Senate committee weighs overhaul of civil-infraction procedures and bond requirements

Senate Bill 359 seeks to change how Nevada courts process contested civil traffic infractions, aiming to reduce financial barriers to hearings and to clarify how related criminal and civil charges are handled.

Sponsor Melanie Scheibel said the bill responds to problems that emerged after prior sessions decriminalized many traffic offenses. "An individual who wishes to contest a civil infraction citation must first post a bond equal to the full amount of the potential penalties… For many Nevadans this upfront payment creates a financial barrier to their right to a hearing," Scheibel told the committee. SB 359 would allow courts discretion to set a bond up to the full citation amount and would permit counsel to appear for a defendant at a contested civil infraction hearing without the defendant being present.

The bill would also require that when a civil infraction and a misdemeanor arise from the same incident they be filed together so a single judge can consider all charges arising from the same stop, Scheibel said; sponsors argued the change prevents duplicative filings and scheduling conflicts. SB 359 would apply selected evidentiary rules from the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act to civil-infraction hearings and would remove the statutory requirement that prosecutors convert a pending misdemeanor to a civil infraction only before the defendant’s first court appearance. Sponsors said the change restores the practical ability of prosecutors to reduce charges as part of negotiation.

Supporters included the Fines & Fees Justice Center, which stressed the bond changes would improve access to hearings. "At the very least, it'll allow good actors to ensure that the bonds are set at a reasonable standard in which people can access the court if they believe they are not guilty of the ticket," Nick Shepack said.

Opponents and neutral witnesses included the Nevada District Attorneys Association and the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction. John Jones of the district attorneys’ association said the bill as drafted could return civil traffic work to prosecutors in a way their offices may not be staffed to handle: "When we pass civil traffic back in 02/2021… one of the major aspects for us was the fact that a prosecutor could determine for themselves whether or not they're going to handle these in court. This would essentially get our offices back into civil traffic which we are opposed to." The judges’ organization provided a set of technical amendments aimed at clarifying procedures — for example, centralized issuance of subpoenas, interpreter notice timelines, and use of traffic-specific civil rules adopted by the Supreme Court.

Judge Kevin Higgins, speaking for the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, recommended using the Supreme Court ADKT (administrative) rules for civil traffic rather than wholesale adoption of the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act. Higgins also noted that many municipal and justice courts rely on affidavit procedures because officers frequently do not appear at civil-infraction hearings.

The bill drew extensive technical discussion. Sponsors and opponents agreed on the need for further negotiation; Judge Higgins and Senator Scheibel said they would continue to work on amendment language. The committee closed the hearing with neutral and opposing stakeholders still negotiating draft amendments.

Sources: Testimony by Sen. Melanie Scheibel; Judge Kevin Higgins (Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction); Nick Shepack (Fines & Fees Justice Center); John Jones (Nevada District Attorneys Association).