Judge strikes down Nevada statute

Jace Radke

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 | 11:05 a.m.

A Nevada law challenged in December by a Las Vegas assemblywoman and the American Civil Liberties Union has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

In a ruling last week, U.S. District Judge David Hagen said the statute, which makes it a crime to file a false complaint against a police officer, violates First Amendment rights to free speech.

Hagen also said the law unconstitutionally criminalizes criticism of police officers but not other public officials.

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said that the ruling removes an unconstitutional impediment to those filing complaints against the police.

"We urged the Legislature not to pass this bill when it was first introduced," Peck said. "We told them it was a bad policy that would keep people from filing legitimate complaints against police, but the police unions came in and lobbied for the bill and the Legislature rolled over for them."

Detective David Kallas, executive director of the Police Protective Association, a union that represents Metro Police officers and corrections officers, said that he was disappointed with Hagan's decision and how the law has been interpreted.

"I think the intent of the law was good," Kallas said. "The goal of the law was to keep people from coming in and filing false complaints against officers. We're not trying to suppress anyone's First Amendment rights."

Kallas said that some people maliciously file complaints that they know to be false, and that the intent of the law was to stop that from happening.

"We have people that file false complaints to shift the attention away from themselves when they are facing charges, or maybe they just don't like the officer and think filing a complaint is a way to get back at them," Kallas said. "I think we've seen now that the law needs to be adjusted. It needs to be more narrowly defined to filing false complaints, and I have no doubt that we'll bring it back before the 2003 Legislature."

ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein said that these types of laws can have a chilling affect on the Constitution.

"The legislature ignored the constitutional standard for one party or group," Lichtenstein said. "To make a special rule that circumvents constitutional protections for a group is a clear violation."

Hagan's ruling followed the case of Robert Eakins, a Reno man who felt officers responding to his call were unprofessional and rude.

Eakins' lawyers, Terri Keyser-Cooper and Diane Vaillancourt, said Eakins wrote a letter to Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin, complaining of the officers' behavior.

Griffin forwarded the letter to the Reno Police Department, and after an investigation found the allegations to be unfounded, Eakins was charged with filing a false allegation against a police officer.

Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, R-Las Vegas, joined the lawsuit when a Metro officer suggested that she be charged with making a false claim after she reported seeing six officers beating a man with batons last year.

A Metro internal affairs investigation found that Von Tobel's accusation had no merit.

Von Tobel, who voted for the law that could have resulted in her prosecution, said that legislators did not know the scope of what they were signing off on in 1999.

"This can sometimes happen, especially when something is passed at the end of a session like this bill was," Von Tobel said. "I'm thrilled with the decision. People shouldn't have to fear that they will be charged with a misdemeanor for reporting something they see."

Peck said that while he was gratified with the decision, he was sorry that it had to go to the court system, and cost taxpayers.

"It should be obvious that if the police are willing to intimidate someone as friendly to them as Assemblywoman Von Tobel, it's hard to imagine what other citizens have to go through," Peck said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.