Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Due Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada senators hear bill to tighten notice and detail requirements in peace-officer investigations
Summary
Sen. Julie Pizzina and law-enforcement groups presented SB279 to require more specific written notices and equal 48-hour notice for subject and witness officers under NRS 289; supporters cited examples of vague notices that led to ambush interviews and arbitration. No committee action was taken in subcommittee due to lack of quorum.
Sen. Julie Pizzina on behalf of Senate District 12 presented Senate Bill 279 to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, proposing changes to Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 289 to require law enforcement agencies to provide more specific written notices to peace officers who are the subject of internal investigations and to extend the same 48-hour notice protection to compelled witness officers.
The bill, Pizzina said, "aims to enhance transparency and fairness in the investigative process for peace officers," and a second amendment to the draft was distributed to committee members during the hearing. Supporters from multiple law-enforcement associations told the committee that current practice sometimes leaves officers unprepared for interviews.
Andrew Reigenbaum, executive director of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, said the amendment clarifies that notices must include "the date, time, and location of the alleged misconduct, as well as a summary that includes a specific description of the misconduct or performance problem." Reigenbaum added that the change is necessary because some agencies have interpreted the current statute narrowly and have not provided witness officers the same 48-hour notice afforded subject officers.
Rick McCann of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers said the changes are "common sense" and intended to prevent "fishing expeditions or witch hunts" in internal affairs investigations. He and Reigenbaum described examples in which officers were interviewed about matters not included in the original notice and later disciplined, producing arbitration and added expense.
Representatives of local bargaining units and departments—including Sean Thibault of the Henderson Police Officers Association, Jason Lesher of the Washoe County Sheriff Deputies Association, John Abel of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and others—testified in support, saying similar protections already are codified in some collective bargaining agreements and would improve internal-investigation quality and officer preparedness.
No formal committee action was taken on SB279 at this hearing. The committee met as a subcommittee because a full quorum of the Senate committee was not present; the chair clarified that "we are in subcommittee. We're not gonna be taking any action at this time. However, we may take action once we have an actual Senate quorum." A public commenter, Noah Villa, stated during general public comment that he had been affected by insufficient notice in an internal investigation and urged support for SB279.
If enacted as presented, SB279 would (1) require written notices to subject and witness officers to include specific facts and the rules or policies alleged to have been violated, and (2) require at least 48 hours' written notice for both compelled witnesses and subject officers. Supporters said the bill includes existing safeguards in NRS 289 allowing an interview to stop and be restarted if additional allegations surface during questioning.
The hearing record includes multiple witness statements in favor and one representative of the Nevada Urban Consortium who said the amendment may address their concerns but asked for time to review it. The bill remains under committee consideration pending future action when the full committee meets.
