[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6616354,"mediaKeyId","2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e","parentId",2853796,"title","Panel backs proposal to centralize post‑conviction counsel, create alternate public defender to serve rural Nevada","audioSeconds",3850,"startMs",2771000,"endMs",6621000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e&start=2771&end=6621","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e/thumbnail_2771000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6616354/Nevada/Panel-backs-proposal-to-centralize-postconviction-counsel-create-alternate-public-defender-to-serve-rural-Nevada","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616354-274a30754032b15b8072953b35db3c38/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136831&Signature=jZBeN6G6RT5JLlT3nRveptdJI2A8uc51aFhgaVALC5Hd6znk3B-hLbuvIyKa8XWRfEhIUKI3I9fEdLWRNSElspmX4TXTwQdxg29BMcHw1~fJnYslHxU~KFRQOPXlE8Bn-l4jhTVTC7f2mHdNtSj~zQzQgkJgy3BKufFY6vg4i6mHdXewVpHU1kpZTmslMRXvhju4PHY7mnjIqUIjWX1ViukLSrEVLJ5Xt3UgWZHbkONFsbYFJKzZMYnevW7Qenlp513hC-pbTABCwKsmdmZOeGH4mbD4gCC5Gx9R0Mba~ynWXrgtg8C4cx4bjsiJr1Er~r5B013j9-GYhHRbO7NAqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada State Legislature","date","2025-04-02T21:43:25.26Z","article","CARSON CITY — The Senate Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 407 on April 2, a bill that would create two state offices to expand and centralize indigent defense services: an alternate state public defender to serve conflicts (with emphasis on rural counties) and an office of post‑conviction counsel to handle appeals and collateral remedies statewide.

Sen. Melanie Scheibel introduced the bill and said the proposal grew from the joint interim standing committee on the judiciary and work to implement the Davis consent judgment, which required Nevada to eliminate economic disincentives for indigent defense providers, adopt minimum standards and collect uniform data. “This bill will help the state meet its obligation to provide competent counsel for indigent Nevadans who live in rural counties,” she told the committee.

Soraya Bonner, the senator’s intern, summarized the bill’s major provisions: creation of the alternate state public defender within the Department of Indigent Defense Services to represent indigent clients when county or state public defenders are disqualified or unable to provide representation; creation of a post‑conviction counsel office to prosecute appeals and other remedies; statutory changes to allow deputy state public defenders to engage in limited private practice to improve recruitment in rural jurisdictions; and expanded duties for the board and department to oversee post‑conviction services.

Peter Handy, executive director of the Department of Indigent Defense Services (DIDS), said the state currently expects to spend about $2.2 million in the fiscal year on post‑conviction counsel expenses and that the bill’s structure could produce savings over time by shifting work from hourly appointed counsel to state employees paid at fixed rates. Handy said the bulk of post‑conviction costs come from Clark County but that rural areas also lack sufficient counsel.

Supporters, including the Administrative Office of the Courts, described Nevada’s rural “legal deserts” — jurisdictions with very few attorneys per capita — and told the committee a centralized office could improve access and consistency. Senator questions focused on workload estimates, how many positions would be required, and whether allowing state public defenders some private practice would create conflicts; sponsors said conflicts would be handled contractually and by departmental rules.

No opposition testimony was recorded in the hearing transcript. Committee members and witnesses indicated the bill would carry a fiscal note and be referred to the finance committee for appropriations if advanced.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/2/2025 - Senate Committee on Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 407 would create an Office of Alternate State Public Defender for rural conflicts and an Office of Post‑Conviction Counsel within the Department of Indigent Defense Services to provide statewide post‑conviction representation; supporters say the move addresses ‘legal deserts’ and Davis consent‑decree requirements.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6616359,"Bill would let officers temporarily seize firearms during mental‑health crisis holds; opponents warn of due‑process and logistics issues",2412,2393000,4805000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e&start=2393&end=4805","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e/thumbnail_2393000.jpg","/articles/6616359/Nevada/Bill-would-let-officers-temporarily-seize-firearms-during-mentalhealth-crisis-holds-opponents-warn-of-dueprocess-and-logistics-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616359-afba47175594181ed724410b95a56136/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136831&Signature=IyAalMHot8EYAN~K-6qVRKwyhzcNGoMGAz2MdLXh84q4HzleEIwA74pkb~dtSRTNEL1MucZHpJIqhLrHdrevMZH4niSveEiP5vJ~iCOAtFjyFsAzlpZwfN5866pKTYOyqjdwGG81KHnd5~3toUMI3-NNXZ6jKwHqBxJTDRWwMNMLWL0FGsy5jNddjRevQYYoBdsBL3abNwQjHQAgn8-SlURzXjCcB3hQ9idOuFtuXOBgY6GgZVqvkFHjBTFn43x3aaK55uaRN6xwZ5T8giFVDF-NMS4BQINKSBjg6LFdqZPK~i-noN2BP4Ys5wY~pe3fy1ZEZNrqlhrFbnSLOcZuRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — Senate Bill 347, presented April 2 by Sen. Melanie Scheibel, would permit law enforcement officers who place an individual on a mental‑health crisis hold to take a firearm in the person’s immediate vicinity and trigger a court petition process to determine whether the firearm should be returned.

“Instead of going through the ERPO process, this bill authorizes an officer who has placed a person on a mental‑health crisis hold to immediately confiscate a firearm owned or possessed by that person,” Scheibel said during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, describing the proposal as a measure to address an encounter when an officer is already present with a person in crisis.

Under current Nevada statute, an extreme‑risk protection order (ERPO) can require the temporary relinquishment of firearms where a petition is granted; SB347 targets situations where an officer is already at the scene for a legal 2000 (72‑hour) hold and an immediate removal of a nearby firearm would not fit the ERPO fact pattern. The bill would require officers to provide the person a receipt and a notice describing procedures to request a hearing and to return the weapon. If the person is released from inpatient care, the law enforcement agency would have 30 days to file a petition with the court to keep the firearm; the court could thereafter authorize retention, sale, destruction or other disposition if it determines return would pose a substantial likelihood of serious harm.

Officer John Abel, testifying for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said the bill targets firearms “in the immediate vicinity” (on the person or unsecured nearby) and that current practice—taking firearms for “safekeeping”—can raise Fourth Amendment concerns when suicide is not a crime. “If they’ve committed a crime, absolutely,” Abel said. “But suicide isn't a crime. So that's where the issue lies.”

Opponents said the bill as drafted raises substantial due‑process and privacy concerns. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office said the bill could require disclosure of protected health information to law enforcement and could leave people without a realistic opportunity to request a hearing while hospitalized or without access to courts. Keeley Hopkins, State Director of the National Rifle Association in Nevada, said the measure permits a seizure without conviction, adjudication of mental illness or prior hearing and would allow retention for at least 30 days without immediate judicial review.

Other witnesses — including the City of Henderson, the Washoe/Las Vegas law enforcement associations and the Nevada Firearms Coalition — said they supported the bill's intent but sought clarifying amendments on due process, scope of search, storage logistics, HIPAA and the petition timeline. Several speakers noted the bill already contains a provision requiring the agency that retains custody to file the petition; Sen. Scheibel clarified that the agency bears the burden to file the petition to justify continued retention and that, if it does not, the firearm would “be treated like any other piece of property” and be returned.

Committee members pressed presenters on how existing practice works: witnesses described ad hoc “safekeeping” procedures, property reports and local release processes that can differ between departments; witnesses said other non‑firearm items (for example, knives or ropes) are treated as property and normally returned without a judge’s intervention. Several senators and witnesses said they expect technical amendments to clarify scope, storage, HIPAA protections, petition procedures and timelines.

No committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Sponsors and many stakeholders said they plan to continue working on amendments to address due‑process, privacy and operational concerns.","Senate Bill 347 would authorize officers who place a person on a 72‑hour mental‑health crisis hold to immediately confiscate firearms in the person's immediate vicinity and require a petition within 30 days to determine whether the firearm may be returned; supporters say it fills a gap, opponents cite due‑process, HIPAA and storage concerns.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6616361,"Nevada attorney general seeks clearer rules on state defense and indemnification in SB67",1217,1149000,2366000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e&start=1149&end=2366","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2853796-bf7ca6e3d8502190c7d13c44807e3c1e/thumbnail_1149000.jpg","/articles/6616361/Nevada/Nevada-attorney-general-seeks-clearer-rules-on-state-defense-and-indemnification-in-SB67","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616361-cf4ea762297727160c084a62edc7e738/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136831&Signature=X6~DSOyvjo~E-UPRrj7RL87RoLu9oq698Opmp5K-jiu08i8jJLaLi1Mn84KP-WFHSpDmz~bUnqhcwsL8oI5ZZYb1oPXyx1pyHB3bluKZaz318EMdbJhNU1ATsLLTPZTmUwShB960M4DKQmhoSEcuuu4p9Vd3Ax1yD8CUSaPmzb0SN0NGdTTDkVGSvBZjmwkIl9RJvv8ctuhoh4QiI0iLMzt41ykb0vvrAlLQmODRM1FLeTELszMA9K6n0D1IwMOD59D3qZnHaAvDURjl2hc59dCB0L-dr-H5Ee-Y0qZxThicJoZVr8QpXDlRKKkLikGdk~GPp9ON7qnZWXwPOni4Gg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — The Nevada Attorney General's Office urged the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 2 to approve Senate Bill 67, a package of changes it says will modernize the state's defense and indemnification rules for state actors and political subdivisions.

“Former state employees try to have their cake and eat it too,” General Counsel Leslie Nino Piro said, explaining why Section 1 would start the 15‑day request clock when an employee—not the attorney general—is served in a lawsuit. “They evade personal service, but expect the state to defend them,” she told the committee.

SB67 would: specify that the 15‑day window to request a defense under NRS 41.0339 begins when the employee is served; allow employees to retain private counsel at any time without first submitting a defense request (but make the government excused from paying defense costs if the employee first hires private counsel); align special verdict language on exemplary or punitive damages with the definitions in chapter 42 of the NRS; expand exclusions to indemnification so the state need not pay where an employee resigned or was terminated for acts outside the scope of employment or where the employee was held criminally liable; and revise supervisory liability language to reflect Ninth Circuit standards for constitutional claims under NRS 41.745.

Piro said the changes are intended to create predictability for government entities and to allow the attorney general discretion in “weighing all of the factors at play,” including whether an appeal is in the state’s best interest. She told the committee some other states already give chief legal officers similar discretion to indemnify in limited circumstances.

Opponents told the committee they worry the bill would unduly limit citizens’ ability to hold government employees accountable. Lisonbee Brazier of the Nevada Justice Association said Section 4 would let government entities determine course‑and‑scope questions that are traditionally questions of fact for a jury, and that the provision could bar indemnification even in serious cases that ultimately produce criminal convictions.

“No one in this room thinks government officials should be shielded when they act maliciously,” Brazier said, but she argued the bill would shift key decisions to government attorneys and agencies rather than neutral fact‑finders.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about how the bill compares with other states’ practices and whether employees who hire private counsel early could later return to request a defense; Piro replied the statute as drafted permits the government to decline to retake representation but that agencies might do so in some cases to protect their own interests.

The committee took no committee vote during the hearing. Supporters and opponents said they are open to working on amendments.

Without formal action recorded, SB67 will remain pending for future committee consideration, and stakeholders indicated they expect additional drafting and negotiation.","The Nevada Attorney General's Office told the Senate Judiciary Committee that SB67 would clarify when employees must request a state defense, allow employees to retain private counsel without first requesting defense, and narrow circumstances in which the state must indemnify employees.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel backs proposal to centralize post‑conviction counsel, create alternate public defender to serve rural Nevada

Bill would let officers temporarily seize firearms during mental‑health crisis holds; opponents warn of due‑process and logistics issues

Nevada attorney general seeks clearer rules on state defense and indemnification in SB67