Legislation would stop judges from using dress codes to turn away unhoused low-income defendants

Yahoo

20-03-2025

Adhering to court dress codes erects "barriers to accessing justice, and undermines the principle that the court should be open to all, regardless of social status," said Democratic Assemblymember Jovan Jackson. (Legislative screengrab)
Angela Knott, a public defender with Washoe County, recalled a recent story of trying to connect a client who was experiencing homelessness and struggling with mental health issues to court-mandated treatment.
Seeking to follow the court's instruction, the man made a 2-mile trek from the homeless shelter he was staying at, to his treatment facility, and then finally to court for an appearance.
'This was not easy to do because these places are not next to each other,' Knott told state lawmakers on Wednesday. 'He showed up. He did his drug testing and he was clear.'
All the progress was jeopardized when a judge declined to hear his case because the man showed up for court wearing a T-shirt, shorts and 'bad shoes,' she said.
'The judge turned him away and told him he would not be sentenced right there until he changed his clothes,' Knott said. 'He walked 2 miles back to the shelter and 2 miles back (to court) and made it within 15 minutes before the judge hit his gavel … What he had to go through just to get to that point and to be turned away for what he was wearing should never happen again.'
Assembly Bill 320, which was heard Wednesday in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, prevents a court from turning away defendants from hearings solely because they aren't wearing professional attire. The bill defines professional attire to mean clothing such as suits, slacks, long pants, dress shirts, long-sleeved shirts, suit jackets, blazers, ties, dresses, dress shoes and closed-toe shoes.
While noting some judges have been lenient, the bill's sponsor, Democratic Assemblymember Javon Jackson, said there are courtrooms that have been more strict and deny people a court hearing.
'These dress codes impact individuals from low-income backgrounds who may lack the resources to afford formal attire,' Jackson said. 'This creates barriers to accessing justice and undermines the principle that the court should be open to all, regardless of social status.'
AB 320 isn't designed to enable people to protest or 'wear crazy things in court' but instead intended to help people 'who truly don't have the means to have the right attire to court,' Jackson said.
Local jurisdictions in the last year have ramped up homeless criminalization and passed ordinances throughout the state that punish unhoused people for activities such as sleeping and camping.
Nick Shepack, the Nevada state director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, said as a result more people who are experiencing homelessness will move through the criminal legal system.
'As cities and counties increase laws that criminalize homelessness, we cannot expect that every individual will have access to the type of professional attire that we generally expect in court,' Shepack said.
The Nevada Judges for Limited Jurisdictions opposed AB 320. Keith Lee, a lobbyist for the group, said the bill violates the separation of powers clause by legislating how the judicial branch conducts business.
Republican Assemblymember Toby Yurek also questioned if the legislation 'might be overstepping our bounds in this legislative branch by directing a court to and infringing on their ability to manage their own affairs'
Karly O'Krent, legal counsel for the committee, said there are already provisions in state law 'that do require the court to take various actions at certain times, and so it's not unprecedented to have language like the language that's been included in this bill.'
AB 320 also empowers the Division of Parole and Probation within the Department of Public Safety to establish a pilot program to develop employment opportunities and provide employment readiness training for those seeking parolees or released on probation.
Shepack said nonprofit providers offer people on parole access to training and employment, but this bill would enable the department to create one without relying on those independent agencies.
The bill originally also sought changes to the bail process. Worried of potential controversy, Jackson removed the language to focus on the attire provisions.
It's not just unhoused individuals who could benefit from preventing courts from turning away people just because of what they wore.
Members of the Fines and Fees Justice Center conducted court watching in recent years and noticed other individuals being denied hearings because of their attire.
'These individuals, many of whom had taken time off work, relied on public transportation and made significant sacrifices and efforts to be there during the peak heat of the summer, were denied access solely based on their shoes and the length of their pants,' he said.
Republican Assemblymember Alexis Hansen asked about outreach programs that provide clothing to people who lack proper courtroom attire as potential fix to the problem.
'Maybe some courts work with the community resources to be able to provide some clothing for individuals,' she said.
Even if these individuals are aware of these donations and community groups that provide clothing 'there are a lot of boundaries just to get to these resources,' Jackson said.
The committee took no action on the bill.