE BILL 40: Prohibits discharge of firearm from structure or vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 15-887)
Chairman Amodei said S.B. 40 closed a loophole in existing statutes.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 40.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 186 and reminded the committee of problems with the mechanics of this bill when it was previously introduced. He said there was more information beginning on page 4 of the work session document (Exhibit F).
SENATE BILL 186: Imposes fee upon obligor each time employer withholds income for payment of support for child. (BDR 3-446)
Noel S. Waters, District Attorney, Carson City, came forward with Don Winne, Director, Child Support Enforcement Program, Welfare Division, Office of the Attorney General, and Leland Sullivan, Chief, Child Support Enforcement Program, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources.
Elizabeth MacMenamin, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada, said the concern about S.B. 186 was relative to clear and concise language for employers. She said employers wanted to know information about the money they were withholding from their employees’ pay. This information included where the money was going to go and where it was being sent. She reiterated clarity was the main concern of the retail association.
Chairman Amodei said he anticipated this legislation would be processed today and asked Mr. Sullivan to discuss with the retail association how the terms of S.B 186 would be publicized and how employers would be notified and informed of procedures for withholding income for child support payments. He suggested these discussions take place before presenting S.B. 186 to the Assembly.
Mr. Sullivan said included in information was a copy of the notice to be sent to employers, tab F, Exhibit F. He said there had been some discussion about explaining fees to employers and said there would be a discussion with the retail association. Senator McGinness said the committee had received correspondence from both sides; he added it was beneficial for both the enforcement part and the retail part of withholding child support to communicate with each other.
Chairman Amodei added the problem seemed to be in the mechanics of operation and not the additional fee. He said there was no evidence of disagreement in the statutory concept. Chairman Amodei said it was ready for processing if mechanics could be worked out between parties. He suggested again, the process of withholding be worked out before S.B. 186 went to Assembly side.
Senator Washington wanted to know how the employer was notified and where the money would be going. Chairman Amodei said as soon as retail association was satisfied, the committee would advance to his questions. The chairman then asked R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas, to come forward and explain how the fees withheld would be used.
Mr. Sullivan said the Welfare Department was planning to split the projected revenue, slightly over $1 million, between county offices participating in the program and the State. In tab F, Exhibit F, he said information on the costs of operating the withholding program were included. These included a federally mandated central collection and disbursement unit. He said 34 percent of the automated system of the Welfare Division was covered by General Fund dollars and the fee was intended to lower the amount of General Fund dollars used to operate this part of the Welfare Division. He said the handout listed all offices involved and a breakdown of the costs, tab F, Exhibit F.
Senator Washington asked for clarification the employer was the collector. Mr. Sullivan said of the $5 collected, employers are entitled to $3 for the service and the additional $2 went to the State treasurer for administrative costs.
Senator McGinness said after studying the chart, tab F, Exhibit F, he noticed Churchill County had no amount in the “Estimated Incentives” column and asked, “What are the estimated incentives?” Mr. Sullivan responded incentives were federal funds paid to states based on their performance in different areas of child support issues. If the rating was low, he said, a state might be asked to pay back the incentive money.
Senator Titus voiced concern regarding the administrative charge deducted from every paycheck, stating some people were paid weekly, some bi-monthly and some monthly. She said that portion of the mechanics seemed unfair. She pointed out those who were paid weekly, were most likely working in low‑paying jobs, but, by design of this enforcement plan, more burdens would be placed on them with these fees deducted more often per month.
Mr. Sullivan said currently, the law allows $3 to the employer every time withholding was computed and added pay schedules were not considered in this legislation. He added he was receptive to any equitable changes.
Mr. Graham stated Senator Titus’ scenario was accurate in that it could happen, but experience and history in Clark County was the administrative fee came in only once a month. Senator Titus suggested a “once a month” stipulation be included in the law. Mr. Sullivan said most withholding was done twice a month and mandating a once-a-month payment would reduce the projected revenue by 50 percent. He suggested stipulating in the law that no more than two payments be required during the month.
Senator Titus said, “This does not seem to be a program that’s fair.” She added her concern was not with the administrative fee, but with the fairness of the fees assessed. Mr. Sullivan said the child support enforcement program was one funded with taxpayers’ money. People who came forward and requested some assistance in securing child support and establishing obligations received the support through this withholding plan. He said 95 percent of money received by the child support enforcement program came through the withholding process. Mr. Sullivan added, “When parties get a divorce, if they were making their payments, they would not be coming to the program and asking for assistance to enforce their obligations.”
Mr. Waters said he was in favor of S.B. 186, as worded. He reported the district attorney’s office had a small child support enforcement staff who handled 2 percent of the State’s child support enforcement program or approximately 2600 cases per year. The administrative expenses, he explained, were not offset by the $2.00 proposed fee. Mr. Waters agreed it was unfortunate that some would pay more than others but, if people met their obligations, the service would not be necessary.
Chairman Amodei asked if anyone had a preference as to the number of fee payments, weekly, biweekly, monthly. Mr. Graham announced his wife, Elana L. Hatch, was the chief deputy district attorney in the family support department in the Clark County district attorney’s office. He said Clark County had recently taken over 23,000 cases from the Welfare Division without any additional funds. He described the fee as a “user fee,” because it became a burden to the State to operate the collection of child support. Mr. Sullivan said currently there are 114,000 child support collection cases and, since there were no fees for those requesting child support services, the fees were established to offset the costs of operation.
Chairman Amodei asked if a history of problems making child support payments was required to request this service. Mr. Winne explained income withholding was implemented by request when parties were in court to establish the obligation. He said there were two exceptions: if parties agreed to bypass withholding and the other concerned the best interest of the child. Chairman Amodei reworded his question and asked:
Everybody who gets a divorce in this State does not automatically go to that system now, do they? Don’t you have to have some kind of factual finding by the judge or pattern of non-payment which causes somebody to request this? This is not every divorce in the State that’s coming through this.
Mr. Winne responded, “That is correct.” He said divorcing parties who agreed with support arrangements did not go into this program. Unless, he added, one of the parties requested the service. Chairman Amodei asked, “Is my ability and reliability in paying in question in order to be in the system?” Mr. Graham answered, “I have been told we only have the problem cases.”
Mr. Winne added, in establishment hearings, such as in a question of paternity, where the presumed parent had been paying support, once paternity was established, the record of a good pay record continued to keep that parent out of the system. No fees therefore, he explained, would apply.
Senator Washington asked for affirmation from Mr. Winne about the splitting of fees. He presented a scenario of an established paternity without a marriage, adding child support needed to be withheld. He wanted verification the process began at the district attorney’s office and then the Welfare Division actually processed the disbursement, but split the administrative fee with the district attorney’s office. Mr. Winne affirmed the process was the way Senator Washington described. Senator Washington then verified the issues here were the notification of employer, an increase in fees for the service, and the payroll of the withholding participant.
Senator Titus said despite some questions she had, she believed it was important to keep this program as it was a great service.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 186.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Washington said the concerns raised are legitimate; he suggested a letter addressing these issues be sent to Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman, Assembly Committee on the Judiciary. Chairman Amodei suggested Senator Washington send such correspondence.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Mr. Graham said again, the vast majority of child support enforcement payments were received monthly and stated his wife, Ms. Hatch, would be in Carson City next week. He said Ms. Hatch would meet with committee members who had questions. Chairman Amodei suggested Mr. Graham set up a meeting with Assemblyman Anderson regarding the concerns surrounding S.B. 186.
Chairman Amodei advised committee members to advance to page 6 of the work session document, Exhibit F and refer to Senate Bill 196.
SENATE BILL 196: Enacts Uniform Prudent Investor Act and Uniform Principal and Income Act (1997). (BDR 13-1107)
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 196.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei asked Senator Care to present this bill on the Senate Floor.
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 197 and announced proposed amendments were found on tab K and tab L of the work session document, Exhibit F.
SENATE BILL 197: Repeals, reenacts, reorganizes and revises certain provisions relating to juvenile justice. (BDR 5-633)
Senator Wiener said the amendments to S.B. 197 concerned language in the bill and the amendments reflected corrections to it. She added clarifying language with the words “legally responsible” and “custody or support” addressed the concerns and were acceptable. Chairman Amodei asked about language changes found in tab L, Exhibit F. Senator Wiener said the amendments clarified and made modest but consistent changes in the reorganization of the juvenile justice system. She said the purpose of S.B. 197 was to reorganize the statutes to make them easier to navigate for the public and those who administer the laws.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, JUDGE DAVID R. GAMBLE, AND PROFESSOR KATHERINE KRUSE, AND DO PASS S.B. 197.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus voiced support of Dr. Richard L. Siegel’s proposed amendments in tab L, Exhibit F. But, she added, she did not want to hold up Senator Wiener’s bill and suggested staff could find another, related bill and attach Dr. Siegel’s amendment to it. Chairman Amodei said there was not a problem with Senator Titus’ request.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 199, requested by the Las Vegas Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association and proposed by Senator McGinness.
SENATE BILL 199: Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to firearms. (BDR 15-331)
Senator McGinness said no amendments were proposed. No one came forth in opposition to it.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 199.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care said he wanted the language “knowingly” in S.B. 199, Section 3, subsection 2, added as an amendment to the bill. He explained someone could come into possession of a firearm with an altered serial number and not know it. Senator Washington agreed with Senator Care and commented in discussing this legislation with Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, she suggested the language should be inserted.
Mr. Nadeau added there could be times when a person might possess an altered firearm and not be aware of it and concurred with opinions of others and said he accepted the language amendment. Mr. Nadeau confirmed firearms purchased between private parties did not involve any legal paperwork.
Chairman Amodei asked Senator McGinness if he wished to amend his motion.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND ADDING THE WORD “KNOWINGLY” TO SECTION 3 AND DO PASS S.B. 199.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 204 which had an amendment found in tab M, Exhibit F. He asked Ms. MacDonald to come forward.
SENATE BILL 204: Revises certain provisions governing disclosure of certain information to purchasers, lessees and tenants of real property. (BDR 3‑562)
Ms. McDonald said the proposed amendment was fully supported. She explained it satisfied the two issues of concern to the committee. The first, dealing with the landlord’s disclosure and the timeframe constraints which assures the disclosures would not go on endlessly, clarified intent. She explained once a property had been deemed safe and habitable, the disclosures then would become necessary on a case-by-case basis. Ms. McDonald said a property would be deemed habitable by a licensed hazard or environmental company or a local health department.
Senator Wiener asked about rental and leasing properties. Ms. McDonald said the landlord would be required to make the same disclosures to tenants. Chairman Amodei said the amendment added language to include rental properties and leases.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 204.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Nolan said he supported the motion but voiced concern that the disclosure measure was a step in the right direction, but there was still work to be done on getting owners to decontaminate their properties. He said, even as the bill was written, families could still move into contaminated homes, even with the disclosure.
Ms. McDonald agreed with Senator Nolan’s concerns regarding S.B. 204 and commended Senator Nolan for his suggestion. She concurred this bill was a good starting point. Ms. McDonald said the Clark County Health District was concerned about contaminated properties and many other issues had emerged in discussions. She said Sean Gamble of the Clark County Health District was present and would present some criteria to use in determining habitability of housing.
Sean Gamble, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District, said currently, there were no standards for cleaning up meth labs, adding that statement included any standards set by the United States Environment Protection Agency. Ms. Gamble reported the Clark County Health District was very interested in Nevada becoming the first state to establish standards to clean up meth labs. Currently, she said, there were criteria for other toxins, but nothing for meth labs.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei moved on to S.B. 205 prohibiting impairment of a minor by use of an alcoholic beverages. He said no amendments were added to the bill.
SENATE BILL 205: Prohibits impairment of minor by use of alcoholic beverage. (BDR 15-1030)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 205.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 206 and the three proposed amendments found in tabs N, O, and P of Exhibit F.
SENATE BILL 206: Makes various changes to provisions relating to mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens. (BDR 9-755)
Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, said all three proposed amendments had been reviewed and no problems had surfaced with any of them. Ivan R. “Renny” Ashleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association, concurred with Mr. Holloway. Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors, came forward and said he had not reviewed the proposed amendments, but had no problem to discuss regarding them.
Chairman Amodei then asked Tom Gallagher, who had proposed the amendment if he had anything to add. Mr. Gallagher nonverbally declined. Senator Wiener asked if Mr. Hillerby’s concerns regarding architects were addressed. Mr. Holloway responded these concerns were satisfied with Mr. Gallagher’s amendment.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENTS FOUND IN WORK SESSION DOCUMENT AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 206.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care said one of the proposed amendments was the result of a question he asked and stated he was not soliciting amendments, but sometimes questions lead to changing the content of a bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei requested a return to S.B. 41.
SENATE BILL 41: Revises provisions governing release and use of limited personal information to certain supervisors of personnel involved in security of resort hotels. (BDR 14-110)
Senator Nolan said S.B. 41 was proposed by the sheriffs and chiefs association to allow security guards to request information from law enforcement based on a license plate of a vehicle on their property or other suspicious circumstances. The request was made to allow law enforcement to stay on the street and allow security guards to relay activity that could endanger the public.
Jerry Bussell, director of homeland security in Nevada took an interest in this legislation, Senator Nolan said, because he viewed it as a useful aid to law enforcement. He said Mr. Bussell was currently in Washington, D.C., meeting with U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons on national security matters. He said Mr. Bussell requested he bring the bill to the committee.
Senator Nolan said S.B. 41 was broadly termed, but would provide large resort hotels and smaller motels the ability to contact law enforcement for information about vehicles, warrants, arrests, and other information regarding certain suspicious or questionable people. He explained the criminal repository did not release any specific information about criminal offenses. Senator Nolan said the security supervisors who would be requesting information would have to register with the repository prior to obtaining any information.
Senator Nolan said Mr. Graham, Mr. Olsen, and Mr. Alfredo Alonso had reviewed the amended version of S.B. 41, tab B, Exhibit F, and they found nothing objectionable. He added Mr. Olsen and Mr. Alonso had provided some information regarding the amendment.
Senator Titus voiced opposition to S.B. 41, stating the existing police forces were available and saw no need to turn security guards into police forces. She added the information this legislation seeks did not really relate to terrorism. Senator Titus said:
There is not one of the terrorists in the September 11 activities who were driving a stolen car, wanted for questioning by any law enforcement, who had been arrested in the previous 6 months, or had been convicted of three or more felonies. That is not going to get at any terrorist problem. … We don’t need to be creating these civilian police forces giving them more power than they already have.
Senator Care also opposed S.B. 41, stating he was “very uncomfortable with a cozy relationship where law enforcement exchanges information with only one particular segment of the public.” He explained releasing any information to resorts made it public information and, according to statutes, made it available to the press.
Senator Nolan said he respected the opposing views of his colleagues. He agreed with Senator Titus’ assessment regarding S.B. 41 and its relation to terrorism; however, he said, several of the terrorists were being monitored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He also mentioned the relationship between the FBI and the criminal repository, stating they shared information regularly.
Senator Nolan said in the fight against terrorism he believed it would be people, and not the police officers, who would witness suspicious activity. He described S.B. 41 as an “effort to help prevent an event which would absolutely devastate the economy. … I think it would be helpful, but if the committee elects not to move on this bill, I respect that as well.”
Chairman Amodei announced the committee would now continue and consider S.B. 91 and suggested to Senator Nolan that Mr. Bussell contact committee members and further discuss S.B. 41. No action was taken.
SENATE BILL 91: Removes element of knowledge from crime of selling, giving or furnishing alcoholic beverage to person less than 21 years of age. (BDR 15-319)
Chairman Amodei said a proposed amendment was found at tab C of Exhibit F. He entertained questions or discussion of the bill.
Senator McGinness said the counterfeit aspect of the bill seemed contradictory. He said the bill stated, if a clerk checked an ID as required, and later the identification was found to be false, the clerk was in violation.
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, explained that if the identification provided the clerk was counterfeit and, under the circumstances of a “really bad fake,” a reasonable person would have known or suspected it was counterfeit, so using the “I saw his ID” as a defense was not available.
Senator Care asked Mr. Wilkinson to explain the difference between complete defense and defense. Mr. Wilkinson responded there was no substantive difference.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AS DESCRIBED IN TAB C OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 91.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei asked Senator Care to present S.B. 91 on the Senate Floor. He then opened S.B. 106 submitted by the Nevada Supreme Court. He said the amended version was found at tab D of Exhibit F.
SENATE BILL 106: Authorizes county clerks to impose additional fee for filing of certain actions and responses thereto in district courts to offset portion of costs of providing technology to courts. (BDR 2-614)
Chairman Amodei said page 5 of tab D, Exhibit F, contained the summary of the amended version of the bill delineating the fees followed by a list of current fees. A matrix requested by the committee indicating the other fee bills currently in the legislative system were listed in tab E of Exhibit F.
Senator Wiener recalled the substantial supportive testimony provided by the Nevada Supreme Court and referred to other pending legislation. She asked, “Is this the bill ‘to die for’ from the Supreme Court?” Chairman Amodei said, “Yes.” He added he learned from discussions with the chief justice that S.B. 211 might be withdrawn. Therefore, he announced there were no plans for scheduling a hearing on it. In addition, Chairman Amodei said, interplay between S.B. 162, already processed by this committee, and S.B. 106, now being considered, would likely be subject to further discussion.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE AMENDMENT FOUND IN TAB D OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT AND DO PASS S.B. 106.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on S.B. 194 and asked Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, to explain the amendments to the bill.
SENATE BILL 194: Provides for allocation of utilities by landlord to tenant pursuant to ratio utility billing system. (BDR 10-753)
Mr. Anthony said tab H of Exhibit F contained an amendment submitted by Judy Stokey, Lobbyist, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company, offered at the original hearing. Also, in tab H of Exhibit F was correspondence from Dave Noble, Assistant General Counsel, Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN), stating the burden of addressing complaints would not fall on the PUCN. Mr. Anthony said David Howard, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Multi-Housing Association and Northern Nevada Apartment Association, submitted an amendment found at tab I of Exhibit F. The third amendment, found in tab J of Exhibit F, was submitted by Senator Care and provided for termination by either party.
Chairman Amodei asked Mr. Howard if he had any information to provide the committee on the proposed series of amendments. He responded he did not and said Ms. Stokey was joining him and she had some comments.
Ms. Stokey said she had discussed the proposed amendments with Mr. Howard. She said she also talked with the PUCN regarding this legislation. Ms. Stokey said, “Mr. Howard and I have come to the resolution that we did not feel we needed the government oversight.” She said that portion was eliminated, but the parts concerning their interests were left in the amendment.
Chairman Amodei asked if the bill now had no involvement with the PUCN. Ms Stokey deferred the question to Mr. Noble, adding oversight by the PUCN had been removed from her amendment.
Mr. Noble said currently the PUCN had authority over some sub-metering if included in the tariffs, but there was no sub-metering between landlord and tenants. He said removal of the provision offered by Nevada Power alleviated the PUCN of the responsibility of reviewing all complaints.
After Chairman Amodei questioned Ms. Stokey and Senator Care and found there was work remaining to be done on the bill, he closed the hearing on S.B. 194 and the work session.
Chairman Amodei announced several bill draft requests (BDRs) needed to be introduced and began with BDR 15-438.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-438: Makes various changes concerning technological crimes. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 300.)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-438.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Next on the agenda was introduction of BDR 16-433, Chairman Amodei announced.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 16-433: Prohibiting inmates in prisons, detention centers or in other forms of lawful custody from manufacturing or possessing tools or devices used to escape from lawful custody. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 299.)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-433.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei opened discussion on Bill Draft Request 7-987.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 7-987: Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to business. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 298.)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 7-987.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei asked if there was any other business. He adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann Bednarski,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: