Senate panel weighs bill to classify Clark County marshals as county employees and centralize standards

Sen. Melanie Scheibel, R‑Las Vegas, opened a hearing on Senate Bill 450 to clarify the employment status and duties of bailiffs, deputy marshals and court security personnel in counties with populations of 700,000 or more — a threshold that currently applies only to Clark County.

SB450 would (1) declare those bailiffs and deputy marshals county employees in qualifying counties; (2) establish assignment procedures (replacing judicial appointment); (3) remove language that required deputy marshals to “comply with duties prescribed by judicial officers,” placing standards with a chief marshal; (4) modernize statutory authority to allow deputy marshals to effectuate service of process; and (5) eliminate an historical bond requirement for marshals and bailiffs.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure stems from a long shift in practice. “In the modern era, they have been selected more like we see other law enforcement officers selected into a general pool of post certified individuals,” Sen. Melanie Scheibel said, arguing the statute should reflect that reality and preserve the judiciary’s core role while leaving security and operational standards to trained law‑enforcement leadership.

Deputy Marshal Hawkes of the Las Vegas court security contingent described the day‑to‑day effects: marshals presently operate from a county‑level pool, he said, and centralizing standards under a chief marshal would ensure uniform training and consistent security across courthouses from the Regional Justice Center to juvenile and family court facilities. “The changes of this bill would then give us an opportunity to make sure that we have a standard across the board that is the same,” Hawkes said.

Law‑enforcement organizations offered unified support at the hearing. Troyce Krumme, chair of the Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association, the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and several unions said the bill clarifies separation‑of‑powers concerns and places law‑enforcement employees in the proper executive‑branch employment structure. “I think this clears up the distinction regarding a potential violation of separation of powers,” Krumme said.

Opponents included representatives of the Clark County district court and county government. Andres Moses, representing the district court, said the marshals’ employment relationship and oversight are the subject of ongoing litigation before the Nevada Supreme Court and that courts currently exercise oversight and collective‑bargaining frameworks under court rules. “We are here in opposition today to SB450 for two primary reasons,” Moses said, citing the pending litigation and the court’s longstanding role in overseeing courthouse security. Jeff Rogan of Clark County echoed that the county and courts have an existing memorandum of understanding and said the county does not view the employer relationship as unclear.

Committee members asked several operational questions. Sen. Dallas Harris and Sen. I. Ellison questioned whether process servers in rural areas — who are not post‑certified peace officers — would be affected and whether they could carry a firearm; witnesses said statutory service rules and any changes to CCW/peace‑officer authorities would need separate policy work. Scheibel and Hawkes emphasized SB450 targets deputy marshals and bailiffs who are post‑certified; non‑peace‑officer process servers would not automatically gain peace‑officer authority under this bill.

The committee heard no formal motion or vote during the hearing. The bill generated largely supportive testimony from law‑enforcement labor groups and practicing marshals, and formal opposition from the Clark County court administration and county counsel based on pending litigation and the courts’ current oversight role.

The hearing record closed after proponents and opponents delivered their statements and the sponsor waived closing remarks.

Ending: The committee took no recorded action during the session; the hearing closed with the bill pending further committee consideration.