Panel hears SB273 to extend confidentiality protections to civilian law‑enforcement staff and firefighters

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on Wednesday heard testimony on Senate Bill 273, which would add certain civilian law‑enforcement employees and firefighters to state confidentiality protections that let some public‑safety personnel remove personal information — such as home addresses and phone numbers — from county and state public records, supporters said.

Proponents told the committee the change would extend existing safeguards to civilian employees who support law enforcement — including crime scene investigators, dispatchers, abuse and neglect specialists and cold‑case investigators — and to current and retired firefighters, who they said can face threats tied to their public roles. “This bill will provide firefighters the option to have personal information removed from such, information and keep that information confidential,” said Todd Inglesey, president of the Professional Firefighters of Nevada.

The bill would amend the sets of records maintained by county recorders, county assessors, the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Motor Vehicles to allow those newly listed classifications to seek removal or redaction of specified personal information under the statutes cited by proponents. Rick McCann, who presented the measure for several labor and law‑enforcement associations, said the measure mirrors language the Legislature approved last session but that an administrative error prevented the governor from signing an amended version into law.

Why it matters: Current Nevada law already allows a list of public servants — including judges, current and retired law‑enforcement officers, prosecutors, public defenders and child welfare workers — to seek confidentiality for their personal information. Proponents said modern online county and state databases make it easy to locate home addresses and family contact information with a single click, exposing employees and their families to risk. Supporters argued SB273 merely extends existing protections to additional categories of personnel who routinely interact with the public.

Testimony and concerns: The Recorders Association of Nevada testified neutral through Douglas County Recorder Shawwnyn Garren, who noted that Assembly Bill 225 from the prior session established an avenue for “all the others” — meaning persons not specifically listed in the statute — to petition a court for confidentiality protections. Garren described that existing process and its administrative requirements, saying that petitions granted under that avenue include a five‑year expiration that counties must monitor and notify petitioners about in advance. She said recorders will implement court orders but expressed concern about continually expanding the list of protected classifications and effectively creating a special class of citizens not available to everyday residents.

Several labor and law‑enforcement organizations testified in support, including the Nevada State AFL‑CIO, the Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association, and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (civilian employees). No callers on the phone registered opposition.

Procedure and next steps: The committee took testimony and closed the hearing on SB273 with no immediate vote recorded. Committee members did not pose extensive technical questions during the public hearing; proponents noted the bill is similar to earlier measures considered by the Legislature. The bill will remain before the committee for any further action or amendment.

Closing note: Supporters emphasized personnel safety and continuity of public service; county recorders urged caution about expanding statutory categories and highlighted administrative responsibilities tied to court‑ordered confidentiality.