Parole and probation seek new route to release some on lifetime supervision; prosecutors express public-safety concerns

Parole and Probation leaders told the Assembly Judiciary Committee that Assembly Bill 4 would give the agency authority to petition courts or the state board of parole commissioners for release from lifetime supervision in narrowly defined circumstances and would clarify existing statutory language about good-time credits for people on probation.

Tamra Jackson, chief of the Division of Parole and Probation, said lifetime supervision is a statutory term that begins after probation, parole or a prison sentence for certain sexual-offense convictions. She described lifetime supervision as minimally enforced in practice — typically annual address verification rather than the searches, reporting and random testing common to probation or parole — and said the division treats many of these caseloads as low-contact registrations.

Jackson and Deputy Chief Aaron Evans said the division seeks an administrative pathway to petition for closure of lifetime-supervision cases for individuals who cannot meet current statutory petition requirements due to indigency, infirmity, geography or other barriers. Under current law, an individual may petition after 10 years and must meet narrow clinical and behavior standards, including an evaluation by a licensed clinician trained in treatment of certain offenders. Jackson told the committee that such evaluations can cost upwards of $2,000 and that some people cannot afford or access them.

Evans provided aggregate counts: as of the hearing there were 92 individuals who had been on lifetime supervision for 20 years or more; of those 92, 25 had been deported and 20 were in warrant status for registration violations, he said. Evans also told the committee he could provide exact numbers; later in questioning he estimated that roughly 450 people on lifetime supervision overall are deported and must still be administratively monitored.

Supporters included Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office, who said the bill recognizes long-term law-abiding behavior and could free resources to supervise higher-risk people. Guerrero said the division is best placed to know whether a long-term supervisee should remain under a minimally intrusive form of oversight and supported an administrative petition after 20 years of good behavior.

Opposition testimony came from the Nevada District Attorneys Association. John Jones told the committee the association views the bill through “truth-in-sentencing” and public-safety lenses: victims are told at sentencing that a defendant will be under lifetime supervision, and Jones warned the bill could allow high-risk offenders to be removed from a state monitoring tool without the statutorily required clinical findings. He said lifetime supervision was created for the most serious sexual-offense convictions and that the current statute limits release to those who meet specific criteria, including a clinician’s determination about risk.

Parole and Probation told the committee the division already allows petitions after 10 years under current law; AB4 would add a narrowly defined administrative pathway initiated by the division after 20 years of demonstrated lawful behavior for individuals unable to comply with petition requirements due to indigency, infirmity or geographic limitations. No formal vote was taken at the hearing.