Bill to let agencies share victim information with statewide Resiliency and Justice Center advances after questions on privacy

Senate Bill 125, sponsored by Sen. John Steinbeck, would clarify that governmental entities in Nevada may, consistent with their internal policies and federal privacy laws, share victim information with the state‑designated Resiliency and Justice Center to help coordinate long‑term services for survivors of crime.

"The bill before you today, SB 125, is designed to ensure victims and survivors of violent crime have access to the resources provided by the Resiliency and Justice Center," said Sen. John Steinbeck, introducing the measure and its background. The center, managed by the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, was designated by the Legislature as the statewide victims assistance center following the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shootings.

Why it matters: Advocates and center staff said victims often face repeated requests to re‑tell traumatic details when seeking help from multiple agencies. The bill aims to reduce that burden by allowing agencies to share information with the statewide center when consistent with existing consent and confidentiality rules, including federal statutes such as the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Tenille Perera, director of the Resiliency and Justice Center and Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, said the center’s role is to "work with victim service providers across the state to streamline processes, identify and remove barriers to services and identify ways to fill in service gaps." Tyler Winkler, supervising attorney at the center, told the committee the bill adds a subsection clarifying that "government entities consistent with their internal policies may, but are not required to share victim information with the state designated victim assistance center for the sole purpose of providing them long term support services."

Winkler and Perera emphasized that confidentiality protections remain in force. Winkler said the bill explicitly prohibits the Resiliency and Justice Center from disclosing received information and cited federal consent requirements for certain programs. The presenters told the committee the change is permissive — agencies would remain bound by their own consent and disclosure rules and by federal confidentiality obligations.

Several legislators pressed for safeguards and clearer consent language. Sen. Dallas Krasner raised constitutional privacy concerns and asked whether victims would have to opt in; Tyler Winkler and Tenille Perera replied that existing consent and disclosure requirements remain intact and that some agencies require written authorizations. Krasner asked the bill sponsor for an amendment to require written opt‑in consent; committee members discussed that option but did not amend the bill on the floor during the hearing.

Supporters included the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, Clark County Office of Emergency Management, and Clark County Fire Chief Billy Samuels, who said the Resiliency and Justice Center plays an important coordination role during mass‑casualty events. Ryley Svendsen of the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence testified SB 125 "will reduce barriers and help to simplify the process of navigating care and support after violent crimes." Chief Samuels said, "I am 100% in support of this bill," citing the logistical challenges the county faced after October 1, 2017.

Committee concern focused on ensuring victims’ constitutional and statutory privacy rights are preserved. Senator Krasner said he would feel more comfortable if the bill required victims to opt in in writing; center staff said they require releases in many cases and the statutory language was drafted to be permissive and consistent with existing federal confidentiality rules. Sen. Steinbeck and other senators praised the center’s work and said the bill is intended to reduce the retraumatization victims encounter when repeatedly recounting their experiences across agencies.

The committee took testimony in support and heard no recorded opposition. The hearing concluded with committee members encouraging continued work on consent language and operational details before any final vote.

Ending: SB 125 was presented and received wide supporter testimony; committee members requested attention to written‑consent language and confidentiality safeguards as the bill moves forward.