Panel considers allowing accredited facility dogs in Nevada courtrooms to aid child and vulnerable witnesses

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 heard Assembly Bill 302, which would allow accredited facility dogs to accompany child and other vulnerable witnesses at specified criminal proceedings, and set minimum standards for the dogs and handlers.

Lieutenant Michael Browett of the Reno Police Department, who testified as bill proponent, told the committee that facility dogs undergo extensive professional training and are distinct from emotional-support or therapy animals. “Facility dogs are very professionally trained, dogs who are on the same par as a service animal,” Browett said, adding that the bill would require dogs from accredited providers and would preserve judicial control over courtroom operations through the court’s authorization.

The measure has three central goals: define facility dogs and handlers, allow their use in court (subject to judicial authorization and public-access limits), and enable victims or advocates to request dogs during interviews and proceedings. Browett said he modeled language on statutes in other states, would propose clarifying amendments to confine public-access provisions to working contexts, and stressed the proposal is permissive — not a mandate that courts must supply dogs.

Supporters argued facility dogs help stabilize traumatized children and improve the quality of testimony. Rebecca Goff of Humane World for Animals said the animal-human bond can ease a child’s stress and help them participate in proceedings. Browett cited national organizations that endorse facility-dog use in justice settings and told the committee that, as of recent counts, roughly 3,566 facility dogs were in service nationwide across about 41 states.

Opponents included public defenders, limited-jurisdiction judges and court administrators who raised constitutional and fairness concerns. Paloma Guerrero, speaking as an attorney, warned the bill’s current language is broad and could be “susceptible to litigation,” and cited research suggesting jurors may be more likely to convict when a dog is present. “The presence of a dog makes the jury more likely to rule guilty,” Guerrero said.

Washoe County Public Defender Angela Knott and other defense representatives said a visible dog may influence jurors and noted it would likely figure in jury selection questions (for example, about allergies or fear). Judges’ groups asked the Legislature not to encroach on judicial procedural authority, arguing that courtroom management is a core judicial function and that mandatory language would raise separation-of-powers issues. Several court administrators said they are willing to work with the sponsor to refine the bill and remove any language that would compel courts to adopt policies.

The sponsor answered practical questions: dogs would most often be provided by agencies, nonprofit groups or victim-advocate programs rather than being purchased by courts; organizations such as Canine Companions often retain ownership and carry liability coverage — Browett cited examples of $1 million liability policies — and training should come from Assistance Dogs International-or similar-accredited providers. He acknowledged possible allergies and accessibility concerns but noted service and assistance dogs already operate under federal law and that careful site and scheduling practices can reduce conflicts.

No committee vote was taken. Members and stakeholders said they expect continued negotiations and amendments, particularly to (1) preserve judicial discretion in courtroom control, (2) narrow the bill’s public-access language to working settings, and (3) include a balancing test or findings when a facility dog is permitted during a trial to mitigate potential prejudice to a defendant.

The committee closed the hearing on AB302 without action as the sponsor pledged to work with judges, public defenders, prosecutors and disability and service-dog advocates to refine the measure.