Editorial: Jail guards’ offense was brushed off

Monday, July 12, 2004 | 8:53 a.m.

Named in a federal lawsuit last week were two Metro Police officers who work as guards at the Clark County Detention Center. Five men who were inmates at the jail on June 30, 2003, allege in the suit that the two guards were responsible for an explosive device being tossed in their direction, with the resulting blast causing them to suffer head injuries and emotional distress. The suit claims the inmates' civil rights were violated and asks that each receive more than $75,000 from Metro Police to compensate for their injuries and to punish the department for the officers' actions.

The suit leaves us asking for something too -- an explanation as to why the two officers remain on the job. We'd also like to know why no charges were pursued against them for endangering inmates. The explosive device referred to in the suit was an M-80, which is a large firecracker capable of causing physical harm. In 1966 Congress outlawed the sale and possession of M-80s because of their potential for causing injuries.

Metro Police is not disputing the facts of the case. After an internal investigation, which sustained a complaint about the incident filed by two inmates, the department suspended the two guards. But no prosecution was ever sought and they were allowed to return to work after serving the suspensions. The department has ordered that the two not be allowed to work together, but that seems a pretty light consequence for such a serious offense.

Las Vegas attorney Cal Potter and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed the federal suit on behalf of the inmates. In discussing the case with the Sun, Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU, posed this question: "What do you suppose would have happened if it had been the inmates tossing an M-80 at the two guards?" We believe felony charges would have been filed against the inmates without a moment's hesitation.

In our view, Metro Police was inexcusably lenient in its discipline of the two guards. Given the indisputable facts in the case, the two should have been fired and the incident should have been referred to the district attorney's office for possible prosecution. Allowing the two back on the job after mere suspensions, when they endangered the health and well-being of at least five inmates, gives the impression that Metro Police tolerates very low standards among its jail guards.