UNLV-backed proposal would make Nevada traffic-stop data collection permanent; some law enforcement oppose indefinite retention

Senators heard testimony on Senate Bill 85, which would remove a sunset and make permanent Nevada’s traffic-stop data collection and reporting requirements established after 2021’s SB236.

Sponsor Sen. Melanie Scheibel said the measure implements a unanimous interim-committee recommendation to continue recording, retaining and reporting specified information from traffic stops — including age, race, ethnicity and other stop particulars — so researchers and policymakers can identify patterns or practices of profiling. Soraya Bonner, an intern in Scheibel’s office, summarized the bill and its intent.

UNLV’s STOP team (Statistical Transparency of Policing), which has analyzed Nevada data since February 2022, urged permanence so that the university can complete the multi-year statistical work needed to assess disparities. UNLV presenters said they have three years of data and two descriptive reports so far and that advanced statistical analyses typically require multiple years of data; they expected to attempt more advanced disparity analysis in the next report due by the end of the calendar year.

Public-health and research witnesses supported the bill. Deborah Kools of UNLV’s Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine described the STOP project’s work and said continuing data collection is essential to promote transparency and reduce disparities; she tied potential improvements to broader public-safety outcomes. The research presenters noted they had proposed a conceptual amendment to the bill: rather than requiring agencies to directly send raw data to multiple legislative entities, ask agencies to continue reporting as now and have the legislature receive the STOP team’s analyzed annual report, reducing duplicate data handling and preserving the team’s analytic work.

Opponents included Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Captain Joshua Martinez and a Washington County sheriff’s representative, who testified they opposed indefinite, permanent data-collection requirements and preferred a time-limited practice (they cited three years as a precedent). Martinez said the agencies can collect data but raised concern about perpetually open-ended retention and reporting obligations; he said he was open to the technical amendment that limits which entities receive direct raw reporting. Supporters said three years of data exist but argued that permanence is needed to allow continued multi-year analysis and oversight.

Ending: The committee took testimony and discussed a proposed amendment to streamline reporting to the legislature by receiving the UNLV-analyzed annual report rather than raw data copies. No final committee vote was recorded in the transcript.