Nevada bill would expand resident camera access beyond skilled nursing to assisted and supported living

Assemblyman Max Carter introduced Assembly Bill 368 on behalf of constituents who say cameras helped document alleged abuse of relatives in long-term care and group homes. The bill would expand the current statutory right — which applies to skilled nursing facilities — to include assisted living facilities and supported living arrangements, allow residents or their representatives to request electronic monitoring in their living quarters, and prohibit contracts that bar an individual in a supported living arrangement from using such a device.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Max Carter, said the change responds to families who documented neglect and physical harm only after installing devices they paid for. Carter said the legislation is intended to preserve residents’ ability to place cameras in private rooms and to extend protections to independent living settings that serve people with disabilities.

Family members and advocacy groups described specific incidents they said were captured on camera. Peggy Stevenson, whose testimony recounted repeated injuries and alleged mistreatment of her mother across multiple facilities, said, “We put 1 in her studio and 1 in her bathroom. The camera signs were posted, and that's where we began to see the real truth.” Jody Collins said her adult son Andre, who is nonverbal and uses a communication device, moved into his own apartment and “would like to have cameras.”

Medical and disability advocates told the committee cameras provide objective evidence in settings where residents may be unable to report abuse. Tia Smith of the ACLU and representatives of disability-rights and aging organizations supported the bill. The Retired Public Employees of Nevada, the Nevada Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Nevada Justice Association also testified in favor, saying cameras can document neglect and improve accountability.

Speakers from the provider side said they had worked with the sponsor on definitions and clarifications. Testimony described negotiations over which licensed settings would be captured and how to avoid sweeping in ordinary private residences or small in‑home providers. Assemblyman Carter said amendments in the drafting process seek to refine definitions and exclude single‑household residential care not intended to be regulated here.

Supporters and witnesses emphasized the limits of current law, citing AB 202 (the prior session’s bill applying to skilled nursing) as a partial fix that left out many residential settings used by older adults and people with disabilities. Several family witnesses and disability advocates urged the committee to allow, not require, facility‑level policies but to preserve an individual resident’s choice to install monitoring in their private quarters.

Committee members pressed the sponsor about privacy protections, notice to roommates and other residents, and whether existing forms and consent processes developed under the prior law would carry over. Carter said he hoped interim work could strengthen mandatory posting and notice language; he acknowledged that a complete solution on posting and bathroom privacy was not finalized in this version.

The committee closed the hearing on AB 368 after public and remote testimony. No formal committee vote was recorded on the bill during this meeting; the hearing record will remain available for future action.

What the bill would do: extend the right of a resident or their authorized representative to request installation of an electronic communication device (camera) from skilled nursing facilities to assisted living settings and certain supported living arrangements; bar contracts that prohibit electronic monitoring in specified supported living home arrangements; and refine facility definitions to avoid capturing small, private in‑home arrangements.

Context: Supporters said cameras have helped families document alleged neglect and abuse that otherwise would be invisible to regulators; opponents and some providers raise privacy concerns and urge careful, narrow drafting. The bill builds on AB 202 from the prior session, which applied only to skilled nursing facilities.

Next steps: The bill sponsor asked the committee to consider the proposed language and continue work with stakeholders on notice/posting and definition refinements.