Senate committee hears bill to criminalize off‑duty communications between prison staff and inmates, expand contraband rules

The Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday heard testimony on SB 35, a bill from the Attorney General's Office that would criminalize certain off‑duty communications between prison staff and inmates, broaden the definition of contraband, and raise penalties for some custodial sexual offenses.

The Attorney General's Office, represented by Chief Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Engler and Teresa Benitez Thompson, said the bill aims to close gaps in existing law that have allowed inappropriate or illegal relationships and the introduction of synthetic drugs to go under‑punished. "For prisons to effectively serve one of their functions of rehabilitation, we must have sufficient accountability and punishment for those bad actors who seek to take advantage of the inmate population for their own personal gains," Engler said.

SB 35 would amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 212.140 to add two subsections making it a felony for an employee, contractor, or volunteer who communicates with a prisoner outside the course and scope of duties for illegal purposes, and a higher‑level felony where the communication is intended to arouse or gratify sexual desires. The bill also would change language in NRS 212.160 (as drafted in the bill) to replace "intoxicating liquor" with the broader term "intoxicant," defined to include controlled substance analogs, spirituous or malt liquors, synthetic cannabinoids (often called "spice") and other chemicals or solvents. Finally, the measure would increase penalties for abuse of a prisoner and for unauthorized custodial conduct in existing statutes.

Engler told the committee the Attorney General's Office has prosecuted crimes inside state prisons, including corruption by correctional staff, but that some conduct (she described a case where a correctional officer sent sexual photographs to an inmate who possessed an illegal cell phone) currently can only be charged as a misdemeanor under existing unauthorized‑communication statutes. "Amending the statute will close the gap that has allowed inappropriate relationships between correctional officers and inmates to go largely unpunished," she said.

Committee members pressed on several points. Vice Chair Flores asked how the bill would distinguish between the two new subsections — the proposed offense for communications "for illegal purposes" and the separate offense for communications aiming to "arouse, appeal to, or gratify" sexual desires. Engler said subsection 2 is intended to address communications connected to introducing contraband (for example, arranging to bring in cell phones or drugs) while subsection 3 targets sexual or prurient conduct, and that the drafting by Legislative Counsel Bureau could be sharpened to reduce confusion.

Several senators, including Senator Wynne and Senator Hansen, raised concerns that the bill's language could unintentionally criminalize volunteers, family members, or contractors who communicate with incarcerated relatives or clients. "Volunteers can include librarians or teachers or other individuals who are volunteering their time to help prisoners rehabilitate," Washoe County Public Defender Angela Knott testified in opposition. Knott argued that volunteers do not have the same power relationship as correctional officers and said the bill "appears to make emotional interactions a felony." Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office testified SB 35 "would essentially make people felons for flirting."

Senator Hansen questioned the severity of penalties if, for example, a contractor or visitor were to send sexually explicit photos. Engler noted felony penalties are often probation‑eligible and reiterated the bill was designed to address the power dynamics and public‑safety risks that arise when staff become compromised.

Other testimony from advocates and provider organizations echoed the public defenders' concerns about the bill's breadth and the risk of criminalizing consensual communications or family correspondence. Tonia Brown raised a hypothetical about retaliatory scenarios in which a staff member might plant material to implicate another employee.

The bill's supporters, including the Attorney General's Office, argued the measure is a necessary response to increasing instances of synthetic cannabinoids and illicit phones entering prisons and to relationships that can compromise security. Engler said lawmakers must balance First Amendment considerations with the state's responsibility "to protect the inmate population and their Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment."

The committee took no final vote on SB 35 during the hearing and closed the public testimony period after in‑room and phone testimony. No amendments were adopted on the record at the hearing; sponsors and staff indicated willingness to work with the committee to clarify statutory language before further action.