Bill
AB 151
Classifies customers convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution as Tier II offenders and expands sexual-offense coverage to include solicitation for prostitution, with relate
Status: Introduced Jan. 8, 2025. As of the most recent legislative records the bill was placed on the inactive file at the request of Senator Grayson and is listed as having “no further action allowed” pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1.
Purpose
- Revises Nevada criminal and sex-offender-registration law to (1) classify customers convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution as Tier II offenders for purposes of sex-offender registration and community notification, and (2) expand the statutory definition of “sexual offense” to include solicitation for prostitution (other than soliciting a child).
Key provisions
- Amends NRS 179D.0357 (definition of “crime against a child”): explicitly includes solicitation of a child for prostitution among the enumerated crimes against a child.
- Amends NRS 179D.097 (definition of “sexual offense”): adds “solicitation for prostitution, other than soliciting a child for prostitution” to the list of offenses treated as sexual offenses for purposes of statutes that rely on that definition (for example, restrictions on employment, registration requirements, and mandatory probation/parole conditions).
- Amends NRS 179D.115 (definition/placement of Tier II offenders): provides that a customer convicted of solicitation of a child for prostitution is a Tier II offender (rather than a different tier), thereby determining registration, notification, and related administrative requirements applicable to such offenders.
- Conforming and technical numbering changes.
Who would be affected
- Persons convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution (customers): classification as Tier II offenders affects their registration, community-notification obligations, and the duration/conditions of those obligations under Nevada law.
- Persons convicted of solicitation for prostitution (adult victims): the expanded “sexual offense” definition would subject such convictions to employment restrictions and other statutory consequences tied to that definition.
- Law enforcement, registry administrators, employers and licensing entities (who use the “sexual offense” and offender-tier definitions to impose employment or licensing restrictions).
- Victims and victim advocates: changes in classification and statutory treatment can affect how cases are prosecuted, how victims are notified, and community perceptions of protection and risk.
Procedural history and fiscal note
- Referred to Assembly Judiciary upon introduction. Passed the Assembly (third reading) on March 20, 2025 (Ayes 53, Noes 17).
- Transmitted to the Senate and proceeded through committee activity; committee votes and amendments were recorded. On Sept. 13, 2025 the bill was ordered to the inactive file at the request of Senator Grayson.
- Final/posted status: “Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed.”
- Fiscal note (as introduced): “Effect on Local Government: No. Effect on the State: Yes.”
Issues and positions raised in testimony (selected)
- Opposition from public defenders and other commenters argued that reclassifying solicitation-related offenses and increasing criminalization can increase harm to sex workers and victims of trafficking, discourage cooperation with law enforcement, and disproportionately affect marginalized groups.
- Other public comments expressed strong opposition on the ground that lowering classifications or decreasing monitoring would weaken child-protection.
Implications to watch
- The change in tier classification affects duration and intensity of registration and notification obligations; interested readers should consult current NRS provisions governing Tier II vs. Tier III registration to understand exact differences in reporting, duration, and petition eligibility for removal.
- Expanding the “sexual offense” definition may trigger collateral consequences (employment and licensing prohibitions, mandatory conditions of supervision) for convictions that previously did not carry such consequences.
- Because the bill was placed on inactive file / no further action, it is not currently moving toward enactment; similar measures could reappear in later sessions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
