Senate Judiciary advances trespass lookback, corporate‑buyer reporting and multiple other bills after full day's hearings

Senate Judiciary Committee members on April 7 advanced a slate of bills covering trespass enforcement in tourism districts, limits on large corporate residential purchases, homeowners association rules and family‑court privacy, and took work‑session votes to send most measures to the floor.

The committee voted to expand the criminal trespass ‘‘look‑back’’ period used by resorts and law enforcement from 24 months to 36 months (SB 371), and it approved a conceptual amendment to a bill that would require reporting and limit large corporate purchases of single‑family homes to 100 units per entity per year while excluding multifamily and manufactured homes (SB 391). Lawmakers also approved a number of other committee bills in work sessions, and held a separate, disputed hearing on proposed changes to how family‑court hearings and files may be closed or sealed (SB 432).

Why it matters: The package touches multiple policy areas Nevadans identified as urgent — public safety in tourism districts, housing availability and affordability, limits on aggressive investor activity in residential markets, and the longstanding tension between court transparency and litigant privacy. The trespass bill responded to repeated testimony from resort security and police about repeat offenders in tourism corridors; the housing bill drew large crowds of renters, housing groups and lenders who said investor purchasing was shrinking homebuying opportunities for ordinary buyers. A separate debate over family‑court privacy (SB 432) divided press, civil‑liberties groups and family‑law advocates.

Key votes and outcomes

- SB 371 (trespass look‑back to 36 months): Committee voted to amend and do pass; the motion carried unanimously. Supporters including the Nevada Resort Association and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department told the committee a longer look‑back helps identify habitual trespassers who re‑offend across multiple properties. Opponents including the Clark County Public Defender said extending the period could deepen cycles of incarceration among people experiencing homelessness and urged caution.

- SB 391 (corporate purchases registry / cap; conceptual amendment): After a detailed hearing and extensive public testimony, the committee passed the bill with conceptual amendments to exclude multifamily housing and manufactured homes from the cap and to work on implementation details (the motion to pass with conceptual amendment carried, with recorded nays). Proponents argued the measure levels the playing field for first‑time buyers; opponents, including real‑estate industry groups, warned of unintended consequences for housing supply and for legitimate business purchasers.

- SB 121 (Homeowners association changes): Committee accepted amendments and voted to amend and do pass; the motion carried with a recorded lone nay. The bill addresses landscaping timelines, late‑fee timing and other HOA procedures; it drew opposition from the Community Association Institute and some HOA managers who said several provisions are one‑size‑fits‑all changes that would harm neighborhood governance.

- Other committee actions: SB 17 (specialty courts) was moved to do‑pass unanimously; SB 26 (background checks, Rapback authority) passed as originally written to allow certain background enrollment rules; SB 303 (recreational use / liability statute) was amended and advanced with recorded nays; SB 404 (estates/probate technical changes) and SB 450 (bailiff/deputy marshal provisions in large counties) were advanced in work session. SB 7 (pre‑sentence investigations) was pulled from the work session to allow more stakeholder meetings.

Contentious hearings and public testimony

SB 371 produced strongly polarized testimony. Nick Vasiliades of the Nevada Resort Association told the committee the tourism industry has ‘‘habitual offenders who have been trespassed from resorts more than a hundred times,’’ and said the amendment to extend the look‑back to 36 months provides ‘‘another necessary tool to stop chronic trespassers’’ by showing patterns across locations. Municipal police representatives from Las Vegas and other industry security chiefs supported the change as a tool to reduce repeat crime in high‑visitor corridors. By contrast, Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office described how repeat order‑out ordinances have driven cycles of short jail stays among people experiencing homelessness who live near the Strip, arguing that ‘‘2 years is already a long time for a trespass. I think 3 years is only gonna again get more people into the cycle of incarceration’’ without concurrent investments in services.

SB 391 drew large turnouts from renters’ groups, community advocates and business groups. Senator Dina Lehi, sponsor of the bill, described a legislative approach to identify and limit the fastest, largest corporate purchasers and to add a registration/reporting system so state agencies can track large‑scale buyers and their affiliates. Supporters from tenant‑organizing groups and housing coalitions said corporate purchases have reduced inventory and raised rents; industry groups including the Nevada Realtors and chambers of commerce cautioned that a blunt cap could reduce investment in housing supply and create compliance burdens that hurt smaller local actors. Committee members voted to advance the bill with a conceptual amendment and directed continued work on mechanics, recorders’ responsibilities and already‑raised concerns about affiliates and inter‑county recording.

SB 432 (family‑court access and sealing): The committee heard contested testimony from family‑law practitioners and privacy advocates about recent Nevada Supreme Court opinions. Marshall Willick, a family‑law practitioner, said the bill seeks to implement the court’s Falcone and Nestor holdings and to give trial judges clear factors to use when balancing the presumptive right of public access against privacy and child‑safety concerns. Opponents, including press‑freedom and open‑government groups, argued the draft is overbroad and could be used to restrict access to the courts and shield misconduct. The ACLU and media representatives urged the committee to narrow any sealing authority and protect open‑court principles; other speakers described personal harms that can arise when private materials are publicly disseminated. No floor motion on SB 432 was taken during this hearing.

What the committee directed next

For several bills the committee asked sponsors and stakeholders to continue negotiating technical fixes during the short window before committee passage deadlines. SB 7 (pre‑sentence investigation timelines) was pulled to allow the Department of Public Safety and defense offices to meet. For SB 391 the committee accepted a conceptual amendment limiting scope and asked the sponsor to work with county recorders and the Secretary of State on a practical, auditable registry form and enforcement mechanics. For SB 121 and other HOA‑related proposals, members asked sponsors and HOA trade groups to continue conversations about the draft language.

Notable quotes

- ‘‘SB 371 will add another necessary tool to stop chronic trespassers who repeatedly commit crimes in tourist areas,’’ — Nick Vasiliades, Nevada Resort Association.

- ‘‘Two years is already a long time for a trespass. I think 3 years is only gonna again get more people into the cycle of incarceration,’’ — Paloma Guerrero, Clark County Public Defender’s Office.

- ‘‘SB 4 32 risks limiting public access to records and hearings in a way that will lessen accountability,’’ — Tia Smith, ACLU of Nevada (testimony opposing SB 432).

Next steps and timetable

The committee announced it would reconvene at 12:30 p.m. the next day to resume outstanding work‑session activity and to accommodate statutory committee deadlines. Several bills were advanced to the full Senate with floor statements assigned to the listed sponsors or volunteers.

Ending

The session underlined ongoing tensions between public safety objectives, housing market dynamics and long‑standing judicial privacy protections. Committee members signaled willingness to move bills forward while asking sponsors to return with technical fixes and negotiated language for recorders, prosecutors, defense counsel, local governments and affected stakeholders.

Votes at a glance

(Selected committee actions recorded in the meeting)

- SB 17 (specialty courts): Motion to amend and do pass accepted; passed unanimously. Motion: amend and do pass (mover: Senator Wynne; second: Vice Chair Flores). Outcome: approved for floor.

- SB 26 (background checks, Rap Back): Motion to do pass as written accepted; passed unanimously.

- SB 141 (policy on supervision/care of incarcerated transgender, nonconforming persons): Motion to amend and do pass carried; recorded nays present during final work session (Krasner, Ellison, Hansen). Outcome: advanced with amendments.

- SB 303 (recreational use / liability statute): Motion to amend and do pass carried; recorded nays: Senators Ellison and Hansen. Outcome: advanced with amendment.

- SB 371 (trespass look‑back from 24 to 36 months): Motion to amend and do pass carried unanimously. Outcome: advanced to the floor with amendment.

- SB 121 (HOA reforms): Motion to amend and do pass carried; lone recorded nay (Senator Hansen). Outcome: advanced with amendments.

- SB 391 (corporate residential purchase reporting / cap): Motion to pass with conceptual amendment carried; recorded nays: Senators Krasner and Ellison. Committee directed sponsor to refine implementation details and exclusion of multifamily/manufactured homes.

- SB 404 (estates/probate changes): Motion to amend and do pass carried unanimously.

- SB 450 (bailiffs and deputy marshals in large counties): Motion to do pass carried; recorded nays: Senators Krasner and Hansen.

- SB 7 (pre‑sentence investigation revisions): Pulled from today’s work session for additional stakeholder negotiations; rescheduled for later consideration.

Sources and meeting context

This account is based on the committee hearing and work‑session transcript for the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee on April 7, 2025 (hybrid hearing with members and witnesses in Carson City and Las Vegas). Committee staff presenters included John McDonald, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau; agency presenters included Department of Public Safety parole and probation representatives and the Records Communications and Compliance Division; bill sponsors and outside witnesses included lawmakers, law‑enforcement representatives, resort and gaming industry lobbyists, tenant and housing advocates, and civil‑liberties organizations.

Ending note

The committee set a follow‑up session for 12:30 p.m. the next day to continue unfinished business and to allow additional stakeholder meetings before the committee deadline.