[{"_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",6572723,"mediaKeyId","3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf","parentId",3161999,"title","Nevada AG asks committee to rename statutory term to 'child sexual abuse material' in AB 35","audioSeconds",85,"startMs",27000,"endMs",112000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf&start=27&end=112","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf/thumbnail_27000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6572723/Nevada/Nevada-AG-asks-committee-to-rename-statutory-term-to-child-sexual-abuse-material-in-AB-35","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572723-9eefffefd573cdabfce645e041d65a15/orig.mp4?Expires=1776032166&Signature=WcetkfiQ8qPrvhVJBv3n3dzgo0-GU-PLQksBrIc1CXP6BYXa8hGxklk-DAKXAWjC6BUjsL5OevzA6vpQ3ZLd1KLH6Xk30IU0s-vcQSJB79znY~hMJnkQHcVitcES22sMwdFWMEw-p5d961AruRB2c0SqqX0K4XKGVGdQ8DSrj7sa5-yqSoMyjSqTY-7erMUkqUDSdV70PUsnwGC9J5QHIuEp-VVqKgm9rT-cMMQ3A3e7UX4O1yfADssQR6WhhoyRXqktuuo-NNnq-IfEP6USuZSItuD7X0RBMkWwTplfURmWsUhV8QiyTAlTVCWyQIliv24iaFZzEtSJRI8Fb42EYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada State Legislature","date","2025-04-30T23:46:07.417Z","article","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard a presentation on Assembly Bill 35 from Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford and the attorney general's office on the statutory language used for images depicting sexual abuse of children.

AG Ford introduced the measure and turned the floor over to Alyssa Engler, chief deputy attorney general for the criminal prosecution division, who told the committee AB 35 would revise Nevada law to better describe and criminalize images and videos that depict the sexual abuse of minors. Engler said the draft replaces the statute's current terminology with a phrase intended to reflect the criminal nature of such material and the harm to victims.

The change, the presenters said, is meant to distinguish between constitutionally protected adult sexual expression and images that depict minors and therefore cannot involve consent. Engler told the committee that other states and the U.S. Department of Justice have adopted similar language in recent years.

\"Amending these statutory terms to [child sexual abuse material] is important to focus on the actual crime against children, to recognize the trauma inflicted upon children by these images and videos, and to underscore the absence of consent, control, and choice for these child victims,\" Engler said, describing the intent behind the language change.

Committee members did not pose questions during the brief presentation. The chair then opened public testimony and reported that there were no callers or in-person speakers in support, opposition or neutral; the committee closed the hearing on AB 35 without amendment or a vote recorded on the transcript.

Why this matters: changing statutory language would affect how prosecutors, defense counsel and courts describe and charge crimes involving generated or altered images of minors and could influence charging decisions, evidence presentation and public understanding of the offenses.

What the bill does (as presented): according to the attorney general's staff, AB 35 would (1) replace the statutory nomenclature used in Nevada Revised Statutes that currently describes sexually explicit images of minors with the term used nationally and federally by many prosecutors and the Department of Justice; and (2) explicitly capture images created or altered using artificial intelligence that depict minors and are not covered by current statutes. The presenters emphasized the change is intended to clarify that such images are crime-scene material and not constitutionally protected adult sexual expression.

Proponents and testimony: the presentation at the hearing came from the attorney general's office; no members of the public offered live support, opposition or neutral testimony at the hearing recorded in the transcript.

Next steps: the committee concluded its hearing on AB 35 and moved on to other bills. No committee action (vote or amendment) is shown in the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/30/2025 - Senate Committee on Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard a presentation on Assembly Bill 35 from Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford and the attorney general's office proposing replacement of the statute's current terminology with language intended to describe \"child sexual abuse material\" more precisely.","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},6572718,"AG's office asks committee to clarify eligibility and reimbursement rules in wrongful-conviction bill AB 63",435,431000,866000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf&start=431&end=866","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf/thumbnail_431000.jpg","/articles/6572718/Nevada/AGs-office-asks-committee-to-clarify-eligibility-and-reimbursement-rules-in-wrongful-conviction-bill-AB-63","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572718-40b3123b4a8a7ce4dd26c2a83896ba87/orig.mp4?Expires=1776032166&Signature=PCU4L23x4lZtEMtP6X03x803rnLeKYHeLr4QFg5xeQjJMXv1ZnX7AYnBeTL7E6gvrbkYdtOvN7kpmax-F8XX3SkD2bHZc7biEYH17mkAKPiK8TvWX~GkBzjf14~xcMSZyiH5SWzSei5SZocL3P2Tu4aDh3AMosRXBW3mlBg4HuKWl3bw8tdElj3MwOM0PIZLU3Sjk0uKMQJaSEDrUzx4IJO4hxYmWKj30GJ7jNmc~4GAcqrUMUUowd3DddOiRXRq8lfXdbG561p6k~p1xBhk6kdhVKpc9eNPxe8RaagWOMeBUhYto6QZStvg~3p3BDRSaYOOb~jFYT3WXenjrPlZFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Attorney General Aaron Ford and senior staff presented Assembly Bill 63 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposing clarifications and technical fixes to Nevada's wrongful-conviction compensation statutes.

The bill, presented by senior deputy Jaimie (Jamie) Stills and Heather Proctor of the attorney general's post-conviction unit, would make three principal changes to NRS chapter 41 provisions governing wrongful-conviction awards: (1) add a statutory definition of \"incarcerated\" to mean confinement in a local detention facility, county jail or state prison; (2) clarify the statutory criteria that a vacated or reversed conviction must be related to the claimant's actual innocence rather than legal error; and (3) correct a clerical drafting error so that the statutory $100,000 cap for certain benefits applies to the catch-all \"any other relief\" category for reimbursable benefits.

Stills told the committee the changes are intended to clarify preliminary qualifications and to better align the statutory language with the statute's original intent: monetary relief to help a person recently released from custody rebuild their life, not to assign fault to particular actors. The presenters said the Board of Examiners historically reimburses actual expenses for certain benefits (housing, counseling, tuition and health insurance) rather than paying vendors directly, and the bill would reflect that practice by using the term \"reimbursement\" rather than \"payment.\"

Senators asked detailed questions about potential impacts. Vice Chair Flores raised a hypothetical about a reversal due to a technical legal error, and whether that would leave an innocent person unable to obtain a remedy if prosecutors elected not to retry the case. Jamie Stills and Heather Proctor replied that the wrongful-conviction statute is intended to compensate those who are \"actually innocent,\" and that a separate actual-innocence procedure under NRS chapter 34 (an \"actual innocence petition\") is the route to establish factual innocence if a reversal was for legal error. Stills said clarifying subsection D would assist courts and applicants in distinguishing reversals based on legal error from those tied to factual innocence.

Senator Krasner pressed the office on why the bill moves from direct payment to a reimbursement model for services such as housing and counseling. Proctor and Stills explained the Board of Examiners previously reimbursed claimants for documented expenses and that certifying and paying third-party providers directly would be a more complex, slower and administratively heavier process. Stills said reimbursements are typically processed quarterly and noted that the Board requested the change.

The committee also discussed caseload numbers and outcomes. Stills initially told the committee the attorney general's office had received 12 applications since the statute was enacted in 2019; she later updated that the office had 13 cases and said eight had been reimbursed. Senators expressed concern about access to counsel and the resources required for claimants to pursue the statutory procedure. The presenters noted the statute authorizes attorney-fee awards for prevailing claimants.

Cornerstone Public Affairs and Jason Frierson offered a conceptual amendment, which the attorney general's office accepted as a friendly clarification. Frierson and the AG's office said the amendment clarifies that issuance of a certificate of innocence and an award under the statute would not be treated as a finding of wrongdoing against investigators or prosecutors and would not preclude a litigant from pursuing other civil remedies such as a 42 U.S.C. \u0000A7 1983 claim when supported by evidence. Frierson said the amendment is intended to preserve the \"no-fault\" character of the wrongful-conviction compensation process while leaving open other potential remedies.

Opposition testimony included advocates who asked that the statute explicitly allow compensation when a claimant died in custody and argued for including additional protections for destroyed or withheld exculpatory evidence; the attorney general's office said those proposals were discussed in earlier committee work but were not adopted in the current updated text.

The hearing record shows detailed questioning and technical clarifications but no committee vote on AB 63 in the transcript.

Why this matters: AB 63 would change the procedural and statutory contours by which people who were wrongfully convicted can seek a certificate of innocence and monetary relief. The definitions and reimbursement rules affect who is eligible, how quickly claimants can obtain benefits and whether the Board of Examiners pays vendors directly or reimburses claimants.","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard AB 63, a proposal from the Nevada Attorney General's Office to clarify who qualifies for wrongful-conviction compensation and to change how certain benefits are reimbursed under NRS chapter 41.",{"_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},6572713,"Lawmakers weigh AB 283 to reverse Nevada's summary-eviction order; supporters cite due process, landlords warn of costs",182,2502000,2684000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf&start=2502&end=2684","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3161999-0bff215baffb1796bb6f9df10d1a67bf/thumbnail_2502000.jpg","/articles/6572713/Nevada/Lawmakers-weigh-AB-283-to-reverse-Nevadas-summary-eviction-order-supporters-cite-due-process-landlords-warn-of-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572713-7338f0fa0c676fd7aaff2480cbca6aa5/orig.mp4?Expires=1776032166&Signature=GB-c37ZdJAa1OtJGjg4htRXgfmFXXXO4K33i2ODlYAG87LJTWh1ZQNfC8q9jS22e26KfQQiXsBqWfCEq1ftzuZI12k1slhN~Sqm~86OaVeOqhZepi2cAbLKNYo6NmX~xoDbYx4RDTpT-f87IXKa86O~rd53LHtElnV27YXZ4ukRHddmtlZcD8i2cuCPLxEZ-jAKGFDADrTPOTPthy5aOhAH5zcygVyxUf3fyZTfYNet3myU7c6T0Tpy-S-qji-o7JDXM180MwF6dpOZ8NWMHsqEUBejdOximgr5vvxydD0oIdxGxDd26iENNGN61VmlHAVKpyvgA01-1bu~h9jg9-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony on Assembly Bill 283, a measure that would reorder Nevada's summary eviction process so that a landlord must file a complaint with the court after issuing a pre-eviction notice, and tenants would then have a set period to file an answer.

Assemblymember Max Carter, who introduced the bill, and advocates from the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers and Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada framed AB 283 as a procedural reform to align Nevada with other jurisdictions and to prevent tenants from effectively \"having to sue themselves\" to preserve their rights. Jonathan Norman of the Coalition said Nevada is an outlier: in Nevada's current summary-eviction process a tenant's answer precedes a formal complaint and, Norman said, \"Nevada is the only state in the nation where a tenant must file a lawsuit to defend themselves against an eviction.\" He and Nicholas Haley of Legal Aid argued the bill would give tenants a meaningful court filing and better access to legal assistance and diversion programs.

Supporters and legal-aid organizations offered statistics and courtroom observations: the Supreme Court's annual caseload data was cited at roughly 85,000 summary-eviction filings statewide each year, with Las Vegas Justice Court accounting for the majority; outside researchers noted eviction filings in Las Vegas were roughly 30% above the national average. Community monitors described dockets where hearings could be as short as a minute and a half per case; advocates said a stamped complaint from the court and an opportunity to file an answer would help tenants access rental-assistance and diversion resources before a lockout.

Opponents included the Nevada State Apartment Association, Nevada Realtors, the Vegas Chamber and the state's public housing authorities. They argued AB 283 would add time, administrative cost and delay to an already resource-intensive process, and would encourage evasion of service and repeated filings. Housing authorities asked for and received a tailored amendment allowing a longer notice period when federal law or regulation requires it; presenters said housing authorities often provide longer notices under HUD rules and sought an explicit accommodation. The sponsor posted a conceptual amendment to NELIS to address that concern and to adjust the landlord's service window from 15 to 21 calendar days after discussions with housing authorities.

Key provisions as presented: under AB 283, in nonpayment cases the landlord would post the standard notice and then must file an affidavit/complaint with the court (the bill includes service requirements) not later than 30 calendar days after the notice period expires; once served, tenants would have seven judicial days to file a written answer. Parallel procedures in the bill cover nonpayment and other types of lease violations, but the same core change'the ordering of complaint then answer'applies.

Lawmakers asked numerous logistics questions: how soon courts could calendar contested hearings, the effect on small landlords and mobile-home park tenants (which the bill did not change), and the practicalities of service. Nick Haley said the modification does not change most of the hearing or proof requirements but would align eviction practice with typical civil procedure where a complaint initiates litigation.

The hearing record shows broad coalition support from tenant advocates, legal aid, and civil-rights groups, and organized opposition from landlord and housing-provider groups. No committee vote is shown in the transcript; the sponsor and stakeholders signaled willingness to refine language through amendment negotiations.

Why this matters: eviction rules determine how quickly removal orders can be enforced and the procedural protections tenants receive before lockout. Changes to filing and service rules affect access to rental assistance, timing of hearings, and both tenants' and landlords' costs and risks.

Notable testimony and data reported during the hearing:
- Advocates cited roughly 85,000 summary-eviction filings statewide annually, with Clark County/LV Justice Court comprising the large majority.
- Observers described quick dockets; a panelist reported timing individual eviction hearings at about \"90 seconds\" on a busy docket.
- Legal aid and social-service providers said a court-filed complaint with stamped process helps channel tenants into diversion and assistance resources prior to enforcement.
- Opponents warned the bill would increase administrative burden, encourage service evasion and impose greater carrying costs on small landlords.

The committee accepted and the sponsor posted a conceptual amendment requested by public housing authorities to preserve compliance with longer federal notice periods; the hearing concluded with no recorded committee vote on the bill in the transcript.","AB 283 would change Nevada's summary eviction process so that landlords file a complaint with the court after serving a notice rather than requiring tenants to file an answer before a lawsuit exists. Supporters, including legal aid and housing-justice groups, said Nevada is the only state with the current order and that the change restores basic","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Nevada AG asks committee to rename statutory term to 'child sexual abuse material' in AB 35

AG's office asks committee to clarify eligibility and reimbursement rules in wrongful-conviction bill AB 63

Lawmakers weigh AB 283 to reverse Nevada's summary-eviction order; supporters cite due process, landlords warn of costs