WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 88

Relating to: civil action for injury or damages resulting from riot or vandalism, participation in a riot, prohibiting certain limitations or restrictions on law enforcement responses to riot or vandalism activity, and providing a penalty.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Elijah Behnke and 15 co-sponsors

AB 88 would let juvenile courts dismiss petitions and place youths on informal supervision with agreement or a finding of appropriateness, excluding serious violent felonies.

Public hearing held
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 88

Summary — AB 88 (BDR 5-495): Revises provisions relating to juvenile justice

Status: Vetoed by the Governor (legislative record: vetoed 2025-06-05)
Introduced: January 6, 2025
Key statutes amended: NRS 62C.200 (originally), NRS 62C.230 (final)

Purpose / intent

AB 88 sought to modify how juvenile courts may divert children from formal adjudication into informal supervision by a probation officer. The bill aimed to reduce or eliminate the statutory requirement that a district attorney must give written approval before a juvenile court may refer certain children to informal supervision, and to clarify the circumstances in which a court may dismiss a petition without prejudice and order informal supervision.

Key provisions (final, amended version)

  • Amends NRS 62C.230 to authorize a juvenile court, when a district attorney has filed a petition, to dismiss the petition without prejudice and refer the child to a probation officer for informal supervision if:
    • the child voluntarily admits participation in the acts alleged in the petition, and
    • either (1) all parties agree to informal supervision, or (2) the juvenile court finds after a hearing that informal supervision is appropriate.
  • Retains the existing supervision-and-consent-decree pathway (no formal adjudication) but continues to require: probation recommendation, written approval of the district attorney, and written consent of child and parent/guardian.
  • Adds a categorical exclusion: the juvenile court may not refer a child to informal supervision under the new dismissal/referral authority if the petition alleges an unlawful act that, if committed by an adult, would have been:
    • a category A felony; or
    • any other felony involving the use or threatened use of force or violence.
  • Earlier drafts would have deleted the district attorney written-approval requirement in NRS 62C.200; later amendments narrowed or deleted that change and focused amendments on NRS 62C.230.

Who is affected

  • Children alleged to be delinquent or in need of supervision and their families — potentially greater court discretion to divert to informal supervision in nonviolent cases.
  • Juvenile courts and probation officers — expanded judicial discretion (subject to exclusions).
  • District attorneys — reduced gatekeeping role in nonviolent felony/gross-misdemeanor diversion decisions under the court-hearing/consent framework, but DA approval remains required for supervision-and-consent decrees.
  • Victims and public-safety stakeholders — exclusions for violent felonies reflect safety concerns raised during amendment process.

Procedural / timeline highlights

  • Introduced Jan 6, 2025; hearings and conceptual amendments occurred in February–May 2025 (Washoe County Public Defender proposed amendments).
  • Assembly and Senate amendments were adopted (notably Assembly Amendment No. 395 and Senate Amendment No. 669), producing the second reprint (R2) that contains the final language summarized above.
  • Fiscal notes: bill reported to have no effect on state or local government.
  • Enrolled and delivered to the Governor May 29, 2025; legislative record indicates the Governor vetoed the measure on June 5, 2025.

Practical effect

If enacted as finally amended, AB 88 would have given juvenile courts more formalized discretion to dismiss petitions and place children on informal supervision when the child admits the conduct and parties agree or a court finds the diversion appropriate — while explicitly preserving exclusion for the most serious and violent felony allegations and retaining DA sign-off for supervision-and-consent decrees.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.