Fixing a bad law

Do any of our lawmakers in Carson City — even a bill’s sponsor — actually read the final version of a proposed statute before they vote on it? After all, those little words on paper can lead to Nevadans being hauled into court, even losing their freedom.

But judging from Senate Bill 233, it appears no one in Carson City is going to the same amount of trouble you’d take if a salesman at the electronics store put a bunch of fine print in front of you and said, “Sign here.”

SB 233, enacted at the end of the 2011 session, elevated the crime of maliciously torturing, maiming or killing a companion animal from a misdemeanor to a felony. The bill was nicknamed “Cooney’s Law” in memory of a pit bull-beagle slashed and killed in a Reno motel room by a deranged owner who was convinced there was a mouse inside the dog that had to be removed.

The bill had broad support. After all, who wants to be accused of favoring cruelty to animals?

In fact, there were some legitimate reasons to have concerns about the bill, foremost among them the Sixth Amendment difficulties with a late-session amendment to allow citizens to make cruelty allegations anonymously. The constitution guarantees that anyone accused of a serious crime “shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The bill’s supporters argued the amendment was needed so informants wouldn’t have to fear retaliation.

But in the end, the provision to guarantee anonymity for accusers was written to keep all such cases secret from the public, in defiance of Nevada’s public records law. The amendment reads: “Any person, law enforcement agency, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or animal control agency that willfully releases data or information concerning the reports, except for the purposes of a criminal investigation, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The new law couldn’t be more clear.

“The provision makes the investigation confidential, even the report,” Jerry Shay, Washoe County deputy district attorney, told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Sen. Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, a sponsor of the bill, says he was surprised to learn about the exact wording. “The report itself … that is not confidential,” Sen. Manendo said. “Why would that be any different than if someone got caught committing any other kind of felony?”

Because that’s what staff wrote, and that’s what lawmakers voted for — without reading it, obviously.

Ironically, even animal welfare and animal rights groups — who often publicize severe cases of neglect and abuse to raise money for their causes — now have no access to such reports in Nevada.

So this year Sen. Manendo offers up Senate Bill 73 — to “fix” Senate Bill 233. Its initial hearing was Thursday before the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Denying the accused the right to confront his or her accuser is still a concern. Restoring public access to records after a case is resolved is a step in the right direction. An even better long-term solution? For lawmakers to read their bills before they enact them.