ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


Kat’s Blog: Nevada’s “Self-Pay” Ruling

With every state having its own registry, its own frequently amended and expanded rules, it’s difficult enough for registrants to keep up with what’s going on in their own state, never mind other states.

In case you missed it, here’s a gem of a ruling from Nevada that became effective on 6/5/19, that once again reaches into the wallet of registrants and also appears to give sole power over whose wallet is emptied, to the Chief of the State Board of Parole Commissioners.

Nevada Senate Bill 8: The State Board of Parole Commissioners can establish by regulation, a program of lifetime supervision of “sex offenders” to commence after any period of probation or any term of imprisonment and any period of release or parole. The program must provide for the lifetime supervision of “sex offenders” by parole and probation officers.

This bill includes most of the “standard” provisions of other state bills, distance restrictions of 500ft.  from areas that are used primarily by children, schools, school bus stops, daycares, video arcades, amusement parks, playgrounds and even motion picture theaters. This bill appears to apply to Tier 3 offenders.

Here’s the “self-pay” portion of the bill that seems to add on yet another registrant fee and one that could come with a hefty price tag.

“A registrant, as deemed appropriate by the Chief, be placed under a system of active electronic monitoring that is capable of identifying his/her location and producing upon request, reports or records of his/her presence near or within a crime scene or prohibited area or his/her departure from a specified geographic area.”

“A registrant will PAY any costs associated with his/her participation under the system of active electronic monitoring (GPS ankle bracelets) to the extent of his/her ability to pay.”

The Bill continues on to state that the amendatory provisions of the act apply to those who have already begun a program of lifetime supervision as of the effective date of this act, any applicable, additional conditions of a program of lifetime supervision added by the amendatory provisions of this act apply as of 1/1/21.  If a person has not yet commenced a program of lifetime supervision, the added amendatory provisions commence as of 1/1/20.

It appears that this Bill allows the Chief of the State Board of Parole Commissioners subjective discretion in deciding who he deems “appropriate” to require GPS monitoring. Seems like too much power being given to one individual if you ask me.

And, while many registrants have difficulty finding employment, the challenge is probably even greater for Tier 3 registrants.  In the state of Nevada, the administrative start-up fees for electronic monitoring range from $100-$200. The daily fee for monitoring is $5-$40 per day. Who can afford that?  And why should registrants pay for “after- incarceration- monitoring” that the state has deemed necessary? If the state thinks it’s necessary, let them pay for it. Haven’t registrants paid enough already?

Registrants wallets are empty. Registration fees, polygraph fees, treatment fees. We’re not talking chump change, we’re talking hundreds of dollars per year that registrants could be using to pay their rent, feed their families or keep their utilities turned on.

I wonder does the Chief’s power extend to determining the need for GPS for any other category of ex-offenders or is his/her power limited to registrants?

Wait, what was I thinking? These endless, ever-expanding, punitive bills are only for registrants.


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And again, no internet access is part of this bill as well. I would argue the GPS monitor they want to strap on has internet access just to see what they say.

This bill is absolutely ridiculous. If registrants need to be monitored and controlled to that extent, why let them out of prison in the first place?Just go back and re-sentence all registrants to life without and be done with it. So what if it’s unconstitutional? Nearly everything about the registry is unconstitutional anyway.

Actually the wording is slightly better than other previous Nevada law pertaining to persons on paper. NRS 213.1243, pertaining to lifetime supervision: “unless the sex offender installs a device or subscribes to a service which enables the parole and probation officer assigned to the sex offender to regulate the sex offender’s use of the Internet.” I am still on paper, but not sentenced with lifetime supervision. The wording is a little different. NRS 213.1245, pertaining to parole for SO: “unless possession of such a device or such access is approved by the parole and probation officer assigned to the parolee.” I… Read more »

I should add that the Internet restriction for lifetime supervision is for a SO “convicted of a sexual offense involving the use of the Internet.”

Again, this has nothing to do with being a registrant.

Is this adding lifetime monitoring after sentencing? Or, was that already in place and this just changes how it’s administered and who makes the decisions?

Nothing has changed with regard to monitoring for lifetime supervision. It was already in place, applicable to persons sentenced with lifetime supervision, as per your JOC. There are no changes to how it’s administered or who makes the decisions.

This has nothing to do with being a registrant. I don’t know who Kat is, but she’s spreading false information.

Whenever I observe one of the many examples of the undeniably overreaching restrictions that are cinched to Registrants, despite the data that shows the restrictions are impractical and inhumane, I think of a line from the Marx Brothers’ “Duck Soup”: Chico Marx says, “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” It’s obvious that regardless of evidence in plain sight that disproves the alleged ‘benefits’ of the registry, there is a large swath of bullies that will routinely attempt to have us not believe our own eyes. Before I moved To California, I developed an amicable relationship with my… Read more »

They passed the bill …… and now they pass the bill …. to Registrants. Yes, indeed, who else is burdened with such continuing fees ad infinitum? DUI-convicted drivers …. hit & run accidents … wouldn’t it be worthwhile to have those individuals GPS monitored? Those convicted of car thefts or home invasion burglaries…. should be GPS monitored. And those convicted of stalking or terrorist/violent threats…. GPS monitored. How is it that I can come up with these off the top of my head in just moments and lawmakers can’t, don’t or won’t??? Screw us, screw others! Until there are so… Read more »

@ Stephen H.
The information as quoted in this piece is taken directly from Senate Bill 8 and available for anyone to read on the Nevada State Government website.

I read it. It’s where I got my info. SB8 has nothing to do with registrants. No where is the word “registrant” to be found. You wish to insist that you’re quoting something that’s not there?

Spreading false information does a great disservice to those trying to fight the injustice of laws imposed on us. It destroys our credibility.

I take umbrage at the misinformation being put out here in this “blog” regarding NRS 213.1243. I’m sorry, I don’t know who Kat is, but her commentary has a glaring lack of facts or research. It is important that information on this site be accurate, and not cause undue alarm. It is not up to the The State Board of Parole Commissioners to decide if one gets lifetime supervision. This is done at sentencing and appears on you Judgement of Conviction. The author makes it sound like P&P is making that decision, which is grossly incorrect. What NRS 213.1243 says is… Read more »

In 2013, I paid $20 a day for private house arrest and GPS monitoring. With inflation, today’s price should be $22.31 per day. $40 a day is way too excessive.

@Stephen H.
You’re correct on one point, the Senate Bill uses the phrase “sex offender”, while I prefer to use the term “registrant”.
The Bill states registrants will be made to “pay”, in this instance for GPS monitoring, to the extent of their ability. The point of the piece is that registrants already pay too much.
If you found the blog misleading or feel that it misrepresented the Bill in some way, that was certainly not the intention and comments are appreciated.
Again, the quoted text is taken directly from the Bill.

Dear Ms. Kat, I’m not sure you’re understanding my objections. While I appreciate your opinions, and find many of your blogs thought provoking, I feel more care should be taken when citing law. Substituting your own words for what is written law is taking extreme literary license at the expense of inciting fear. The problem is that taking such liberty with words causes unwarranted stress, as reflected in some posts on this thread. It may just be semantics to you, but you must realize that saying “registrants will be forced to wear and pay for a GPS monitor under a… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x