Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears bill to limit unclothed searches of juveniles and require reporting
Summary
Assemblywoman Cecilia Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Assembly Bill 89 would limit unclothed searches of juveniles in detention facilities by requiring reasonable suspicion, at least two staff present (preferably of the same gender), and a written report to the facility administrator within 72 hours.
Assemblywoman Cecilia Gonzales, sponsor of Assembly Bill 89, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the bill would require local, regional and state juvenile detention facilities to adopt policies that prohibit unclothed searches except in limited circumstances and to create reporting and oversight requirements.
The bill would allow an unclothed search only when “employees reasonably suspect that the child has or can access a weapon or contraband and have exhausted all less intrusive methods,” Gonzales said, and would require at least two employees — preferably of the same gender as the child — to be present. The bill also would require the employee with primary responsibility for the search to submit a detailed written report to the facility administrator or director within 72 hours describing the search and other information requested by the administrator.
The measure’s sponsor and a representative of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office said AB 89 aims to standardize practices across Nevada. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office told the committee that many facilities already have similar policies and that the bill was amended to adopt Clark County’s definition of reasonable suspicion after stakeholders criticized an earlier, undefined “extraordinary circumstances” exception.
Committee members raised safety and operational questions. Senator Hansen and others pressed whether the bill’s protections apply only to people under 18; committee discussion clarified that the bill applies to juveniles housed in juvenile detention centers and that some juvenile systems may hold people older than 18 in certain circumstances. Jeff Rogan, speaking for Clark County, and Joshua Martinez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department described existing practice: arresting officers perform a pat-down and search incident to arrest in the field but do not perform a strip search outside a secure facility; admission searches and any comprehensive searches at a juvenile facility are conducted by facility staff under reasonable-suspicion standards and the facility’s policies.
Marla McDade Williams, administrator for the Division of Child and Family Services, testified in neutral that DCFS conducts visual unclothed searches on admittance to its facilities to check for fresh tattoos and potential injuries and that, unlike some counties, it does not have a machine to inspect for contraband. She said DCFS would need to change its policy if the bill passes but did not oppose the bill.
Committee members asked for additional information from counties with juvenile facilities, particularly rural jurisdictions, and the sponsor said she had worked with counties but would follow up offline to address questions and concerns. Presenters and witnesses emphasized that the bill was intended to mirror Clark County policy and to provide statewide consistency rather than to impose new restrictions where similar policies already exist.
The committee closed testimony on AB 89 without a recorded vote. A number of committee members asked staff and presenters to provide follow-up materials about age definitions, county-level policies, and the frequency of contraband being found on admission.
Ending: The hearing record shows AB 89 was presented and received testimony from defenders, county representatives and facility administrators; the committee requested follow-up information but did not take final action during the hearing.
