Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Exploitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB457 would let prosecutors charge per child in image possession and allow limited recordings of investigative calls in child‑abuse probes
Summary
Amendment to SB457 would make each child depicted in sexual‑exploitation images a separate unit of prosecution and carve an investigative recording exception for certain phone calls in child‑abuse investigations; supporters said the changes recognize continuing harm to victims, while defenders raised Fourth Amendment and warrant concerns.
Supporters told the committee the bill corrects what they described as a statutory mismatch with judicial decisions and modern investigative needs. Jennifer Noble, presenting the amendment for the Nevada District Attorneys Association, said Nevada's current law "only allows a single count to be charged even if the defendant has numerous depictions of children being [sexually abused]. Our statute prohibiting this kind of conduct should reflect that each image of a child victim represents unspeakable trauma and recognize the harm that continues to the child each time a new image is traded, obtained, or possessed." The amendment would amend NRS 200.73 so that each child depicted may be charged as a separate felony count.
The amendment also would create a narrow exception to Nevada's two‑party consent rule for the recording of telephone calls in prosecutions and investigations for child sexual assault. Lieutenant Jason Woodard, testifying with Noble, described current investigative practice: investigators "witness the call... take notes" and then rely on their recollection in court. Woodard said the amendment "would allow them to execute the calls the exact same way... they are simply recording the conversation as the conversation is taking place, and they are there with the victim or the victim's family member witnessing the call." He and others argued a recording would preserve the victim's words and reduce errors in officers' notes.
Defense counsel and civil‑liberties witnesses strongly opposed the recording exception, saying judges provide a critical constitutional check. Paloma Guerrero and Jason Puro of the Clark County Public Defender's Office and Paloma's colleagues said judges are available for warrants and that Nevada has deliberately required judicial authorization. Guerrero told the committee: "Judges exist for a reason. They are an important check and balance in order to make sure law enforcement is not conducting surveillance without accountability." She urged preserving the warrant process.
Why this matters: If adopted, the per‑child unit of prosecution would increase the number of counts in possession cases; the limited recording exception would change investigative practice in child‑abuse cases by permitting investigators to record conversations they currently only witness and memorialize by notes. Opponents said the latter risks eroding Fourth Amendment safeguards and that judges already provide an on‑call warrant process.
