'Alessandra's Law' would put repeat domestic‑violence convictions on a public Nevada website

Assemblyman Toby Yurek presented Assembly Bill 162, called "Alessandra's Law," to create a statewide public database and Internet website listing individuals with two or more convictions for domestic violence within a seven‑year period. The bill would require the Director of the Department of Public Safety to maintain the central repository and to include specified public information about each listed person.

Yurek framed the bill around the fatal 2015 murder of Alessandra Barlas and the family's advocacy. Rick and Diane Beatty, Alessandra's parents, provided a written statement read in committee explaining that the man who killed their daughter had a prior attempted‑murder conviction in Nevada and that their family had not known of his history before the homicide. "By the time we learned of his criminal record, Alessandra was already gone," the statement said.

Survivor Katrina Esparza testified she had also been attacked by the same perpetrator and urged passage. "If I can't have you, nobody can," Esparza said, repeating the threat she recalled from her attacker and arguing that public access to repeated domestic‑violence convictions might help other potential victims make safer choices.

Under the bill's text, the database would provide each person's name, date of birth, physical description, offenses and punishment. The website would exclude certain confidential data (for example, Social Security numbers and victim identities), must explain petition procedures for removal, and provide contact details for service organizations. The bill also would prohibit use of the database for lending, employment, education, housing or business‑service decisions and authorize civil liability for misuse. The sponsor included an immunity provision for the department and law‑enforcement agencies over the accuracy or disclosure of information.

Supporters — including the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, the Nevada District Attorneys Association, local sheriff and police groups, SafeNest and several survivors — argued the database would give family members or dating partners an additional tool to check whether someone has multiple domestic‑violence convictions. Liz Ortenberger, SafeNest CEO, cited Nevada's high rate of domestic homicides and stressed that repeat abusers are a high‑risk group; she said the bill targets the most dangerous offenders by setting a two‑conviction threshold and the seven‑year lookback.

Opponents raised constitutional and practical concerns. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office called the proposal premature and warned the bill's broader domestic‑violence definition (which covers many non‑intimate family relationships under Nevada law) could capture young people or other individuals in non‑intimate conflicts. Washoe County public defenders asked that the bill focus on felony convictions rather than misdemeanors, and both offices argued the petition process for removal should be automatic because people may not know to petition after seven years. Public defenders also warned that mandatory arrest practices and chaotic scenes can result in victims being arrested and later convicted, which could lead to victims appearing on the public list.

Sponsor Yurek and supporters responded that limiting the database to felonies would exclude many repeat offenders because domestic violence cases are frequently prosecuted as misdemeanors; they cited academic and federal recidivism research as part of the justification for the two‑conviction, seven‑year threshold. Yurek said he has been willing to continue discussions with public defenders and other stakeholders to address operational or constitutional questions.

The committee heard extended testimony and questions about scope (intimate partner versus broader domestic‑violence definitions), cross‑jurisdictional limitations (there is no national database; Texas has a comparable statute), removal procedures, data accuracy and risks of misuse. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.

Several members urged additional work with defenders and other stakeholders to refine definitions, petition procedures and safeguards before final action.