Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Unclothed Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 89 would restrict fully unclothed searches in juvenile facilities and require staff oversight and reporting
Summary
Assembly Bill 89 would limit fully unclothed searches of children in Nevada juvenile facilities to narrowly defined extraordinary circumstances and require two staff to be present and a written report to administrators within 72 hours, sponsors told the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Assembly Bill 89, presented April 26, would limit the circumstances under which a child in regional, local or state juvenile facilities can be subjected to a fully unclothed search and require procedural safeguards, sponsors told the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
"Any unclosed searches that do occur under these limited extraordinary circumstances must be conducted with the physical presence of at least 2 employees of the facility for the entire duration of an unclosed search," Assemblymember Cecilia Gonzales said, summarizing the bill's core safeguards. The bill would also require the employee who conducts the search to submit a written report to the facility administrator within 72 hours describing the search and any information the administrator requests.
Presenters said the bill is intended to ensure consistent protections across regional treatment facilities, local detention centers and state facilities, protect dignity and reduce retraumatization of children — particularly survivors of prior sexual abuse. "Unclothed searches are extremely invasive and intrusive for especially for adolescents," said Jennifer Fraser, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Juvenile Division, Clark County Public Defender's Office.
Committee members and stakeholders pressed sponsors to define the bill's key term: "extraordinary circumstances." Lawmakers asked whether gender preference for staff present during a search should be requested when possible, how understaffed facilities would handle staffing requirements, and whether the standard should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. County and facility representatives said existing policies vary across facility types and jurisdictions and asked for statutory clarity that aligns with operational safety requirements and federal standards such as the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).
Supporters included public defenders and callers who described the need to protect children's dignity. Clark County voiced limited opposition on operational grounds: Jeff Rogan, representing Clark County, said the county uses "reasonable suspicion" standards for these searches and asked the committee to clarify definitions and the standard of proof in statute.
Representatives from the Division of Child and Family Services and juvenile-service directors described existing policies: DCFS officials said unclothed searches at state facilities are conducted with facility-superintendent approval, generally by two-person teams and based on probable cause that contraband threatening facility safety may be present. Washoe County juvenile services described a neutral-to-support position pending clarifications.
The committee closed the hearing and invited sponsors to convene stakeholders and technical working groups to define "extraordinary circumstances," align statute with operational needs (including staffing and gender-matching where feasible) and reconcile terms such as "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion." No vote on AB 89 was recorded in the transcript.
