Bill would expand justice‑court jurisdiction for state police arrests; judges, defenders warn of unintended consequences

Assemblymember Gregory Hafen introduced Assembly Bill 233 on March 6, 2025, telling the Assembly Judiciary Committee the measure would extend the jurisdiction of justice courts in certain criminal cases arising from arrests by state police so justice courts could exercise jurisdiction not only within their county but also within bordering counties for arrests made by state police.

Sponsor’s purpose: Hafen said the change is intended to reduce logistical burdens in rural Nevada where the nearest jail or court may be across a county line—examples cited included Tonopah (split between counties) and long transports for suspected DUI blood draws that can take troopers off the road for hours. ‘‘This bill will extend the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace in cases involving arrest made by a member of the state police,’’ Hafen said, adding the goal is to make the process more efficient for remote stretches of highway patrolled by Nevada Highway Patrol troopers.

Support and opposition: The committee heard no broad public support during the hearing and several organizational opponents raised concerns about unintended consequences. Tom Clark, representing the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, said judges oppose the bill as drafted but are working with the sponsor on amendments. Clark and other opponents described jurisdiction and booking logistics as complex, stressed the 48‑hour rules that require prompt preliminary hearings, and warned that smaller county jails have limited bed capacity.

Operational concerns and examples: Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office and Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office both testified in opposition, citing risks that justice courts with limited facilities could become overburdened. Knott pointed to regional jail bed numbers offered in testimony—Washoe County ~1,000 beds, Clark County ~3,000 beds, White Pine ~40 beds, and Nye County (Pahrump and Tonopah combined) ~324 beds—to illustrate disparities. Opponents also raised that some justice courts serve very small populations and that justices of the peace in some jurisdictions are not required to be licensed attorneys, which could shift cases to forums with differing qualifications.

Legal context: Committee counsel Carly O'Krent noted that SB55 (2023) had previously removed identical language, and the sponsor said the current version will be adjusted to refer to ‘‘state police’’ rather than the older ‘‘Highway Patrol’’ terminology. Hafen and witnesses said they expect to work on amendments with judges and other stakeholders to address jurisdictional edge cases, capacity, and statutory clarity.

Process and next steps: The bill drew detailed questioning from committee members on practical scenarios—where a trooper arrests a driver in a remote county and must choose between a nearer facility across a county line or a more distant in‑county court that triggers long transports and delayed preliminary hearings. Hafen said he will pursue negotiated language changes and return with amendments. The committee did not vote on AB233 during the session.

Less critical detail: Testimony included anecdotes about man camps, dispensary locations that straddle county lines, and examples in Nye County where limited trooper staffing left remote areas thinly covered. Witnesses asked for worked‑out solutions that preserved timely access to preliminary hearings and safeguarded court and jail resources.