Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Jose Solorio, 51, speaks Monday to a nine-member panel reviewing the coroner’s inquest process.
Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010 | 12:56 a.m.
A nine-member panel meets Oct. 18 in the Clark County Commission chambers to discuss the coroner's inquest process and listen to public feedback. From left are Margaret McLetchie, Bill Maupin, John Fudenberg, David Roger, Christopher Blakesley, Doug Gillespie, Phil Kohn, Richard Boulware and Chris Collins.
Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak speaks to the audience Oct. 18 at a Coroner's Inquest Review Panel meeting in the Clark County Commission chambers.
Sun archives
- 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)
- Detective: Erik Scott had pain medicines from several doctors (9-27-10)
- Witnesses give conflicting accounts of Costco police shooting (9-25-10)
- Shoppers recount police shooting outside Costco (9-24-2010)
- Officer in Costco shooting says man raised gun, didn't know it was in holster (9-23-2010)
- Inquest testimony focuses on Erik Scott’s use of prescription drugs (9-22-10)
- Woman says fiance had his hands up when shot by police (8-20-10)
- Vegas police study policy after drug raid slaying (8-4-10)
Ed Uehling started his statement by offering friendly congratulations to the nine members serving on a committee reviewing the coroner’s inquest process.
Then he extended his thanks to the Clark County Commission for organizing the review panel.
Then, for the next three-and-a-half minutes, Uehling ripped the system.
“The coroner’s inquest is one of the worst examples of injustice in our society,” Uehling told the panel Monday at its first meeting. “To have a process that has so many defects is just appalling.”
Uehling was one of about 40 people to attend the meeting of the Coroner’s Inquest Review Panel at the Clark County Commission chambers, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway.
It was the first of four public meetings the panel will conduct to review the coroner’s inquest process and recommend possible changes. Inquests are held in cases of police shootings to determine whether they are justified, excusable or criminal.
The first and lengthiest topic discussed by the panel was the ultimate purpose of the coroner’s inquest.
The panel examined the fact-finding role, whether or not a verdict should be rendered and possible alternatives to a verdict.
Throughout the discussion, the panel used the inquest process from King County, Wash., as a reference for comparison.
King County’s inquest allows an attorney for the victim’s family to cross-examine witnesses and officers involved in a shooting, which is not allowed in inquests conducted here.
Chris Collins, executive director of the Police Protective Association, was wary of that structure, saying it would turn a neutral fact-finding process into an adversarial one.
“We’re talking about men and women in law enforcement who, at this point in the process, have been charged with no wrongdoing,” Collins said. “If the process becomes so adversarial that the officers refuse to participate in it, then you’ve lost the transparency we are trying to save.”
After hearing concerns from ACLU representative Margaret McLetchie and NAACP representative Richard Boulware about the public’s perception that Metro police and the District Attorney’s Office work too closely together in inquests, Sherriff Doug Gillespie suggested an alternative.
Gillespie proposed having a group of lawyers become familiar with the inquest process and become independent presenters of the facts, effectively removing the DA’s office from the process.
“Sometimes when we discuss these things, we tend to get a little too focused on what other communities do,” Gillespie said. “Maybe the answer for Las Vegas and Clark County is not having a family attorney question the witness. Maybe we have an independent presenter of the facts.”
McLetchie agreed to an extent but said it was important to have the victim’s family and their attorney actively involved.
“I don’t have a goal to hold police officers accountable or not. What we’re concerned about is coming to the truth,” McLetchie said.
The panel also discussed whether Metro officers involved in a shooting should undergo a drug test. Because drug tests are union-negotiated, county commissioners cannot vote on the issue.
Collins said he had no issue with the measure but objected to personal medical information about officers being made known to the public. He said he was unsure how officers would respond to such a measure.
“I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what prescription drugs those officers take in the prescribed doses,” Collins said. “As far as if they’d accept it, I don’t know.”
At the end of the discussion, those attending the meeting had a chance to speak for up to four minutes.
A total of 11 people addressed the panel — all of them critical of the process. Three were members of Hispanic organizations who said they were disappointed there are no Hispanics and only one woman on the committee.
“I have to express disappointment in the composition of this panel. I’m dismayed we only have one woman on the panel,” Vincenta Montoya said. “This is necessary. You need to have a Latino’s presence and you need to have a greater women’s presence.”
Lisa Mayo-DeRiso, a spokeswoman for the family of Erik Scott, who was shot and killed by police in May outside the Summerlin Costco, complained that the family was not provided more information from authorities before the inqeust.
“Being able to get the facts prior to the inquest is invaluable,” DeRiso said. “As I stand before you today, we have yet to receive a police report, an investigative report or anything of that matter for the family.”
Uehling, meanwhile, said the current process functions to debase the victim and does not work.
“There’s no way the police department can investigate itself. No agency can investigate itself,” Uehling said. “The presentation is all about impugning the victim and the victim’s families.”
The panel will holding meetings at 5 p.m. at the commission chambers for the next three Mondays. The panel plans to vote at its final meeting on changes to recommend to the commission.
“The real results of this are going to come with what kinds of changes this panel is going to recommend,” Mayo-DeRiso said. “The truth isn’t always placing blame somewhere. It’s just the facts and the truth.”
So it isn't anyone's business what perscription medications a cop is taking? Yet we spent over a day learning about the medications Erik Scott was taking. Since the inquest determines if an officer's actions are justified, his drug use is at least as relevant, if not more so, than the victim's?
"Chris Collins, executive director of the Police Protective Association, was wary of that structure, saying it would turn a neutral fact-finding process into an adversarial one"
Just prior to pulling the trigger, isn't it adversarial?
The system needs to change. The standard should be would the DA prosecute a citizen under the same circumstances? If I shot a hand-cuffed person in the back, would I get prosecuted? The answer is YES. If so, why wasn't the officer's who shot the kid in the back?
Change is not a bad thing. In this case the question is what changes will work and what won't. For the most part we are all asking questions that at face value make sense to us, but in reality we don't know what the hell we are talking about to begin with.
I remember the kid who got shot in the back and I remember it had something to do with a Fleeing Felon law that made it more dangerous to allow him to escape than to shoot him.
The Inquest process needs to inform better the applicable laws and take into account the big question, Just because it says you CAN shoot, SHOULD you have. I think the public, my opinion only, wants a system that identifies culpability, not so much in criminal behavior but more in, "Yes, We as a department made a bad decision allowing an officer having been involved in multiple shootings to exercise a search warrant on an apartment with faulty equipment and training." We own this one and will make it right. Even a, he or she didn't do anything wrong, but we can be better or recognize a need to do this differently.
I do know one thing for sure is that will NEVER come out in an Inquest of any type and if an officer is questioned in a manner that requires him to admit wrongdoing, he will invoke his rights, like anyone else would, and make you prove it rather than cooperate. Who wouldn't? If I was a cop and screwed up I wouldn't just hand you my head on a platter either.
The current system at least keeps us involved and informed. If there is a way to do that better I am all for it. At minimum I agree it should be someone else doing the investigation.
Unless the D.A. starts during something nothing will change.
Chris Collins is so full of BS! And he'll say anything, and I do mean anything, to further his own agenda. He DOES NOT have officers interest at heart at all. Never did! The inquest process is sooooo in need of re-structuring as well as the sheriff's department AND the PPA. I believe that changing one necessitates changing the other. Of course Chris Collins is going to fight this, because it won't be geared "pro cop". It might actually be...wait for it....an on-the-level, honest process. I hope that this panel of hopefully intelligent, responsible citizens can bring some integrity to the inquest process. Chronyism (sp?) within LVMPD certainly does trickle down to the inquest process as evidenced by Chris Collins' statements. It's truth and honesty that makes an inquest a true inquest. What you saw with Erik Scott's inquest was an absolute joke and a hideous personal attack on a dead man! Maybe with some new rules and guidelines, the coroner's inquest can actually become a process that can be relied upon to search out true answers! As for Chris Collins, I wouldn't believe one single thing he says. He's just trying to protect his cushy job, paycheck and
all the 'good old boys'.
As it stands now it would appear that the primary purpose of the inquest is to reduce or avoid altogether any damages from a civil suit. This has removed all public trust and respect.
I agree that drug testing should be mandatory after any officer involved shooting.
I thought there was mandatory drug testing for all law enforcement officers involved in a shooting.
I don't see any downside in drug testing as it removes doubt about the officer's judgment being impaired by drugs.
It's amazing how Chris Collins and the police union are opposed to brining Las Vegas' inquest process in line with the rest of the country.
By the way, is Officer Yant behind bars yet or are the taxpayers still paying the liability insurance to cover a cop that has now killed twice and has been proven to be a liar?
@Summerlin. Yant was found to be justifed by the Inquest and has been found to be justifed in his use of deadly force by an internal review board at Metro. That board did recommend that Internal Affairs look at some of his actions in other cases. Still waiting for the DA to take the Cole case to a grand jury.