Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleJudge: Officers’ rights not violated by new inquest process
Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011 | 6:40 p.m.
Document
Sun archives
- Coroner's inquest postponed due to court challenge (7-8-2011)
- Police union says changes to coroner’s inquest unconstitutional (6-21-2011)
- Police union will try to block coroner’s inquest changes (6-20-2011)
- First coroner’s inquest under new rules is set for July 12 (6-3-2011)
- November police killing inching closer to inquest under new rules (5-6-2011)
Clark County’s new coroner’s inquest process for police shootings does not violate the rights of police officers whose actions are examined, a federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro rejected a constitutional due process challenge to the new inquest ordinance filed by three police officers.
But Pro sent the case to state court for further litigation on another issue: Whether the new ordinance and the revised inquest process violate the Nevada Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
The challenge to the inquest process was filed by attorneys for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers Phillip Zaragoza, Michael Franco and Pete Kruse.
They were involved in the shooting death of Benjamin Bowman in November 2010 at a PT’s Pub during an incident in which investigators said Bowman had taken a bartender hostage with a knife during a robbery.
The coroner’s inquest into that shooting would have been the first under changes approved in December 2010 by the Clark County Commission, which for years had heard complaints the inquests were one-sided and always cleared police officers.
Changes include the establishment of an ombudsman to represent the victim’s family, the release of key evidence and investigative files and the restructuring of meetings before the inquest hearing.
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association complained the new process wouldn’t be fair to officers as it would turn the system into an adversarial one pitting officers against the families of those shot and killed by police.
Pro, in Monday’s ruling, found the coroner’s inquest system as revised is not a system that jeopardizes officers’ rights as it’s intended to determine the facts about a shooting, and not to assign guilt or innocence.
"The inquest is designed to be an investigatory body, not an adjudicatory or accusatory body. It does not adjudicate any legal rights. It does not recommend any particular action to any other entity, including the district attorney’s office. Whether to initiate criminal charges following an inquest remains solely within the discretion of the prosecuting authorities," Pro wrote in his ruling. "The fact that officers may face reputational harms, may suffer adverse employment actions or may become the subject of a future civil or criminal proceeding are speculative collateral consequences that do not trigger due process guarantees."
Pro also rejected claims by the officers that their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution would be violated as private citizens involved in shootings don’t face inquests.
"The County Commission rationally could have concluded that because police officers in essence investigate themselves in an officer involved death, and because the district attorney’s office has either a real or perceived relationship with police officers that it does not have with the average citizen, different procedures are required to ensure both actual meaningful review of police conduct and to preserve the appearance of balanced, meaningful review," the judge wrote.
However, he sent the case back to Clark County District Court on the issue of whether having a justice of the peace preside over the inquests violates the separation clause of the state Constitution.
The issue there is whether the justice of the peace is performing an executive function as opposed to a judicial function authorized by the Nevada Legislature.
Pro found the state court is better suited than the federal court to interpret Nevada law on that issue.
That would indicate the challenge to the inquest process will continue for some time and could end up in the Nevada Supreme Court.
The officers’ attorneys also have the option of appealing Pro’s ruling of Monday, though as of Tuesday they had not done so.
Discussion: 1 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Three dreams come true for Flamingo headliner Marie Osmond
- MGM results improve on Las Vegas Strip spending, China growth
- Federal agents join probe into fire at site of future Islamic funeral home
- Strip Scribbles: Shania Twain in town planning Caesars Palace residency
- Judge tosses out suit challenging motorcycle helmet law enforcement
- 15-month-old toddler tests positive for hallucinogenic drug
- Construction project — possibly for a mosque — damaged by fire
- Henderson man pleads guilty to kidnapping 7-year-old girl
- Mother left 3-year-old twins, 5-year-old alone prior to fire, Metro Police charge
- Highs to hit low 70s in Las Vegas
Blogs
The Kats Report
Post it: House of Blues tuning up for a Santana residency
In pursuing a tribute to Frank Sinatra, Robert Davi is no bad actor
High School Sports Scene
High School Basketball State Championship Picks
The Kats Report
Oscar Goodman goes Shecky as Mob Museum opening prompts a mob scene (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
MGM Resorts, Ameristar form marketing alliance to draw visitors
High School Sports Scene
High School Hoops Picks: Updated with Friday's regional finals (3 Comments)
The Kats Report
What a Whitney Houston residency in Las Vegas might have looked like (5 Comments)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Why not just end the farce and let officers go to trial like citizen taxpayers?
Or, let citizen taxpayers accused of murder or attempted murder go to court under the inquest process.
If the inquest process is so fair no one should have a problem with that.
Any takers?
I'm good with that.
Just remember...5th amendment rights all around. Here's a thought that the RJ's mentally-challenged reporters didn't consider in their segment about the D.A. investigating police shootings. By NV law they can't "sit in on" interviews done by the department's internal investigators because the NV police officers' Bill of Rights prevents any coreced statements (i.e. compelled statements by the employer under threat of discipline) to ever be used in criminal proceedings. The D.A. could sit in on an interview the officer gives to homicide detectives, but any smart officer would just lawyer-up and refuse to answer questions in that venue since it's a criminal investigation.
So what are we left with if we do away with the inquest (where 5th amendment still applies anyway)? Most likely a D.A. review of the case and their own internal decision, or a grand jury hearing. Grand jury is a closed door hearing and once again, the officers have 5th amendment rights and probably wouldn't testify. And since they are often the only witnesses, the grand jury will be ruling on an evidence-only case with no witnesses at all. Either way, in the end it will all be done out of the public eye completely. Way to go you whiners. Your complaining about the inquest process will most likely end up with the public knowing LESS about what happened. LOL.
Absolutely right DtSd. The people that have complained about the inquest are so uninformed about how these things are typically handled across the country that they didn't realize that the old inquest process gave them MORE information than anyone else gets. A DA review or grand jury are the two main processes the majority of the country uses to scrutinize police shootings, and they both are non-adversarial and conducted in private.
To my fellow bloggers;
@DtSd-I totally concur with your blog. Still being in the mix, I wish somebody would make a decision one way or the other, you see it all really doesn't matter what anybody decides on the rules or procedures for the inquest. Everything and I mean everything is already staged and the outcome is already predetermined. Just for information, when an officer is involved in a shooting the department instills, influences, threatens and coerces the officer and sometimes witnesses to make sure that the facts and circumstances of the shooting falls within the guide lines of the rules and regulations of the department, regardless of the circumstances which occurred properly or improperly. It really doesn't matter what kind of rules or procedures are in place for the inquest or possible sanctions against the officer in the judicial world, he/she will "testify" or "testalie" to what he/she has been told to say or ELSE. That is pretty much the long and the short of it. Sad but true, this has been going on since I have been in the business, it is all about the money. Just an old veteran cop reflecting, Gordon Martines p.s. fyi-I've been in three shooting incidents in 36 years of Law Enforcement Service.
Every time one of these thugs from Metro takes the stand in an inquest I get a solid feeling in my gut that they are liars. They will say or do anything to justify their violence. I feel like I live on a block that's under the thumb of Tony Soprano - I either have to pay up or get shot. The only difference between Metro and the crooks in the Nevada State Prison is that the crooks have been caught - still waiting on someone who can "catch" the cops. Corrupt, crooked, creepy - this should be their new motto - not "To Protect & Serve." That's my Constitutionally-protected opinion.