Nevada bill would require lethality assessments for domestic-violence calls, sponsors say

CARSON CITY — Lawmakers on Monday heard Assembly Bill 216, a proposal from Assemblymember Melissa Hardy to require law-enforcement officers statewide to use a standardized lethality assessment when responding to domestic-violence incidents.

Hardy said officers are uniquely positioned to identify victims at greatest risk and to link them to services. "This bill would require the use of a lethality assessment for all jurisdictions in the state," Hardy told the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Advocates and providers described the assessment as an evidence-based tool that helps identify victims at high risk of serious harm.

William Horn, who presented parts of the bill with Hardy, described the assessment’s content as including questions about weapons in the home, threats to kill, strangulation, stalking and other risk factors. The bill presented to the committee also directed state agencies to develop training; it initially included a provision to maintain a central database of results, but Hardy told the committee she expects some database language to be deleted after stakeholder discussions.

SafeNest CEO Liz Ortenberger, who described Clark County as among the most dangerous places in the country for women to be killed by intimate partners, urged adoption and training: “We cannot continue to deny that we are failing our women,” she said. Ortenberger described the assessment used in Clark County as the danger-assessment law enforcement (DALE) instrument and said nonprofit advocates typically administer the tool in other contexts; she said training for the DALE is minimal and that her organization trains staff in about a half hour.

Supporters said standardizing assessments would improve coordination between police, nonprofit advocates and the courts and could help prioritize resource allocation for those at highest risk. Elizabeth Abdur Rahim of the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence told the committee assessments correctly identify high-risk situations “90 percent of the time” and urged adoption.

Witnesses and committee members, however, raised concerns about privacy, data use and legal consequences. Assemblymember Roth asked whether a statewide database could be weaponized, and Hardy said stakeholders were discussing deleting the database requirement so the bill would instead focus on implementing assessments in all jurisdictions. John McCormick from the Administrative Office of the Courts warned of constitutional concerns if the Administrative Office were required to deliver training under Department of Public Safety rulemaking authority.

Public defenders and pretrial-services staff warned about how assessment results are used in court. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office said lethality assessments are currently used by pretrial services and argued that pretrial units can apply the tool more consistently and neutrally than officers responding in chaotic scenes. She also asked how officers would be protected if failure to administer an assessment led to harm.

Law-enforcement witnesses said they value the tool but noted operational concerns. Chris Reese of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said LVMPD is confident the assessment is useful and expects to work with the sponsor to address the committee’s concerns.

Committee members asked whether the assessment would be compulsory and when it should be used; advocates suggested it be applied in calls that result in probable cause for arrest (roughly 30 percent of domestic-violence calls in Clark County, per testimony) and said victims can decline to answer questions. Hardy said the bill’s text and form language remain under negotiation and that she expects amendments.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing; the sponsor said she will work with stakeholders to refine the bill.