Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Committee reviews bill to update statute for Clark County Office of Public Safety; stakeholders negotiate jurisdiction language

April 05, 2025 | 2025 Legislature NV, Nevada


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee reviews bill to update statute for Clark County Office of Public Safety; stakeholders negotiate jurisdiction language
Senate Bill 449, presented during the Government Affairs hearing, would update Nevada statute to recognize and clarify the authority of Clark County's patrol-oriented agency now known as the Clark County Office of Public Safety (previously Park Rangers / Park Police).

Kenneth Hawkes, representing the Clark County Law Enforcement Association, described the proposed amendments as aligning the statute with current agency names and practices and giving agencies flexibility to operate under memoranda of understanding with the sheriff's office. "This bill recognizes and allows flexibility to public safety officers to expand as necessary," Hawkes said.

Captain Josh Martinez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department told the committee the department supported the amendment as long as it preserved the sheriff's jurisdiction and required an interlocal agreement when public safety officers act outside county-owned or -controlled property. Jeff F. Rogan, representing Clark County, said the amendment was a negotiated approach that would protect both county and sheriff interests.

Opposition testimony in Las Vegas and Carson City raised concerns about field experience and alleged past incidents in which city marshals or similar officers exceeded proper jurisdiction. Derek Myers, who said he had read the amendment only shortly before the hearing, argued that officer certification is not the same as in-field experience and warned against duplicating responsibilities that Metro now holds. Doug Roberts said he opposed the bill if it extended authority to city marshals beyond their existing limits and referenced specific stop/arrest incidents he called improper.

The sponsors and supporters emphasized the language requiring the sheriff's consent and interlocal agreements, and they said the amendment reflects current operational practice and existing memoranda of understanding. The committee closed the hearing after stakeholder testimony; no vote was recorded at the session.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee