Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010 | 1:26 p.m.
Sun archives
- County commission to hear board’s suggestions for inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel proposes changes (11-8-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel weighs scrapping jury, verdict (11-2-2010)
- Inquest panel considers removing verdict from process (10-25-2010)
- Public critical of inquest process at review panel’s first meeting (10-19-2010)
- Group to propose changes to coroner’s inquest process (10-5-2010)
- Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit (9-28-2010)
- Vegas police study policy after drug raid slaying (8-4-10)
Clark County commissioners spent more than an hour Tuesday discussing changes to the coroner’s inquest process that were proposed by a review panel.
A proposed revised ordinance to change the inquest process was based on recommendations from a panel and then introduced at Tuesday’s commission meeting. The commission will formally discuss and vote on the ordinance after a public hearing Dec. 7.
But after receiving a report on the panel’s findings, commissioners expressed concerns with the proposal, mostly focused on the addition of an ombudsperson to represent the deceased’s family and the public.
According to the ordinance, the ombudsperson would be able to ask questions at the inquest along with the district attorney and a lawyer representing police officers.
But commissioners said they were concerned over how the ombudsperson would be selected and paid.
Commissioner Larry Brown said he thinks it's important that the family be represented in some way, but he is worried the process as defined in the proposed revised ordinance could become adversarial and police officers wouldn't participate.
Mary-Anne Miller, the county’s counsel from the district attorney’s office, told the board the county couldn't require them to participate and the inquest would still be able to proceed without officers.
“It’s really just informative for the public,” she said.
Commissioner Steve Sisolak said he was concerned about a provision for a lawyer to represent police officers.
If an officer is not a member of the union, he or she would have to pay for an attorney, but Sisolak said it isn’t fair for the county to pay for a lawyer for itself and not for the officer.
Sisolak and Commissioner Lawrence Weekly also expressed concern over a proposed inquest panel, which would replace the inquest jury.
The proposed ordinance says the panel should be “as diverse and representative of the community as possible.”
Sisolak said he was worried that might put an unreasonable burden on the presiding officer to find a way to represent the community with a panel of just seven members.
Commissioners are free in the Dec. 7 meeting to adopt the ordinance as the panel suggested, to make changes to the ordinance and then adopt it, or they can reject the proposals altogether or postpone a decision to a later date.
**commissioners expressed concerns with the proposal**
What a joke!
Readers of the LVRJ are more concerned about the rash of officer involved shootings and more recent, retrieving the paper with headlines above the fold indicating 2 more shootings occurred the day before.
Commissioners should be more concerned about the prevailing culture and need for more comprehensive training for the agents who swore to Protect and Serve.
Until then, Commissioners concerns are misdirected
Get rid of the inquest - it's nothing more than a useless sham designed to exonerate cops no matter how egregious or by the book their actions were and is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Instead, publish the list of every lawsuit against Metro going back 5 years and the settlement/payout on each. The taxpayers can judge for themselves how well Metro does its job. Install a dashboard camera in every patrol unit. Honest cops welcome those - they clear honest cops of the many false claims made against them and saves taxpayers thousands of dollars in unnecessary settlements.
DesertFox,
Since the $5000 per car cost for the in car video system is not a deterent for the installation, I'm guessing that you're putting the idea forward is a sign that you have more than enough money yourself to fund it, right?
SimplyHadEnough,
Where do you get the $5 thousand per car for a video system figure? All RTC busses have video cameras throughout the bus and I'm sure the many cameras per bus didn't come anywhere near 5 grand each.
@simplyhadenough: The $5000 per vehicle is pure bulls-it. Cost has come way down.
Even if it was $5000 per vehicle, as you falsely claim, the cost of ONE payout to a plaintiff due to Metro's incompetent training, lack of effective psychological screening during their hiring process resulting in putting PTSD afflicted individuals with guns on the street would pay for it.
I seem to remember an artice a few weeks ago in either the SUN or the RJ talking about the concern because Metro had a 75 MILLION dollar surplus. Seems the tower was concerned about the Clark County Commission or the state taking the money to help reduce the deficit.
Hey desertfox,
Have you really thought out the dashcam idea of yours? Who has dashcams? Mostly highway patrol where 90% for their work occurs in front of the patrol car. Metro is a local POLICE department, not a highway patrol. 90% of Metro's work occurs outside the view of a dashcam: in homes, in bars, in Costco, on the sides or rear of the car, on foot pursuits, etc. Dashcams are an impractical option. Will you please come up with a better idea?
ok, then use a small cam attached to the officer. The technology exists and will provide video no matter where the officer is.
Officers will never go for that. Not because they have nothing to hide but because they do not want to be robocop. There is already a camera on the Taser. And practically, what are you going to do with all that video footage?
desertfox,
Just an FYI: Metro has over around 800 vehicles which would need to be equipped with dash cams. At even $2500 a vehicle, that's still more than $2 million.
As for the increase in OIS's. It seems more likely that this is due to a change in culture than a change with the police. Besides that, OIS's are still less than half of what Metro had in the 70s, despite the number of calls being more than 5 times what they were in the 70s.
@MSH1 - Austin and Dallas, TX., Nashville, TN., St. Louis, MO., Sacramento, CA., and Glendale, AZ., are just a few local police departments that have dash cams as standard equipment. And, multiple angle cameras are available that record police encounters not just in front of the car.
Prosecutors and honest cops like the cameras, because they provide solid, visual evidence for a trial and increase conviction rates, and exonerate decent cops when they're falsely accused.
They enhance police integrity and accountability, and would go a long way in rebuilding the public's trust in Metro. Dash cams would have prevented the embarassment and loss of credibility of Metro after the blatant lies of the sheriff and Metro officers to the public in the Manor debacle.
There are federal funds available to police departments to defray the cost of the cameras.
I just reject the premise that cops who don't want cameras have things to hide. That is not the case.