Douglas County manager Jim Nichols leaves after 16 months

Jim Nichols has left Douglas  County after 16 months as the manager. Photo/Provided


By Kathryn Reed

Jim Nichols is no longer at the helm of Douglas County.

He has been out on paid leave since Jan. 12 and it goes through Jan. 29. After that time he will no longer be affiliated with the county.

“It was a mutual agreement,” Commissioner Nancy McDermid told Lake Tahoe News. “We are in good shape. This is in the best interest of everybody.”

What led to the agreed upon separation is not being disclosed by county officials, and with Nichols gone he can’t speak for himself.

Nichols had been the county manager since September 2014. He was one of 72 applicants for the job that was vacated by Steve Mokrohisky. Prior to the Douglas job Nichols was assistant city manager for Midland, Texas.

Melissa Blosser, spokeswoman for the county, told Lake Tahoe News she did not believe Nichols had another job lined up.

When he started he was making $172,000 a year. The separation agreement has not been released.

The commissioners at the Jan. 21 meeting at Stateline are expected to finalize the agreement. At that meeting the board will also discuss an interim replacement. For now Christine Vuletich, assistant county manager, is in charge.

GOVERNOR SANDOVAL APPOINTS THOMAS GREGORY TO NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

Tom GregoryGovernor Brian Sandoval announced the appointment of Thomas Wayne Gregory of Genoa to the Ninth Judicial District Court vacancy. Gregory will replace Nevada Appeals Court Judge Michael Gibbons, an inaugural appointee to the newly created Nevada Court of Appeals. The selection was made following interviews with the three finalists who were recommended by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection.

“Thomas Gregory has established himself as a seasoned and well respected member of the legal community in northern Nevada. His commitment to the rule of law, reputation for integrity, and knowledge of Nevada law give me the confidence that he will be an outstanding judge,” said Governor Brian Sandoval.

A native Nevadan, Thomas Gregory graduated from Douglas High School. He earned a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California and his Juris Doctorate Degree from the McGeorge School of Law in 1994.

Following law school, Gregory was admitted to the Nevada State Bar and served as a law clerk for the Ninth Judicial District Court. He then worked for the Nevada State Public Defender’s Office in Carson City. Gregory’s experience also includes time as a Deputy District Attorney in White Pine County and Washoe County District Attorney’s Office. In 2003, Gregory opened a private practice where he gained experience in family law, civil law, and the juvenile justice system.

He returned to public service in 2007 to work as a Deputy District Attorney in Douglas County. He currently serves as the Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Criminal Division of the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office.

Mr. Gregory resides in Genoa, NV with his wife and daughters. He is an active member of his community.

###

Corrupt Carson City DA Neil Rombardo and his butt-buddy Mark Krueger denied judgeship in Douglas County!!!

Three Finalists Selected For Opening In Ninth Judicial District

neil-rombardo1The Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection today named three nominees to fill an open seat in the Ninth Judicial District Court, Department 2, made vacant by the selection of Judge Michael Gibbons to the Nevada Court of Appeals.

The nominees were selected following interviews by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection February 24 and 25 in Carson City. The names and applications of the finalists have been sent to Governor Brian Sandoval, who will appoint a new judge from the list.

The Commission’s three nominees for the open seat, in alphabetical order, are:

  • Thomas W. Gregory, 45, Genoa, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office
  • Douglas R. Rands, 56, Reno, Rands, South and Gardner
  • David F. Sarnowski, 62, Carson City, Carson City Justice and Municipal Court

A total of 13 attorneys submitted applications for the vacancy. Applicants had to be Nevada attorneys with two years of residency and 10 years of legal experience.

Selection Process Was Open To The Public

As has been the rule since 2007, the Commission’s interviews were open to the public. A public comment period was provided to the public at the start of  the interview schedule and before the deliberations and voting on the selection of the nominees.mark-krueger-is-corrupt

In selecting the nominees, the Commission considered the applicants’ interviews along with information in comprehensive applications about education, law practice, business involvement, community involvement, and professional and personal conduct.  The Commission also considered letters of reference and public statements during the interview process.

The applications of the nominees, with the exceptions of medical records and personal identification information, are available on the Supreme Court of Nevada website at:http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/judicialselection.
Commission On Judicial Selection

The Commission on Judicial Selection is composed of 7 permanent members – the Supreme Court Chief Justice, three non-attorneys appointed by the Governor and three attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Nevada.  Neither the Governor nor the Bar may appoint more than two permanent members from the same political party, and cannot appoint two members from the same county.

For District Court vacancies, two temporary members are appointed from the judicial district where the vacancy occurs – a non-attorney by the Governor and an attorney by the State Bar – bringing the Commission membership to nine.

The Commission members are:

  • Supreme Court Chief Justice James W. Hardesty, Chair.
  • Valerie Cooney, Carson City, past executive director of Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevada (State Bar appointee)
  • Jeffrey Gilbert, Henderson, veteran gaming executive (Governor appointee)
  • Jesse Gutierrez, Sparks, former executive director of Nevada Hispanic Services (Governor appointee)
  • Gregory Kamer, Las Vegas, with Kamer Zucker Abbott (State Bar appointee)
  • Jasmine Mehta, Carson City, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (State Bar appointee)
  • Leslie M. Williams, Schurz, Administrative Assistant for Washoe County Senior Services (Governor appointee)
  • Justina Alyce Caviglia, Minden, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office, (Temporary member)
  • Judy Keele, Gardnerville (Temporary member)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

State Court Administrator Robin Sweet
Administrative Office of the Courts
775-684-1717

 

Genoa resident only Douglas attorney among judge finalists

Tom Gregory

Tom Gregory

Carson City, Nev. — Only one Douglas County resident made the final cut in the search for Judge Michael Gibbons’ replacement on Wednesday.

Douglas County prosecutor Tom Gregory, 45, was selected by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection, along with Reno resident Douglas Rands and Carson City resident David Sarnowski.

All three names will go to Gov. Brian Sandoval, who will make the final decision.

There is no requirement that the appointee live in Douglas County, but if someone out of the county is selected, they must move here.

A total of 13 attorneys submitted applications for the vacancy. Applicants had to be Nevada attorneys with two years of residency and 10 years of legal experience.

The Commission’s interviews were open to the public. A public comment period was provided at the start of the interview schedule and before the deliberations and voting on the selection of the nominees.

In selecting the nominees, the commission considered the applicants’ interviews along with information in comprehensive applications about education, law practice, business involvement, community involvement, and professional and personal conduct. The commission also considered letters of reference and public statements during the interview process.

The applications of the nominees, with the exceptions of medical records and personal identification information, are available on the Supreme Court of Nevada website at:http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/judicialselection.

The commission is composed of seven permanent members – the Supreme Court Chief Justice, three nonattorneys appointed by the governor and three attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Nevada.

Neither the Governor nor the Bar may appoint more than two permanent members from the same political party, and cannot appoint two members from the same county.

For District Court vacancies, two temporary members are appointed from the judicial district where the vacancy occurs – a nonattorney by the governor and an attorney by the State Bar – bringing the Commission membership to nine.

The Commission members are:

Supreme Court Chief Justice James W. Hardesty, Chair.

Valerie Cooney, Carson City, past executive director of Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevada (State Bar appointee)

Jeffrey Gilbert, Henderson, veteran gaming executive (Governor appointee)

Jesse Gutierrez, Sparks, former executive director of Nevada Hispanic Services (Governor appointee)

Gregory Kamer, Las Vegas, with Kamer Zucker Abbott (State Bar appointee)

Jasmine Mehta, Carson City, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (State Bar appointee)

Leslie M. Williams, Schurz, Administrative Assistant for Washoe County Senior Services (Governor appointee)

Justina Alyce Caviglia, Minden, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office, (Temporary member)

Judy Keele, Gardnerville (Temporary member)

Finalist Biographies

Thomas W. Gregory, 45, has worked for the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office since January 2007. He was promoted to chief deputy district attorney in the criminal division in 2009.

During 2014, Gregory processed three murder cases, including the Tatiana Leibel murder trial, which resulted in a conviction earlier this month. In his application, he said he developed a protocol for telephonic search warrants.

Before coming to the district attorney’s office, Gregory, a native Nevadan, was in private practice for four years in Reno. He served as a deputy district attorney in the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office from 1996 to 2003. He also served in the White Pine County District Attorney’s Office.

Gregory clerked for district judges Tom Perkins and Gibbons.

He is a 1987 graduate of Douglas High School and a 1991 graduate of the University of the Pacific. He graduated from McGeorge School of Law in 1994. During law school he worked for Noel Manoukian his first summer and for U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben in the second.

Gregory said arguing the case of Meisler v. State was one of the most enjoyable in his career.

He is married to attorney Cynthea Gregory, who is in the civil division of the District Attorney’s Office. His parents are Minden residents Darlene and Jerry Gregory.

Douglas R. Rands, 56, has been a partner in the law firm Rands, South and Gardner for the past 17 years. He is a 26-year Nevada resident.

He had previously worked for the law firm Perry and Spann for nine years. He left to form his own firm.

He graduated from Union Endicott High School in New York in 1977. He received a bachelor’s degree in zoology from Brigham Young University in 1984. He graduated from J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University in the top third of his class in 1987.

He was admitted to the state bars of Nevada and Utah in 1988.

According to his application, 90 percent of his litigation over the past five years has been civil.

He listed Palmer v. Del Webb’s High Sierra as his most significant case, which was his first argument before the Nevada Supreme Court. It was an appeal of a decision rendered by Douglas County District Judge Norm Robison, who held the seat Rands is now seeking.

In his statement, Rands said his wife is looking forward to moving to Douglas County.

David F. Sarnowski, 62, is not currently practicing law, but serves as a part-time justice of the peace and municipal court judge in Carson City.

Sarnowski served as executive director of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline and the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics for 11 years, retiring in 2013 after 32 years of state service. He’d served with the Nevada Attorney General’s office for 18 years. He was chief deputy attorney general of the criminal division until 2002.

He is a native Nevadan and a 1970 graduate of Mineral County High School. He graduated in 1974 with a bachelor’s degree in history from Santa Clara University in California. He received his law degree in 1981 from Santa Clara University Law School.

He served as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and the Nevada Army National Guard retiring after 30 years with the rank of colonel. Sarnowski was admitted to the state

He received a master’s degree in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College in 2000. He also served as the commander of the Capitol American Legion Post for three years.

His most significant case was Robert Michenfelder v. Sumner before the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the mid-1980s.

Sarnowski defended Nevada Department of Prisons employees in the case.

Meet Kathy Lewis – The ninth person to serve as Douglas County clerk-treasurer in the last 127 years took the oath of office on Thursday

kathy lewis

County Clerk/Treasurer Kathy Lewis shakes Justice of the Peace Tom Perkins’ hand after her swearing in Thursday in Minden.

The ninth person to serve as Douglas County clerk-treasurer in the last 127 years took the oath of office on Thursday.

Former County Budget Officer Kathy Lewis officially became clerk-treasurer on Thursday after East Fork Justice of the Peace Tom Perkins administered the oath.

Lewis was selected from a field of 10 candidates and three finalists by Douglas County commissioners on Feb. 5.

The offices of clerk and treasurer were combined by Douglas County in 1888. As clerk, Lewis is the county’s chief elections officer. The office also keeps the county’s official minutes and records. The treasurer’s office is responsible for tracking the county’s finances.

Because she was appointed, she will face election in 2016 and again in 2018, with the rest of the county officers.

Lewis is a Republican, and would have to file for office in March 2016, unless the Legislature alters the primary schedule this session. Because the office is partisan and due to Douglas County’s large Republican majority, there’s a possibility her first election will be settled in the primary.

A Minden resident, Lewis, 43, has worked for the county for 13 years, and has lived in Douglas County for 17 years. She received her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Weber State in Utah. She holds a CPA license.

She takes over an office that has been vacant since Clerk-Treasurer Ted Thran resigned on Sept. 1, 2014. Thran succeeded Barbara Griffin who served for 22 years before resigning in 2008.

 

JOB OPENING: Applications for appointment to former District Judge Michael Gibbons’ seat in Douglas County, Nevada

Applications for appointment to former District Judge Michael Gibbons’ seat will be accepted through Jan. 28.

Gibbons was appointed to the new Nevada appellate court, which started work this week.

Retired District Judge Dave Gamble is filling for Gamble until a new judge is appointed.

The appointment process is open to all Nevada attorneys with 10 years of legal experience, including two years of experience in Nevada.

Applications may be submitted to the AOC in Carson City or Las Vegas according to application instructions. The applications for these vacancies are available at: http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/judicialselection.

Applicants must submit a hard copy of a completed application to the Administrative Office of the Courts by 5 p.m. on Jan. 28. The application must specify the open seat sought by the applicant. Under rule amendments recently approved by the Commission, applications that are filed late or are incomplete will be rejected.

Interviews to fill the Minden vacancy are tentatively scheduled for the week of Feb. 23, at the Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City, and will be open to the public.

The public will be able to view the applications, with the exceptions of medical records and personal identification information, on the Supreme Court website within a day or two following the application deadline. Also remaining confidential will be the letters of comment solicited about the candidates, along with letters of reference to ensure the authors can be candid.

Douglas County water rate drama heating up

By Kathryn Reed

STATELINE – Mark Twain was on to something when he said, “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over.”

And when it comes to Douglas County, the fighting has been going on for years.

“I’m sure that I speak not only for myself when I say that if we are expected to pay for the most expensive little water system on the lake, then we expect something in return. We want to have a say in how our money is spent,” Jim Wire told the county commissioners at the Dec. 18 meeting. “What we expect is more accountability and more control. I propose that you establish a water advisory board with more power.”

Ratepayers are furious about having to continually pay exorbitant prices for water, not get adequate service and being left with an uneasy feeling about where all of their money has gone. The county has been operating the water systems for 25 years, but takes no responsibility for why things are the way they are and ratepayers feel they are being blamed for problems they did not create.

Resident Dana Tibbetts pointed out that Skyland is paying $100 less a month for water.

“Why?” she asked. “They are using the same water, the same pumps and getting the same service.”

No one answered her question.

No matter how many customers of the Cave Rock/Uppaway Water System spoke, the commissioners were resolved to vote for the staff’s recommendation on that and the Skyland Water System rate structures.

The vote was 4-1 on the Cave Rock plan, with Commissioner Barry Penzel dissenting. He wanted an advisory board. It was a 5-0 vote for Skyland.

Cave Rock/Uppaway customers will see rates drop from $202.46 per month to $172.68 in fiscal year 2015 and rise to $195.37 the following year.

In Skyland the monthly water bill for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 will drop by nearly 26 percent to $84.56.

While a couple people spoke against the Skyland proposal, most of the testimony was against the Cave Rock/Uppaway plan.

Most ratepayers anywhere would welcome a drop in rates. But when the reality is rates are projected to be $300 month for Cave Rock in the coming years, the ratepayers want a solution so that bill is not equivalent to their property tax.

They were practically begging the commissioners up to come with a solution, as well as to let them have a seat at the table for a resolution. They got neither.

John McCall, after the meeting, told Lake Tahoe News that residents hired an engineer years ago to come up with a plan. It reportedly would have cost one-third of what the county implemented and would have been half paid for at this point.

Residents want commissioners to listen to them – not just county staff because they believe staff isn’t relaying the whole story.

Water rates have been on commission agendas for years. The problem at the lake is that there are multiple agencies with their own budgets, so the cost of maintenance and other items is greater than it would be if expenses were shared with a larger pool of customers.

In the spring commissioners agreed to consolidate the lake water districts. But that unraveled when others protested in having to pay for debt that wasn’t theirs.

Commissioners agree a long-term solution needs to be created. Commissioner Nancy McDermid believes meters would be one solution – at least to get people to pay for what they use.

But there will always be fixed costs no matter how much one uses so the base rate could still be high.

Source: http://www.laketahoenews.net/2014/12/douglas-county-water-rate-drama-heating-up/

Gyll: ‘The Douglas County Sheriff department is in a tailspin’

Source: http://www.laketahoenews.net/2014/04/gyll-department-tailspin/


Michael T. Gyll

Publisher’s note: Lake Tahoe News asked the three Douglas County sheriff’s candidates a series of questions. The responses are running in the order they were received. All but one question is the same.

Name: Michael T. Gyll

Age: 44

Occupation: Retired Nevada state police officer, Nevada Department of Public Safety, investigation division, headquarters commander.

What groups, nonprofits, other civic involvement are you part of outside of work?: Douglas County Parks and Recreation coach, Carson Valley Little League, National Rifle Association, Veterans Administration.

In Tahoe during the morning commute there are often multiple deputies out on Highway 50. How is enforcing speed the best use of limited resources?: Having patrols on the streets during commute hours is not just about enforcing speed limits. Officer presence is a deterrent. Those citizens who would not normally drive erratically, or push their driving abilities and their vehicle’s abilities are much more likely to do so during commute hours due to being late for work or that always important meeting. When citizens drive beyond their ability they become a serious hazard to those who have planned their day accordingly. During commute hours vehicle crimes are not the only crimes that occur. Having deputies patrolling the highways also puts them in areas which would reduce response time to calls for service because they are already mobile and in the area.

When the South Shore is busy rental units often have so many vehicles they spillover onto the streets to create a problem for locals and pose a safety issue. Currently, nothing is being done about this issue. What do you think should be done to address this ongoing issue?: Discussion/awareness town hall meeting with property managers and/or owners about the issue. Having grown up in South Lake Tahoe I understand the need for tourism and the effects it has on “locals” daily routines and lifestyles. The challenge is this; how do we create an environment that is safe and effective for visitors and locals while continuing to thrive as a tourist destination. When emergency response is hampered because of this issue, immediate and swift response should occur. If it is a nuisance issue, then discussion, time and understanding will have to be sought by all parties involved. If a solution or compromise is not realized then enforcement should take place. But all attempts to remedy the situation should be attempted prior to contacting law enforcement. To have law enforcement respond to non-emergency issues pertaining to parking would not be the “best use of limited resources.”

Do you believe it’s better for the head of a law enforcement agency to come from inside or outside the department? Why?: There are pros and cons to both. Pros could be the fact that the person has intimate knowledge of the department’s capabilities, personnel issues, department resources, etc. The cons are a high potential for “good ol boy” or nepotism scenarios. This is always an issue with smaller departments. There is also the issue of “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” attitude. This attitude comes from individuals who have no vision for the department or community. Just because something works, does that mean it’s the right or only way of conducting business? No. Just because it has been working for the last 16 years does that mean it works for law enforcement in the 21st century? No. Lack of vision and a status quo attitude will not survive in the arena that current issues have with law enforcement. An insider that lacks vision will cause a department to fall further and further behind. An outsider will bring new perspective, a fresh set of eyes and enhance the department’s capabilities. You have a lot of qualified personnel within these types of departments that find it hard to advance because of the negative issues described. An outsider will eliminate roadblocks to a qualified person’s advancement by having that fresh perspective.

Why do you want to be sheriff?: I believe in this community and love the county I reside in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that call Douglas County home and have their business here as well. So when I retired from the state of Nevada, I became more active with those acquaintances and was overwhelmed with the lack of trust they had in their sheriff’s department. Most sited bad experiences with the administration. As time went on, discussions were had about what can be done, then it happened, they started asking me about the possibility of running for sheriff. I continually dismissed their advances until one night at the father-daughter dance I found myself surrounded. I wasn’t able to dance a single dance with my daughter. That night I thought about what had happened and wondered if there was any thing I could really do. I discussed it with my family, weighing the pros and cons and we decided that since we had so many friends at the sheriff’s department and in the communities that my running for sheriff might be the right thing to. It’s our community, our friends, our children’s future, why not be the loyal resident and invest in our community? That’s when I knew it was right and just and that this is what is needed for all.

Why should someone vote for you over someone else?: I have the training, experience and knowledge to move the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department forward in a new direction. With a fresh set of eyes and a new perspective, the sheriff’s department will find harmony with the changing demographics Douglas County is experiencing. For far too long the sheriff’s department has been steered into the 21st century with 20th century administrative views. With my experience, I can offer the deputies an opportunity to enhance their skills and abilities far beyond their current allowable limits. As for the citizens and communities that make up Douglas County and are served by the sheriff’s department, I offer strength and vision as an administrator that has not been realized by an administrator for the sheriff’s department in at least 16 years. I started my career as a state trooper, through training, hard work and determination, I was promoted and transferred to the investigation division. I have conducted and/ or supervised many investigations which involve, but are not limited to: illegal/ illicit dangerous drug crimes, officer involved shootings, murder/ homicide, suicide, crimes against children and the elderly, and crimes against public trust. I have supervised sworn police officers and civilian employees, I have had the privilege of hiring well-qualified personnel, and relieving personnel of their duties using progressives steps in discipline which had included termination of service. I have the experience, knowledge and loyalty that the citizens of Douglas County deserve.

What is your stand on medical marijuana?: I believe that the path has been paved for the formal acknowledgment that medical/medicinal marijuana is here to stay. I believe the actual use of marijuana for the treatment of aches and pains is not justified. But I do believe the use of marijuana to enhance appetite and healing for cancer patients is warranted. If it is proven to help with treatment and it was my loved one, I would condone its use.

What kind of enforcement issue would that present for the department?: Medical marijuana is currently lawful in the state of Nevada. Enforcement is already being addressed and implemented for some time.

What do you believe is needed for a good relationship between the sheriff’s department and county commissioners?: Open door access and complete transparency. There should not be administrative secrets between the sheriff and county commissioners. We should all be working to the same common goal, safety for our citizens and visitors to Douglas County. This can be achieved by open and frank communication. Barriers such as egos and personal agendas have no place in the Sheriffs administration.

If the commissioners cut your budget by 10 percent, what program or people would you cut? Please be specific.: None. First of all a 10 percent budget cut is unrealistic. If any cuts to the budget are made, I would reallocate resources, seek additional funding through OCJA and ensure that prevention, enforcement and presence in not diminished.

What is your relationship with businesses at Lake Tahoe that work with the sheriff’s department on various events? If anything, what would you consider changing?: I would have to decline this answer due to the fact venues are always changing and effecting Lake Tahoe differently each and every time. I must take a fluid stance and let it be known that every venue in Douglas County will be carefully scrutinized to ensure the safety of all who attend and/ or participate.

The sheriff’s department has always refused to make the New Year’s Eve celebration at Stateline a sanctioned or permitted event. The casinos have asked for this and have wanted to expand the festivities, but DCSO says no. Do you believe this is a good policy? Why or why not? And how would you address it?: For those of us who remember the ’80s and ’90s celebrations, I believe New Year’s should have been a sanctioned or permitted event. But today’s attendance numbers and the economy the way it is, it would be difficult to justify the additional expenses and personnel costs. If the casinos wanted to expand, where would they expand to? I think the enhanced outdoor venues during spring, summer and fall should give county commissioners an excellent perspective as to what would one additional venue really matter. If the county commissioners and the residents want to move forward and look at sanctioning or permitting the event, then I to would be willing to readdress the issue. If you stand back and watch, a lot of what happens at Lake Tahoe should be addressed during the 4th of July arguments that are up coming.

The sheriff is a political position, something you don’t have experience with as a trooper with the NHP. What do you see as your biggest challenge and how will you overcome it?: First of all, I started my law enforcement career as a state trooper employed by the Nevada Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol Division. After working hard to attain all that I could as a state trooper, I promoted to the rank of detective and was transferred to the investigation division which is still under the Nevada Department of Public Safety. After a time of working undercover as a narcotics detective, I was promoted to sergeant and was the administrative and operational supervisor. I was charged with the coordination of a local task force which consisted of state detectives, detectives from three counties, agents from DEA, and agents from the Office of the Military and a traveling narcotic task force which was staffed with state detectives and assisted any of the 17 counties in the state of Nevada with trouble areas that a local detective or team would be unable to accomplish enforcement activities. I was responsible for the budgets, grants, training, equipping and evaluation of all personnel and responsible for all operational issues. I was then promoted to lieutenant and headquarters commander for the investigation division. I directly supervised two multi-agency task forces, the major crimes unit, the polygraph examiners unit, the Nevada Threat Analysis Center, administrative personnel assigned to headquarters, NTAC and Fallon. I was responsible for statewide budget as it pertained to training, travel, vehicle procurement, supply procurement, uniforms, salaries, fringe benefits and emergency deployments and/ or events such as air race crashes, floods, fires, active shooter incidents or any requests from other federal, state, local or municipal law enforcement agencies. So I know I have the experience, training, knowledge, demeanor and loyalty it takes to be the sheriff of Douglas County. I know I have the skills and abilities to perform those duties of the Douglas County sheriff. I have the political experience and more to be a very effective Douglas County sheriff. Task forces and threat analysis centers are very political and are watched closely from the executive branch of Nevada government.

Douglas County sheriff’s deputies make less than South Lake Tahoe police officers and El Dorado County sheriff’s deputies. Does this hamper efforts to recruit employees? Do you believe deputies should be paid more? Why or why not? If yes, how would you go about getting them more money?: Of course I believe deputies should be paid more. When you are looking for a professional position as a deputy pay is only one part of the deciding factor to work or don’t work for a specific agency. If all you wanted was higher wages, you would move to Las Vegas and work for Metro or Henderson. But if you want quality of life for you and your family and know that you are being paid well for the work you are doing and can wake every morning, look out your windows and see the majesty in front you being the Sierra Nevada, Carson Valley and Lake Tahoe, then the reduced pay is worth it. When elected sheriff I will of course lobby the county commissioners for better pay and work with the association to ensure my employees don’t fall further behind in regards to pay and benefits. As for your comparisons, SLTPD and EDSO, it’s apples and oranges, California and Nevada, but when you compare salaries to other Northern Nevada counties, Douglas County deputy wages are comparable.

What is lacking in the department right now in terms of personnel or equipment or other resources? How would you address those needs?: Douglas County Sheriff’s Department with regards to personnel and equipment is as always lacking personnel. Equipment is always attainable, but qualified applicants are not. The department could stand to increase its number of sworn personnel, but that all hinges on the economy and county commissioners. As for other resources, well, we are professional law enforcement officers, we always want the newest and greatest tools to perform our duties, and wish we had resources available to us like major metropolitan police departments.

What do you think is the biggest issue facing Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and how do you plan to resolve it?: Morale. The department is in a tailspin and the administration thinks it is fine so long as the administration can keep quiet the masses. The first issue I will broach is the morale issue and I will do this using peer and supervisor evaluation and review methods. If I was to start at the top, all I might get is smoke and mirrors and never get the core of the problem. I have found through my years of supervisory experience that most often the view of a suspected problem is less hazy and very real if you look at it from the line level personnel perspective. This goes along with my “new perspective, fresh set of eyes” platform. It’s time that deputies are again proud of not only the profession they have chosen, but the department they have chosen to work for.

What is one do-over you would like to have in terms of a professional decision you have made?: I would have become a fireman.

Tell us something about yourself that people might not already know?: I was raised between Lake Tahoe and Placerville. My father was an El Dorado County deputy sheriff and my mother worked for the casinos. I went to Meyers Elementary, Sierra House Elementary, Pinewood Elementary, and graduated from South Tahoe High School.

 

Continue reading

TY Robben AKA “Top Ramen” Free At Last – All charges dropped

Special Prosecutor Douglas Co. DA Mark Jackson drops trumped up charges against Ty Robben accused of murder-for-hire plot against Corrupt Carson City judge John Tatro and other FALSE LIBEL/SLANDER/STALKING CHARGES filed by Judge Tatro 

My story Ty Robben v Carson City is very similar to this movie – Flash of Genius Trailer

 

hit man contract out for Judge Tatro

jp tatro ruthless and toothless

mountain democrat

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Charges dropped: DA protester out of prison

By 
From page A1 | April 18, 2014 | 3 Comments

A man known for protesting the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office and charged with soliciting the murder of a judge in Nevada has been released from prison and his charges dismissed.

South Lake Tahoe resident Ty Robben was released last week after Douglas County, Nev., District Attorney Mark Jackson dismissed the solicitation of murder charge, along with a charge of criminal libel — a charge that is not used in California.

Both the criminal libel and solicitation of murder charge concerned Judge John Tatro, Robben said. But, Robben told the Mountain Democrat, he was exercising his 1st Amendment rights for the first charge, and he was not soliciting anything on the second charge. Rather, another prisoner — while Robben, known as “Top Ramen” while incarcerated on the libel charge — propositioned him with a $5,000 “roofing job,” Robben said.

Jackson confirmed he dismissed the charges due to lack of evidence and unlikelihood of conviction. He also noted that the Carson City, Nev., DA’s Office was originally on the case, but was taken off due to having been named in a federal lawsuit Robben filed against them.

Robben credits his faith with seeing him through his time in prison. “My faith in the Lord got me through the darkest period in my life and I pray that I can start to forgive these people for the unforgivable acts of government retaliation using the criminal justice system after I had filed a federal lawsuit in Reno two weeks before I was arrested in California.”

See original story here:

http://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/charges-dropped-da-protester-out-of-prison/

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | comments

Fran DuchampApril 17, 2014 – 1:52 pm
Ty is this the end of this for you…for this subject? Are you moving on? Or are you still going forward with the federal lawsuit?

Reply

Carson City District Attorney Mark Krueger

Carson City District Attorney Mark Krueger

Tahoe Tribune story on Ty Robben

All charges against South Tahoe resident Ty Robben have now been dropped in jailhouse HIT MAN to kill corrupt Carson City Judge Tatro and Slander/Libel/Internet Stalking

Geoff Dornan
gdornan@nevadaappeal.com

Ty Robben mug shot

Ty Robben mug shot

Douglas County District Attorney Mark Jackson, the special prosecutor named to handle the cases, previously dismissed libel and harassment charges.

He served notice Thursday that he was dropping the charge Ty Robben AKA “Top Ramen” (new ‘jail name’ obtained at the Carson City jailhouse since it sounds like his name) tried to hire a hit man to kill Justice of the Peace John Tatro.

Ty Robben AKA “Top Ramen” (new name obtained at the Carson City jailhouse since it sounds like his name)

Mark Jackson was brought in after the Carson City DA’s office was disqualified from handling the case.

“Based on a full and complete review of all the evidence and the existing constitutional, statutory and case law, I filed a notice of dismissal today in the Carson Township Justice Court,” Jackson said in a statement.

He said that means Robben’s $50,000 bail has been lifted, and all pending charges against him have been dismissed.

“It is my understanding that Mr. Robben is in the process of being released from the Carson City Jail,” Jackson said.

Robben stopped by the Tahoe Daily Tribune Friday and said he was hoping to restore his life and family. He thanked his attorneys for their work to get him released.

“Thank you to Mark Jackson for standing up and supporting the U.S. Constitution,” Robben said.

Douglas Co. Nevada DA Mark Jackson

Douglas Co. Nevada DA Mark Jackson

Two weeks ago, Jackson dismissed the other case against Robben, which accused him of libel and stalking and two counts of attempting to intimidate Tatro and his family.

He did so stating that Nevada’s libel law was “unconstitutionally vague.” The stalking charge, he said, simply didn’t have enough evidence to support it.

Robben has been battling the state and criminal justice system since he was terminated by the Taxation Department.

He was angry with Tatro for his conviction on charges of disorderly conduct centered on his attempt to — allegedly — serve papers on behalf of a friend on then-NDOT Director Susan Martinovich.

Robben said Judge Tatro and Assistant DA Mark “Freddie” Krueger must resign and criminal charges must be filed against Judge Tatro  for filing a false report against me!Judge Tatro Corrupt

Thank you Douglas County DA Mark Jackson for respecting the US Constitution and my 1st & 14th Amendment rights in these matters and the honor to respect the law(s) and look at the facts unbiased.

Tatro claimed Robben was criminal libel for a posting found here: https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/the-shooter-of-judge-tatros-door-found-judge-tatro-caught-in-sex-triangle-revenge-scandal/

Robben also posted a story and photos of an alleged requirement for Judge Tatro to take a breathalyzer test prior to taking the bench everyday.

Judge John Tatro Carson City DUI, breathalyzer test?

Judge John Tatro Carson City DUI, breathalyzer test?

Judge John Tatro Carson City DUI, breathalyzer test?

Judge John Tatro Carson City DUI, breathalyzer test?

Special thanks Attorney  Jarrod Hickman and to the entire State of Nevada Public Defenders office including the folks behind the scenes answering my numerous phone calls from jail.

Are you aware of the ruling in Times v. Sullivan (1964) which states this, in part:

As Americans we have a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on Public Issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. And that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Continue reading

Nevada Highway Patrol – Northern Command Rural Dispatch Live Audio Feed/Scanner

NHP scanner

ImageNevada Highway Patrol – Northern Command Rural Dispatch Live Audio Feed: http://streema.com/radios/play/50754

Dick Gammick agrees with Mike Weston, the NHP edited dash cam video and Mr. Weston’s case/conviction should be vacated and expunged as stipulated by Washoe DA Dick Gammick.

JP Scott Pearson “Obstruction of Justice”Is Judge Scott Pearson obstructing justice by being the judge, jury and prosecutor to abuse his desecration in denying Mr. Weston justice after 8 years of fighting this corruption.

https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/mike-weston-to-finally-get-his-day-in-court-july-8th-2013/

RICO Lawsuit against NHP about drug-sniffing dog programImage

RENO, Nev. (KRNV & MyNews4.com) – Attorney Kenneth McKenna has filed a Federal Lawsuit on behalf of Nevada Highway Patrol Troopers and a retired Sergeant of Police who in part created and established the K-9 Drug Interdiction Unit for the Nevada Highway Patrol.

They are suing the Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol, the City of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and individual members of the Highway Patrol Command Staff and Officers of the Las Vegas Police Department in a 103-page complaint filed in the United States District Court of Nevada.

The Plaintiffs are alleging that the Command Staff of the Nevada Highway Patrol intentionally destroyed the K-9 program.  They claim the program had been instrumental in “getting drugs off Nevada Highways and achieving seizures in the multi-millions of dollars to the benefit of the State of Nevada’s revenues”. Continue reading

Sen. James Settelmeyer wife Sherese Settelmeyer receives DAS house arrest in DUI case

four times the legal limit of alcohol in her system.

Sherese SettelmeyerSherese Settelmeyer, 48, pleaded guilty Wednesday to a second charge of driving under the influence, after her arrest for driving with james settelmeyerfour times the legal limit of alcohol in her system.

She was sentenced to 100 days in Douglas County Jail with 90 days suspended for two years. Settelmeyer, the wife of state Sen. James Settelmeyer, elected to serve 20 days of house arrest at her own expense of $15 a day in lieu of jail. She was fined $1,200 and will pay $40 a month supervision fees. She was arrested for suspicion of drunk driving June 28 after deputies arrested her.

Ironicly her husband Sen. James Settelmeyer passes SB101 that went into effect this year that places Sherese Settelmeyer on Department of Alternative Sentencing. See that story here https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nevada-department-of-alternative-sentencing-did-not-have-legal-jurisdiction-over-pre-trial-defendants-prior-to-july-2013-if-you-were-under-das-supervision-you-may-have-legal-recourse-to-sue/

Nevada Department of Alternative Sentencing did not have legal jurisdiction over Pre-Trial Defendants prior to July 2013 If you were under DAS supervision, you may have legal recourse to sue

department of alternative sentencing

WTF NevadaAttention – Were you ever incarcerated in the Carson City jail? Was your food poisoned? Mine was and I posed a story that has gone viral with other people also claiming their food and water was tainted.  This happened to people in the ‘Hole’ and solitary confinement. This story is one of the biggest Facebook stories we’ve written with 420 Facebook like and referrals.

https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/carson-city-jail-putting-methadone-in-the-waterfood/

ATTENTION Carson City, Douglas, Reno, Henderson, Nevada Department of Alternative Sentencing (“DAS”) did not have legal jurisdiction over Pre-Trial Defendants prior to July 2013 If you were under DAS supervision, you may have legal recourse to sue in federal court under Title 42, Section 1983 and have any related criminal charges, pleas and convictions vacated.

Nevada Department of Alternative Sentencing SB101 hearing. Carson City DAS did not have legal jurisdiction of pre trial defendants.

People have constitutional right we can’t stomp on either the US Constitution or the Nevada Constitution and I oppose the end result what this bill is going to allow them to do which they’re already doing without authority.

Bail has to be reasonable it can’t be coercive.

They can search their home they can search there be a call they have not been convicted they are charged with the crime whether it be a misdemeanor a gross misdemeanor or felony they still have their constitutional rights so my concern is that we’re taking these rights away from people. Continue reading

Lawsuits target abuse in Carson City Court Department of Alternative Sentencing program

carson city alternitve sentencingLawsuits target abuse in Carson City Court Department of Alternative Sentencing program.

see updated story here; https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nevada-department-of-alternative-sentencing-did-not-have-legal-jurisdiction-over-pre-trial-defendants-prior-to-july-2013-if-you-were-under-das-supervision-you-may-have-legal-recourse-to-sue/

In Carson City, Douglas County and Henderson Nevada, the courts have created an internal police force called the Department of Alternative Sentencing (“DAS”).  The courts in these jurisdictions bypassed the State parole and probation department and took on jurisdiction of people who have been charged, but not convicted of a crime. These people are known as pre-trial Defendants.

carson city courthouse

carson city courthouse

Prior to July 2013 when the laws governing DAS were modified by the Nevada Legislature in Senate Bill 101 and signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval, DAS had no legal jurisdiction over pre-trial Defendants.

We know the Carson City DAS exploited its power and acted outside jurisdiction when assuming control over hundreds and easily thousands of pre-trial Defendants prior to July 2013. DAS essentially and prematurely put pre-trial Defendants on “probation”  which subjected these people, presumed to be innocent, on GPS monitoring, house arrest, subject to search and seizure, drug and/or alcohol testing and even body cavity searches.

DAS is also widely know for illegally changing court orders and conditions of pre-trial Defendants that were never subject to their jurisdiction.

In the minutes of the Nevada Senate Committee on Judiciary from February 27, 2013 show Carson City DAS Chief Rory Plantea stating on the record how he and his DAS have been breaking the law and violating pre-trial Defendants civil rights.

Click here for SB101: SB101 Nevada DAS new law 2013

Minutes from the Nevada Senate Committee on Judiciary February 27, 2013

Click here for PDF file: DAS minutes from 2013 Nevada SB101

James Settlemyer

Sen. James Settlemeyer

SENATE BILL 101: Revises provisions relating to departments of alternative sentencing. (BDR 16-464)
Senator James A. Settelmeyer (Senatorial District No. 17):

I apologize for not getting the language correct to begin with and having to work off the mock-up (Exhibit G). The changes in the mock-up are necessary to incorporate some important and necessary clarifications.

This bill allows for pretrial sentencing to be done by the county or city department of alternative sentencing. When this was discussed in the past, some said the State should be doing it. However, we know the State does not have the funds to implement pretrial sentencing, so the counties do it. This bill enables legislation, adding the word “may,” so there is no fiscal impact to the counties since it is at their own discretion whether to participate.

There are often conditions of bail that the court stipulates, including restraining orders, temporary protection orders (TPO), firearm purchase bans, controlled substance use bans, etc. These departments can do this and provide a valuable service to the courts to review the bail stipulations and make sure the conditions are met. In some counties, these issues are being handled differently. This bill is an attempt to help those counties without a separate program to implement alternative sentencing. We are attempting to codify activities already being implemented in many counties. tick

Chair Segerblom:
This is not the first bill we have seen from Douglas County about this issue.

Senator Settelmeyer:
Yes, we had this bill in the Assembly. At that time, we felt the State should deal with the issue, but since that time, the State has not stepped forward.

Michael Beam (Chief, Department of Alternative Sentencing, Douglas County):
We perform these functions for the courts in Douglas County and Carson City. We serve both the district and justice courts. We ask that this issue be addressed in the statutory provisions of chapter 211A of Nevada Revised Statutes to make it right. We perform pretrial services for persons accused of crimes and awaiting sentencing or trial. The court imposes conditions, and we supervise those individuals to make sure he or she complies with those conditions. We support this bill.

Chair Segerblom:
If there are orders from the judge, like drug testing or curfews, you make sure it happens, is that correct?

Mr. Beam:
Yes. A range of conditions can be imposed—drug or alcohol clauses, testing, firearm provisions, TPOs, stay-away orders, etc. It varies case by case.

Chair Segerblom:
In sounds like it saves money because the offender is not in jail and can work, depending on the case.

Mr. Beam:
Absolutely, on pretrial with bail conditions.

Rory Planeta Chief Department of Alternative Sentencing

Rory Planeta Chief Department of Alternative Sentencing

Rory Planeta (Chief, Department of Alternative Sentencing, Carson City):
We supervise persons who are released on bail or released on their own recognizance without bail. The judge puts conditions on the offender, and we supervise. We work from NRS 178.484, which allows judges to place conditions on persons to protect the citizens and protect themselves. The judge makes the decision on which conditions to impose, and once the individual is placed under our supervision, we make sure he or she maintains those conditions or we bring him or her back to the judge. Those conditions can include drug testing, no weapons, no gang associations, etc. These conditions are necessary to protect the public. We support this bill.

Chair Segerblom:
Does this just apply to Douglas County and Carson City?

Senator Settelmeyer:
The provisions could apply to anyone wanting to implement them. Only these two counties are in this situation to my knowledge. Mr. Planeta, do you know of other counties similarly situated?

Mr. Planeta:
Yes. Henderson has alternative sentencing; it is called supervised release, which we think is a good term. Part of this bill refers to probationers, but that is not what we call them. They are persons released under the supervision of the Department. We also perform misdemeanor probation, suspended sentences, house arrest, etc. We feel this legislation is a natural progression for us to watch those individuals and keep our citizens safe.

Chair Segerblom:
This sounds like a great program. Do we have more supporters?

James J. Jackson (Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction):
I represent the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, representing municipal courts, justice courts and the State. We support this bill. Originally, the bill had mandatory language, but it is now permissive, so we are fine with it.

Laurel Stadler (Northern Nevada DUI Task Force):
We support alternative sentencing with DUI offenders. We support this bill.

Richard Glasson (Tahoe Township Justice Court, Douglas County):
This bill brings to light something I and other small court judges use on a daily basis. Alternative sentencing allows a judge to shape behaviors and responsibilities and provide protections before adjudication. While we presume everyone is innocent, there is a period of time between arrests and the disposition of the case that can be a sort of never-never land. This alternative sentencing tool allows us to put some people on a right path and potentially eliminates the need for posttrial supervision or probation because the person has proven in advance that he or she has taken these classes or sobriety conditions seriously.

Chair Segerblom:
You can take information from the individual’s cooperation with conditions imposed during pretrial and apply it to sentencing?

Judge Glasson:
Absolutely. There have been times when, because of the abysmal behaviors between arrests and trial, arrestees prove they are not going to be responsive to probation later on. More often than not, we see that these arrestees are just good, responsible people who might have stubbed their toes. They follow the straight and narrow during pretrial, and we do not have a recidivism problem with them when we use this tool.

Chair Segerblom:
Do district attorneys have access to the pretrial information when they are making decisions?

gpsJudge Glasson:
Yes, it is public information. The ankle bracelets and other tools we use are wonderful technology. gps orwell

Mr. O’Callaghan:
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is neutral on this bill. I also represent the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, and that organization supports this bill.

Mark Jacobs (Chief Marshal, Henderson Alternative Sentencing Division, City of Henderson):
We fully support this bill. It would be a great tool for us to use on a local level. We supervise around 2,000 probationers and 200 individuals released with conditions of release from our courts every day. This bill would allow us to get over some challenging hurdles in supervising those offenders.

Chair Segerblom:
Do the individuals who have been charged with the crime have to pay for equipment issued to them, like ankle bracelets?

Mr. Jacobs:
Yes. It is not a burden on the taxpayers, and that is also true of our probationers. When we have individuals released with conditions, we have concerns about situations like no contact orders, no further arrest clauses, drug and alcohol testing, GPS monitoring, alcohol monitoring, etc. It is a challenge to try and enforce and keep track of these people and those conditions without a specific statute.

Ian Massy (City of Henderson):
We support this bill.

Diane R. Crow (State Public Defender, Office of the State Public Defender):
I represent people in Carson City, Storey County, White Pine County and Eureka County. I do not oppose the spirit of this bill, but I oppose the end result as we have seen it here in Carson City. Conditions of bail that are supervised by alternative sentencing include call-in and color-coded drug testing. This means a person who has been arrested and not convicted of a crime and not lost his or her constitutional rights is required to call in on a daily basis. If their color is called, they must go in during certain hours and take a drug test. If they are not on color-coded testing, they can just be called in any day or an officer can go to their houses and require them to provide a drug test. The officer can search accused people’s homes and vehicles even though they have not been convicted. They are charged with a crime—misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony—but they still have their constitutional rights. My concern is that we are taking the rights away from people who have not been convicted.

This bill, to me, is somewhat akin to a bill introduced last session regarding DNA testing of anyone arrested for a felony. People have constitutional rights. We cannot stomp on either the U.S. Constitution or the Nevada Constitution.

Chair Segerblom:
If a person does not agree to the conditions of release terms, can he or she stay in jail or post bail?

Ms. Crow:
That is another issue of constitutionality. Bail has to be reasonable, not coercive. You cannot force someone to agree to drug testing to get out of jail.

Chair Segerblom:
If a person refuses to cooperate with the drug testing, does the bail go so high it is impossible for them to pay?

Ms. Crow:
Most of my clients cannot make bail. If the person does not agree to the drug testing conditions, that contributes to the denial of one’s own recognizance release. That is coercion. Who does not want to get out of jail—to go back home, go back to work and support the family? It is coercive to force someone to give up his or her constitutional rights to get out of jail. I am very concerned about the ultimate outcome of this bill.

browerSenator Brower:
The government has enormous power, particularly over those who are arrested. From the law enforcement perspective, these issues have been litigated long ago. It is part of the system and has been upheld by state and federal courts around the Country—that the types of things here do not violate the U.S. Constitution. No less than the U.S. Supreme Court has said that upon arrest, your defense rights are not the same as someone who has not been arrested. Therefore, people can be held in custody in some cases and in other cases, they can be released but on certain conditions. We have litigated these issues, have we not?

DAS is unconstitutional

we the peopleMs. Crow:
There has been litigation. There is a case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2005).

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted a motion to suppress for evidence that was obtained on supervision. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the motion to suppress. The United States appealed it to the Ninth Circuit and the State lost.

The head notes of that case refer to constitutional rights of people not convicted and unconstitutional coercive conditions that cannot be imposed.

Senator Brower:
What conditions did the Ninth Circuit decide were unconstitutional?

Ms. Crow:
One head note says pretrial release individuals are not probationers. Probationers have a lesser expectation of privacy than the public at large. People released pending trial, by contrast, have suffered no judicial abridgement of their constitutional rights. Alternitive Sentencing

Senator Brower:
My point is that the issue of whether certain pretrial release conditions are unconstitutional has been litigated. It is a fact of our system that pretrial defendants are sometimes held in custody, their passports are removed, they are subjected to drug testing, etc. That is a bigger issue and not really what this bill is about.

Ms. Crow:
I agree that is not specifically what the bill is about, but it is the ultimate conclusion to this bill. The Ninth Circuit is stating that people not convicted still have constitutional rights, and it is invasive to go into their homes and require them to have search and seizure clause.

Senator Brower:
You are right. Even those who have been convicted have certain constitutional rights. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to even those who are incarcerated. What the courts have done over centuries is to decide conditions may be imposed that do not violate the Constitution. I respect the rights of you and your clients to challenge certain types of conditions, and it is up to the system to continually hear those challenges and decide whether they meet constitutional muster. The conditions we impose in this State and in the federal system have been determined constitutional by judges.

Chair Segerblom:
In pretrial supervision, if officers find drugs at homes of defendants, can they be prosecuted?

Ms. Crow:
Yes, but they generally are not. My other concern about this bill is that in most of the sections, while it includes new language about pretrial or presentence release, it still labels the person a probationer, which is not accurate.

Chair Segerblom:
We can change that in the bill.

Senator Hutchison:
Is there anything in this bill that is constitutionally infirm?

Ms. Crow:
No.

Mr. Spratley:
We are neutral on this bill because it does not apply to our jurisdiction of Washoe County, but we are in overall support of S.B. 101. Our jail supports the judicial, conditional release of inmates to not only help reduce our inmate population, but also allow those persons who made mistakes and can follow court conditions to be out of custody to live their lives. Without appropriate monitoring, as this bill provides, those conditions most likely would not be met.

Chair Segerblom:
As I understand it, this bill could apply to Washoe County if you opted for it. images

Mr. Spratley:
We do have a Department of Alternative Sentencing in Washoe County, but I am not sure of its role.

Senator Brower:
Is it a fact that without pretrial release, we could not keep every arrestee in custody?

Mr. Spratley:
That is true. Our jail is already 50 inmates shy of maximum capacity. We are always being creative in how we can let the people out whom we believe will follow the program and not continue to reoffend and create victims. This is a huge step in helping us manage our population statewide.

guiltySenator Brower:
Allowing arrestees out on their own recognizance or on bail without conditions does not work either.

Mr. Spratley:
Yes. It would be ludicrous to let arrestees go without some conditions, without them knowing someone may check up on them at any moment. A portion of arrestees will reoffend or drink without those imposed conditions.

Senator Settelmeyer:
Some of the wordsmithing addressed by the testifier in opposition may be found in the amendment. We had a bill a long time ago addressing the issue of the larger counties in the State having a division between the pretrial and the posttrial alternative sentencing departments, and the smaller counties wanted them together since they were already doing it that way. With this bill we are looking for codification for a practice that is already occurring.

Chair Segerblom:
I will close the hearing on S.B. 101 and adjourn the meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary at 10:13 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Linda Hiller,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Tick Segerblom, Chair

Continue reading